Our Indian problem in Afghanistan

[Abu Zolfiqar]

@muse: That's a pretty nicely worded statement. However, you said that



Given the recent history, isn't the Taliban one of the few, if not the only group in Afghanistan that is overtly friendly towards Pakistan?

So technically what indushek said was not wrong that Pakistan is securing it's strategic interests in Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban.

if not necessarily supporting the taleban, supporting factions or elements in it (as the U.S. & NATO are already doing)

as for securing our strategic interests, it is very important to do so; simply because we already have a long border with a non-friendly on eastern sector....Pakistan cannot allow itself to become enveloped by hostile forces

we have seen in the past few years what can ensue if we allow it

 

[indushek]

What's so hard to understand that ??

This is what US also knows, NATO also knows, everyone should know. If Pakistani govt doesn't tells it as its official policy, it doesn't means this is not so.

India is one factor, it includes others too. As even without the Indians, the current setup in Afghanistan is very much likely to create problems for Pakistan and with others help, mainly Indian to be exact, they will be more bold in their endeavors.

Apologies for the late response - No, it does not mean that at all - So what does it mean? If you have been following my posts over the years, you will know that I am no supporter of the Talib (any kind of Talib, whether Afghan, Pakistani or any other variety ) however, I am persuaded now that US policy in Afghanistan is not just wrong, but dangerous -- Look, the war has been going on for 10 years now, think about that, 10 years - what the heck kind of policy is that????

And look at the kinds of duplicity the US policy is a vehicle for, ask yourself, have US interests been served?? You may find yourself asking,m "What are US interests that it needs a 10 year war and one which is destabilizing what it says is her Major Non-NATO Ally?"

And if you figure out an answer to this, please enlighten all of us -- On the other hand, Pakistani policy has been clear from the start, a friendly and if not friendly, then a not hostile, government in Afghanistan -- at every step the US policy served interests that negate that ambition - US policy is now so closely identified with a single component or element or party to the Afghan civil war that the minute, the second the US leaves, the whole thing will fall apart, leaving Pakistan in even more of a pickle -- and the longer it stays and does not involve all political players in the game, the greater the problem it creates for Pakistan - do you see that??

So US policy, to my thinking, makes itself irrelevant - see, throwing money and it's just paper to them, they have blown close to half a trillion on this fools errand already -- imagine if they had agreed to invest even half of that in the region on the condition that the neighboring countries cooperate to bring an end to the civil war.

US policy makers can mouth all the "terrorism" BS they want to and which their apathetic and fearful populace can stomach, reality of Afghanistan is civil war and a the lack of a political settlement.

So my point is why should Pakistan be tied to this failure? Pakistan ought to pursue her interests with all other players, and it should engage the US and India, but so long as these powers are hostile to Pakistani interests, I don't see how that engagement can be fruitful - so Pakistani policy has to be broader and attempt those solutions we can make happen and those which we cannot be a part of, whether made in USA or not, we should work to influence.

Thanks for ur reply muse and to Taimi too.

Well muse seems that i was not articulate enough to point out my exact question. My bad. See everybody knows that Pakistan is securing its interests with whatever pull it has among the Afghanistan ethnicities which would be the obvious choice for you.

My actual question is that on one front u are engaging in a direct fight with the Taliban and have been supporting American efforts. By Taimi's reply everybody knows that u are also protecting these same groups, from ur point of view this is good since at last u want to have the form of government either friendly or not unfriendly to ur govt.

Accepted but is this not duplicity and if everybody knows isn't this a dangerous game to be playing?? I mean if the war ends with America defeated it may exit the region but what will be its future reaction towards you?? Right now it is unable to do anything because it needs ur support for WOT. How will the Talib react when they are free of war, they know that u are playing both sides. Will they be friendly to u as before?? However if the position is reversed then the game is even more dangerous as the USA when free of WOT, wouldn't it like to make u pay for this duplicity??

 

[muse]

Indushek

Allow me deal with my post - Yes, it now popular among a section of the US press to suggest that Pakistan are both fighting the Taliban and Supporting them at the same time.

