What's new

'US will hand Afghanistan over to Pak'

... Lets face it, after India dilly dallied over the IPI GPL it dealt itself a fatal blow as far as central asian influence in concerned.
...
I have a feeling the IGI GPL hesitation was due to intense US pressure and progress could have damaged chances of the nuclear deal going through. I would not call it a "fatal blow" by any measure...
 
I have a feeling the IGI GPL hesitation was due to intense US pressure and progress could have damaged chances of the nuclear deal going through. I would not call it a "fatal blow" by any measure...

Fair enough,

However you cannot deny that the delay in pursuing this project has cooled relations between Delhi and Tehran, India as doing so well with a friendly Afghanistan Government and a warming relationship with Tehran, sadly that has been detrimentally affected by the recent actions of the Indian Administration.

Sure Indian got the Nuclear Deal, but consider the pro's and con's of what you guys have lost out on, cheap energy in a energy starved region, the royalties from the pipeline, greater influence in central Asia.

In my opinion, India got the shorter end of the stick. I would appreciate your input on this.
 
...
However you cannot deny that the delay in pursuing this project has cooled relations between Delhi and Tehran, India as doing so well with a friendly Afghanistan Government and a warming relationship with Tehran, sadly that has been detrimentally affected by the recent actions of the Indian Administration.
Frankly, the Iranians are smart enough to understand that the delay was inevitable due to the Bush gov'ts rabidly anti-Iranian views and the importance that GoI gave to the nuclear deal. They are also smart enough to understand that the dealy is temporary and the pipeline makes a lot of sense for all parties: Iran gets access to the huge Indian market for its gas, India gets badly needed energy, Pakistan gets lucrative fees.

And interesting take on the topic from Iranian foreign policy perspective (source: Middle East Institute)
Iran's Foreign Policy and the Iran-Pakistan-India Gas Pipeline

I don't share the author view that Mumbai attacks would delay pipeline progress. In my opinion, it all depends on Iranian decisions on their nuclear program. If Russia convinces Iran to stop their nuclear program, the Obama gov't will surely start a diplomatic thaw with Iran and a side-benefit will be the IPI pipeline. If Iran continues their hardline stance, US will continue to pressurize GoI...Of course, the wildcard scenario is Congress losing elections in India, being replaced by a communist backed coalition gov't who would push for nuclear deal cancellation and welcome Iran with open arms.
It's all up in the air right now...

Sure Indian got the Nuclear Deal, but consider the pro's and con's of what you guys have lost out on, cheap energy in a energy starved region, the royalties from the pipeline, greater influence in central Asia. In my opinion, India got the shorter end of the stick. I would appreciate your input on this.
Again, its my view that the pipeline is very much a work-in-progress, delays notwithstanding. Since the deal is not yet dead, there are no winners or losers, the players have retired from the field due to a temporary rain interruption.

GoI's motivation for the signing the nuclear deal was not just to get energy. It was mainly a political move to get US to pressurize Western govts to lift the Nuclear Suppliers Group embargo. India can now upgrade its aging nuclear plants, build new ones, get a portion of its energy from nuclear power, and of course, use the inevitable technology transfer knowledge in its secretive nuclear weapons program.
 
Last edited:
'US will hand Afghanistan over to Pak'

....which is basically what they did the last time they left without finishing the job they started. And Pakistan allowed the taliban to run riot in Afghanistan. :coffee:
 
...hand Afghanistan to Pakistan?

No, I don't think so - Pakistan did less than a commendable job last couple of times it had the opportunity to shape events in Afghanistan.

However; the American will leave, he must. What will he leave in place? US hopes to bring Iran into the mix - and in doing so muddy the waters even more from Pakistan's persepective -- on the other hand, look at ismail khan's Herat, compare that with any of Pakistan's clients running any other province??

Most people are not aware but just sixty miles out of Kabul in the South and the East, Pakistani currency is the medium of exchange -- it's not that all tajik and non-pashtun are anti-Pakistan, however; Pakistani diplomacy has failed them, it offers them no vision, it offers them no place in Afghanistan - actually it offers no Afghan any space in Afghanistan.

All Pakistan want is a friendly Afghanistan and one open to business --- but that is not enough for the Afghan(s).

Readers will also no doubt have taken note of the commentary in the "Peoples Daily" with regard to Afghanistan - perhaps readers also found interesting the notion that Afghanistan as a unitary state is inherently unstable and a source of destabilization. With this in mind, what would readers make of the statement attributed to Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad, who in response to the idea that the U.S would seek to direct greater attention to the provinces at, perhaps the cost of the center, as a "hostile act"


:wave:
 
Iran never liked Taliban and they still dont. Pakistan tried to live peacefully next to Taliban who was in our neighboring country to our west, but now Taliban hates Pakistani government and our army.