Otherwise Sane individuals are being asked to take seriously the contention that the armed forces are fighting and suffering casualties at the same time they are supporting the group they are fighting -- is this a comedy?? Heck no, it's reality this section of opinion contends. But of course it's just plain stupid, it's a paradigm out of some comedy movie. it's so ridiculous it must be true!

So how does one explain that ISI have links with the Talib, isn't that a fair question?? Well, lets try and understand it better and ask, how is it that CIA and MI6 and GIA have links with Talib?

How isit that the Afghan govt has links with and talks to the Talib, does it mean that the Afghan govt is both fighting and supporting the Talib?? Does it mean that US is fighting and through the payments it's security companies make in Afghanistan, they are supporting the Talib??

How might you answer these??

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

if Bob Woodward and his trusted sources are to be believed, many reputable intelligence agencies of the world --from CIA to ISI to perhaps even Mossad --have assets or operatives (double agents) in groups such as Al Qaeda

it sure makes sense to do so, isn't it??



AFTERALL, and do please correct me if I'm wrong, the intention of invading Afghanistan in 2001 was to uproot Al Qaeda wasn't it?? AFTERALL, it was AQ which carried out 9/11 terror attacks, no?

it wasn't the taleban.....Mullah Omar himself was ardently opposed to bin laden and many of the arab mujahideen, and their meddling around and attempting to influence domestic affairs in Afghanistan

 

[indushek]

Indushek

Allow me deal with my post - Yes, it now popular among a section of the US press to suggest that Pakistan are both fighting the Taliban and Supporting them at the same time.

Otherwise Sane individuals are being asked to take seriously the contention that the armed forces are fighting and suffering casualties at the same time they are supporting the group they are fighting -- is this a comedy?? Heck no, it's reality this section of opinion contends. But of course it's just plain stupid, it's a paradigm out of some comedy movie. it's so ridiculous it must be true!

So how does one explain that ISI have links with the Talib, isn't that a fair question?? Well, lets try and understand it better and ask, how is it that CIA and MI6 and GIA have links with Talib?

How isit that the Afghan govt has links with and talks to the Talib, does it mean that the Afghan govt is both fighting and supporting the Talib?? Does it mean that US is fighting and through the payments it's security companies make in Afghanistan, they are supporting the Talib??

How might you answer these??

Ok so u are saying that one might have relations but that does not mean the fighting is not going on right?? Well then its business as usual. However i would like to stick to my point it is a dangerous game being played by you.

Since we are having this discussion i have another question for you. What is the Afghan side of this story. What are their views i mean both Talib and non Talib??

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

afghans themselves are divided on such issues; though it seems that from 2001 till today, taleban popularity and influence declined manifold, then began to rise up again among Afghans in past 2-3 years


as for duplicity which someone mentioned earlier; important to distinguish between Afghan taleban and Pakistan taleban. There is a difference; a huge one --though most, if not all groups, are opposed to foreign military presence in the Afghanistan (as many of such groups were against soviets)

 

[muse]

I would like to stick to my point it is a dangerous game being played by you.

Since we are having this discussion i have another question for you. What is the Afghan side of this story. What are their views i mean both Talib and non Talib??

In the eye of the beholder - see, to get a good sense, we should be mindful of the context, don't you think? I met this Afghan gentlemen, he was a certified Bin Laden hunter and an all round nice guy - and he told me about what life under the Mujaideen govt was like in kabul - now recall that at that time govt was Ahmad Shah's militia under the political cover of Rabbani's Jamiaat, in additon, other Mujahideen groups controlled various sections of Kabul - so according to this gentlemen, uncertainty was such that each group of the Mujahideen ripped the citizen off at the check points they controlled and he thought thatthe Talib were most welcome -- but as the Talib fought with the forces of Massoud, they also became crazier and crazier, that they had no idea of governance and were peasants who wanted only to kill their enemies -- and the enemies lists grew - you will recall the idiots enforcement of prayers and all that, basically a Saudi Arabia in the Hindu Kush.

On the other hand, All of Afghanistan is not Kabul, in fact the cities are not representative of Afghanistan, the villages are and there the Talib attitudes and enforced public piety were not regarded in the same negative light as in the city of Kabul.

The Northern Alliance fighters certainly hate the Talib, Pashtun Liberals (read communists) certainly hate them, Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara populations certainly see the Talib as representatives of Pashtun in the civil war, as nothing less than hateful -- Talib support is by and large among the Pashtun peasantry, in the villages.

As for the view of the Talib, I think it's fair to say that they are now primarily motivated by the idea that they must expel the Firengi, the Angraiz -- I don't think that the same anti Tajik sentiment is at work, they still despise the Tajik and do not accept them as Afghan, but I don't think they entertain notions as they did before, that Tajiks must return to Tajikistan.

So, I hope the picture you are developing is one in which the context of the Civil war and Anarchy and Massacres, a Hobbesian nightmare informs the relations between the groups -- On the other hand, I can tell you first hand that I have also witnessed that people live entirely peaceful lives with different ethnicities -- so, it is most certainly complex.


Now, as to your point about dangerous, well, yes, I don't think Pakistan ought to trust the US to be mindful of Pakistani interests, is that dangerous? sure, but it's Afghanistan, everything is dangerous because the US finds it's interest best served by promoting instability -- some will find this hard to believe - but I would ask that observers be fair, it's going on 10 years, please do point to what the US has done to effect stability, or to promote the idea that Afghanistan cannot but have peaceful relations with her neighbors -- is 10 years some small amount of time??

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Forget 21 years!

Some have memory spans no longer than even 5 years....

this is one of those cases where to neglect history, neglect ground-realities, neglect the factionalized/tribalized nature of Afghanistan -- would be criminal negligence

 

[muse]

Abu Zolfiqar

Some imagine that we are not being friends when we raise such questions to our US friends -- We fear an outcome that will leave us in a greater problem, once again, we will have to clean up the mess - all the while no US policy maker will be accountable, there will be much myth making about how the US forces, stretched beyond reasonable limits of sacrifice and service, could have achieved this and that but for the politicians or worse, were it not for Pakistan.

To US friends we urge sobriety, look carefully at the world and with apprehension towards your ability in a changed world, and to those who have supported you to the hilt, and for which US policy makers ingratitude was extended.

I think it's really very sad.

 

[SMC]

The claim about Pakistan supporting Taliban doesn't have any serious proof to it. The so-called logical and rational Indians should take that into account before blaming Pakistan, because the hypocrisy becomes clear when on one hand they demand proof for Indian involvement but blindly accept what is told when Pakistan involvement is concerned.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

if Pakistan goes down in U.S. history books as the sole reason why U.S. lost or reached stale-mate in Afghanistan --then, well, yes it is sad but it obviously ignores a MUCH larger picture


on the other hand, what happens if Afghanistan sees some stability; a decrease in drugs proliferation (and use); less terrorism (or haven for terrorism), less corruption etc. --through whatever government or system there is subsequent to withdrawal --incumbent, or otherwise


in all honesty, that's all I really care about --since that is what REALLY affects me, my borders, my security and general interests

 

[muse]

But that's am impossibility.

 

[Peshwa]

Apologies for the late response - No, it does not mean that at all - So what does it mean? If you have been following my posts over the years, you will know that I am no supporter of the Talib (any kind of Talib, whether Afghan, Pakistani or any other variety ) however, I am persuaded now that US policy in Afghanistan is not just wrong, but dangerous -- Look, the war has been going on for 10 years now, think about that, 10 years - what the heck kind of policy is that????

And look at the kinds of duplicity the US policy is a vehicle for, ask yourself, have US interests been served?? You may find yourself asking,m "What are US interests that it needs a 10 year war and one which is destabilizing what it says is her Major Non-NATO Ally?"

And if you figure out an answer to this, please enlighten all of us -- On the other hand, Pakistani policy has been clear from the start, a friendly and if not friendly, then a not hostile, government in Afghanistan -- at every step the US policy served interests that negate that ambition - US policy is now so closely identified with a single component or element or party to the Afghan civil war that the minute, the second the US leaves, the whole thing will fall apart, leaving Pakistan in even more of a pickle -- and the longer it stays and does not involve all political players in the game, the greater the problem it creates for Pakistan - do you see that??