Iran and Pakistan share the most borders with Afghanistan, both should work together on working on Afghanistan. Its good news that all three countries, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan will have monthly meetings on Afghanistan.
 
muse;324503 Most people are not aware but just sixty miles out of Kabul in the South and the East said:
The reasone for Pakistani Currency exchange in those areas are because of the Russian invasion. When Russian invade, the mujahedin bought guns and amunition from peshawar, which the money was funded by the United states.
 
Let's hear what the Afghans have to say to all this:

Afghan Envoy Assails Western Allies as Halfhearted, Defeatist

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 12, 2009; A14

Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States attacked Western governments fighting in and providing billions in aid to his country, saying that those who claim the international community is not winning the war against extremists there "should know that they never fully tried."

"We never asked to be the 51st state," Ambassador Said T. Jawad said, a reference to a suggestion last month by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) that the United States should concentrate on "realistic goals" and its "original mission" of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.

"To suggest that Afghans do not deserve peace, pluralism and human rights is wrong and racist," Jawad said.

He said negotiations with the Taliban should be conducted by the Kabul government and should be withheld until it was in a "position of strength." President Obama, in a New York Times interview last week, echoed numerous administration and U.S. military officials in suggesting that the United States seek negotiations with "reconcilable" Taliban elements.

Obama also said that the United States and NATO were not winning the war in Afghanistan and spoke favorably of U.S. military plans to bolster Afghan tribal forces to participate in the war against extremists -- a policy seen as successful in Iraq and being tried in pilot programs in Afghanistan. Jawad said yesterday that such plans "will not work" and would undermine the country's stability.

Jawad's remarks, in an address last night at Harvard University, were a forceful public expression of issues privately raised here last month with the Obama administration by a top-level national security delegation from President Hamid Karzai's government.

Jawad accused those aiding Afghanistan of "total negligence" in building the Afghan police force and judicial system, "under-investment" in the national army, and providing "meager resources" devoted to helping the Afghan government deliver services and protect its citizens.

U.S. military expenditures in Afghanistan have totaled more than $173 billion since 2001, with an additional $35 billion spent in reconstruction aid. U.S. military deaths total more than 660, with 431 NATO troops killed.

Many of Jawad's complaints echo assessments made by the Obama administration, which lays much of the blame for the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan on what it sees as its predecessor's obsession with Iraq at Afghanistan's expense. But the ambassador's tone and rejection of any Afghan responsibility for the situation reflected an escalating tension between the Obama and Karzai governments as Obama's national security team forges a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Karzai "doesn't seem to be ready to take any responsibility for the problems," an administration official said.

Obama officials have made little secret of their concern that Karzai -- installed as Afghanistan's interim leader in 2001 and elected president in 2004, both times with U.S. backing -- is incapable of providing the leadership needed to extend government control and services. They believe corruption is rife within his government, although they have not accused Karzai himself.

U.S. hopes of replacing him in elections this year have foundered on the lack of a viable opposition candidate. Meanwhile, the near-term future of Afghanistan's government hangs in the balance as Karzai's term expires in May, while the independent electoral commission has scheduled the ballot for August, a delay that administration officials hope will allow other possibilities to emerge.

Jawad's speech came the day the administration announced its nomination of Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. The selection of an active-duty officer -- Eikenberry is deputy chairman of NATO's military committee and the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan -- appeared to be an exception to the administration's stated goal of increasing the civilian and diplomatic profile of the military-heavy U.S. regional presence.

Afghanistan appreciates Obama's deployment of 17,000 more American troops to the country, Jawad said. But he couched his praise in terms of casualty levels, saying increased U.S. ground operations that "will allow for surgical operations instead of relying on aerial bombings that lead to unacceptable levels of civilian deaths."

"We welcome President Obama's plan to unveil a new comprehensive U.S. strategy by the end of this month," Jawad said, adding that Afghanistan was "grateful for being officially consulted" in the Washington talks last month.

Jawad also praised Pakistan's civilian government as "sincere in fighting extremism and terrorism," but said it "lacks the capacity to wage this fight." The Pakistani military, "on the other hand, has the capacities to do so but not the commitment" and considers Islamist extremists "an ally" in Pakistan's conflict with India, he said.