So US policy, to my thinking, makes itself irrelevant - see, throwing money and it's just paper to them, they have blown close to half a trillion on this fools errand already -- imagine if they had agreed to invest even half of that in the region on the condition that the neighboring countries cooperate to bring an end to the civil war.

US policy makers can mouth all the "terrorism" BS they want to and which their apathetic and fearful populace can stomach, reality of Afghanistan is civil war and a the lack of a political settlement.

So my point is why should Pakistan be tied to this failure? Pakistan ought to pursue her interests with all other players, and it should engage the US and India, but so long as these powers are hostile to Pakistani interests, I don't see how that engagement can be fruitful - so Pakistani policy has to be broader and attempt those solutions we can make happen and those which we cannot be a part of, whether made in USA or not, we should work to influence.

Muse.....a question that has been troubling me for a while now....

Most Pakistanis on this forum have a negative view of the current Pakistani Govt.....The likes of Zardari etc, even though elected through the right channels are called US puppets.....the people consider them to be nothing more than "blood suckers" out to fill their coffers......But the point is, the govt is still better than a Talib or Wahabbi ruling your country....wouldnt you agree?
It also happens as such that you have a glarin problem with Talibs that one way or the other is blamed on "foreign powers".....so Pakistanis dont like being meddled with as far as politics goes.....whether it be the US or the "foreign powers"

Now here is where the problem starts....
So...Afg is a mess already....Taliban rule was obviously a nightmare.....
US along with their allies (including you) rallied to free the Afg nation of Taliban (meaning your nation is aligned to the) cause).....now...democratic elections held in Afg led to the election of officials (whether they be good, bad or ugly) that the Afghans feel is the right choice (I understand that the last elections were rigged but lets keep that aside for now)....
So keeping in mind that the motive here is to stabalize Afg...shouldnt you allow the people of Afg to decide their priority....whether it be good or bad for Pakistan? Anti-Pak govt from the perspective of the Afghans means little....because it is the people's choice....
If the Talibs were it....then they should contest elections and win by the vote as opppsed to the nozzle of a gun...dont you think?

Dont you feel the current Pakistani policy of trying to place a "friendly govt" in Afghanistan is similar to say the US placing puppet leaders such as Zardari in power? And if the Pakistanis hate being meddled with, why not give the same respect to the Afghans and their politics?

 

[VCheng]

Abu Zolfiqar

Some imagine that we are not being friends when we raise such questions to our US friends -- We fear an outcome that will leave us in a greater problem, once again, we will have to clean up the mess - all the while no US policy maker will be accountable, there will be much myth making about how the US forces, stretched beyond reasonable limits of sacrifice and service, could have achieved this and that but for the politicians or worse, were it not for Pakistan.

To US friends we urge sobriety, look carefully at the world and with apprehension towards your ability in a changed world, and to those who have supported you to the hilt, and for which US policy makers ingratitude was extended.
ude
I think it's really very sad.

There are no emotions or gratitude or loyalty in international politics, only national interests.

US policy will evolve as the world changes, and it will continue its efforts to secure its national interests as best as it can given these changes, which are likely going to be successful for at least the near term future, if not longer.

 

[Peshwa]

The claim about Pakistan supporting Taliban doesn't have any serious proof to it. The so-called logical and rational Indians should take that into account before blaming Pakistan, because the hypocrisy becomes clear when on one hand they demand proof for Indian involvement but blindly accept what is told when Pakistan involvement is concerned.

Then please explain Pakistan's reluctance to go after the Afghan Taliban in North Waziristan....

Or the fact that Pakistan seems to be the channel to facilitate a deal with the US?

I suppose no proof of "material support" with man and money can probably be found....such proofs are hard to come bye....even for the US....
But the fact that Afghan Taliban maintains amicable relations with Islamabad is a known fact....no use denying it....in this case support would refer to shelter...which the Taliban is using Pakistani territory....and Pakistans reluctance to go go after them indicates their need to keep them alive...

You probably should look at some of the findings that Wikileaks came out with.....besides....Its not the Indians blaming you, its your own allies the US that had such documental evidence regarding your relationship....
Regarding Indian involvement in Balochistan....if the US or any non-pakistani source has such info...please feel free to share so us Indians can pressure our govt.