Although Afghanistan "welcomed President Obama's remarks about talking with the Taliban," Jawad said, the government would handle the negotiations. "In fact," he said, "the process of talking with individual Taliban commanders has been going on for the past six years, and about 600 mid-level Taliban commanders have joined the peace process."

He outlined three major Taliban groups -- the "ideological" forces affiliated with Pakistan-based al-Qaeda and regional terrorism networks; the mid-level commanders who "can be reconciled through dialogue, buying off, bribery and coercion"; and the "paycheck Taliban" made up of "unemployed, uneducated and brainwashed" young foot soldiers who need "employment and education, not too much dialogue."

Citing "defeatist and reductionist media statements and policy recommendations in the U.S. and European capitals," Jawad noted that "NATO and U.S. forces are saying that we are not winning in Afghanistan, implying that the Taliban are not losing.

"If they are not losing," he said, "why should they talk to us?"
 
Last edited:
The reasone for Pakistani Currency exchange in those areas are because of the Russian invasion. When Russian invade, the mujahedin bought guns and amunition from peshawar, which the money was funded by the United states.

Our diplomacy has not failed. It is perhaps the most successful one in the country called Afghanistan.

Americans did not read the history of the Afghanistan or ignored it. Pakistan knows Afghanistan and its history.

So once the think tanks in USA were predicting our end and now they are handing us a whole country :lol:
 
Like it or not, the Indians have cultivated a strong relationship with the NA going back to their Mujahideen days, and they have the money to keep the warlords and politicians loyal to them, so they have to be part of the solution.

Most of those Northern Alliance idiots are heavily dependent on drugs smugling As soon as Talibans comes back in power thats cash cow will disapear so if indians wanna keep these people happy it will cost a preety penny to keep them alliend to india as i am sure drug trade out of afghanistan is worth few billions/yr thats a lot of money for india to shell out.

plus the areas that will come under Northern allaince will not give india what she needs Transit through afghanistan so unless Talibans allow indians to continue through there controlled areas i see no reason for india to be there as thats not going to happen and we all no as soon as americans leave civil war will erupt in afghanistan.
 
The reasone for Pakistani Currency exchange in those areas are because of the Russian invasion. When Russian invade, the mujahedin bought guns and amunition from peshawar, which the money was funded by the United states.

Our Diplomacy failed the Afghan's? Is that why we still house some 2.3 Million Afghan's inside Pakistan and that while 2 Million or so have recieved POR Cards: Proof Of Registration cards and accepeted the voluntary repatriation assistance grant from UNHCR many still are reluctant to leave.

EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Afghan Refugees Reluctant to Leave Pakistan


If we had failed our neighbours to the west, then why was the trade between both nations was recorded at totaling well over US $1 billion.

South Asia - Afghanistan-Pakistan Trade facilitation

Many people may not know this, but the first batch of uniforms provided to the fledgling Afghan Army were donated by yours truly.

Pakistan's Elite "National Police Academy" has trained in-excess of 7 Batches of Afghan National Police Officers, training various departments in Forensics, Explosives, Human Rights, Station Management, Security etc...

Official website of National Police Academy Islamabad

Pakistan has offered a netural nation to all the NON Governmental and UN Agencies operating in Afghanistan a less then hostile venue for their administrative, logistics and management hubs thus supporting the ongoing humanitarian and development work in Afghanistan.

CARE International UK : Home : Welcome to CARE International UK - Defending dignity. Fighting poverty.

Pakistan provides NATO with logitisical and supply trunking services, thereby supporting the ongoing peace keeping operations and supporting NATO's mission in Afghanistan to develop a capable army and national infrarstructure.

Pakistan was the first nation to support national infrarstructure development in Afghanistan with the rebuilding of road network from Kabul to Paktika Province.

Pakistan has trained Afghan doctors and paramedical staff. The doctors and paramedics will work at a kidney centre in Jalalabad, which has been donated by the government of Pakistan.

Pakistan sends life savers to Afghanistan | Pakistan Daily

Pakistan has provided free advance medical care to Afghan's since 2001 and continues to support humanitarian efforts in the country:

Afghan Girl Has Surgery for Heart Defect : NPR

Lets face it, we gave our neighbours shelter, respect, dignity, protection and the oppertunity to develop macrofininancially. In return we got Charas, Hafeem and Kalashinkov Culture... And yet still the Afghan's are un-greatful :hitwall:

So if anyone has failed anyone, its the Afghan's who have failed Pakistan... But we dont complain. :agree:
 
^ And Pakistan's economy has suffered drastically because of welcoming millions of Afghan refugees over the past 3 decades.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom