Thread: Militants overran observation post in attack that killed 9 US troops

Some different perspectives as regards Pakistan's 'war on terror'

The gathering tempest

By Ayaz Amir

The (Pakistani) government is unworried by the worsening security situation on our North West frontier. It is in a happy position because it has neither time nor inclination to think about such unpleasant matters. For now it is grappling with its own ineptitude.

Let this battle be over -- and there is no telling when this will be -- before it can shift its attention to other issues. The army, however, is deeply worried, and for good reason because it is the army which is bearing the brunt of the undeclared war now raging along our western border. And it is the army which has to deal with the American pressure to “do more”. The luxury of indifference available to the government -- and one which the government is enjoying to the full -- is not available to the army.

Of the two quagmires the United States is stuck in -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- the latter looks set to be the one America will be paying more attention to as time passes. There are more American troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan. But Iraq is already a doomed enterprise in many American minds. That is why the focus is shifting to Afghanistan. The focus is also shifting to a slice of Pakistani border territory -- the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA -- hitherto unknown to most Americans but now increasingly a familiar name. In American eyes FATA is now the central front in the ‘war against terrorism’, a theory much propagated by such American and Karzai apologists as friend Ahmed Rashid, perhaps the most influential Pakistani journalist writing for the foreign media. The Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has become an instant expert on FATA. “We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary (he has FATA in mind) and as president I won’t,” he says. “If another attack on our homeland comes,” he says in a related remark, “it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned.” Deeper into the U.S. presidential campaign we are likely to hear more of FATA, almost a buzzword to prove one’s foreign policy credentials.

Not to be outdone, Pakistan’s helpless prime minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, joins the swelling chorus. There are foreign fighters in FATA, he says, and another 9/11 could well originate from this region. With sentinels at the gate like him who needs detractors?

During the Vietnam War, as it ground on and hopes of a quick victory faded, the American military establishment came to believe that the war could not be won as long as Viet Cong supply routes through Cambodia were not interdicted. The CIA got into action. Prince Sihanouk was removed from power, a compliant general being installed in his place. American forces moved into Cambodia. The Viet Cong were not defeated but Cambodia was ravaged. It has yet to recover from that ordeal. Shades of Cambodia can be detected in the wild talk now raging in America about FATA being a ‘terrorist sanctuary’.

Question is, is it a ‘terrorist sanctuary’? It undoubtedly is. For all practical purposes FATA is now an extension of the Afghan war, just as Cambodia was an extension of the Vietnam War. But just as going into Cambodia solved nothing and indeed in some ways made matters worse for the U.S. by opening another front in the war, going into FATA and bombing ‘terrorist sanctuaries’ or sending in ‘special forces’ will solve nothing. More likely, it will make things worse, both for the U.S. and Pakistan. Jihadi sentiment will grow. The Talibanization of the tribal areas is already well underway. Expect this process to accelerate if there is any serious American incursion into this region. And what will happen to the rest of Pakistan? I think it is no exaggeration to say that it will be shaken to its foundations.

But the U.S. is desperate. The Taliban were supposed to have been defeated and Afghanistan pacified way back in 2001. But far from being vanquished the Taliban are stronger than ever. Such a climate fosters the need for scapegoats. Victory proving elusive somebody must be to blame. Who more convenient to blame than Pakistan and its ‘terrorist sanctuary’, the badlands of FATA? No wonder Pakistan, especially its army, is coming under increasing pressure to “do more”. When Pervez Musharraf was in command the army did try to do more, with disastrous results. If the army is now trying a different approach -- talking to some of the militants -- it is not out of choice but necessity, the militants having fought the army to a standstill and inflicting heavy casualties. But trust our American friends to be deeply unhappy with this approach.

To keep Pakistan in line and to ensure that there is no weakening in Pakistan’s resolve to serve American interests, Pakistan is being fed a steady diet of half-truths. It is being told that the war it is being asked to fight is as much in its interests as in America’s, that ‘terrorism’ is as much a threat to Pakistan as to the U.S. Most of Pakistan’s ruling elite, including the army high command, swallows this argument. There is an active lobby in Pakistan’s English press assiduously spreading the same message.

Terrorism is a threat to Pakistan, no question about it. The Talibanization of the tribal belt has eroded the authority of the state, no doubt about this too. But how has this come about? What is the sequence of cause-and-effect behind this phenomenon? Just as there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the American invasion of that country, there was none of the unrest or challenge to central authority we now witness in FATA prior to the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. It is not Osama bin Laden stoking the fires of resistance in Afghanistan. It is the American presence, the American occupation of Afghanistan, which is doing that. The Americans should have read up on the history of Afghanistan before moving into that country. If the Afghans did not take kindly to British intervention in the 19th century, or to Soviet occupation in the 20th, what made the Americans think that their invasion would be welcomed and that the atrocities they unleashed upon innocent Afghans would go unpunished?

Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were small-time players. It was not in their power, perhaps not even in their imagination, to have unleashed the full scale of horrors set in motion by the strange warriors of the Bush administration. 9/11 was just an excuse these warriors seized upon. Their ideas of Middle East conquest, of redrawing the map of the region, existed prior to that tragedy. Are the Americans prevailing in Iraq? No. Are they likely to prevail in Afghanistan? If Afghan history is anything to go by, the answer again is no. But the problem for Pakistan is that it will keep being burned by the Afghan conflict as long as the U.S. remains in Afghanistan. What is more, the Taliban grip on FATA which is already strong will become stronger, putting further strains on the civilian edifice which came into being after the Feb 18 elections. What is the solution to this predicament? The Americans are propounding a military solution and they want the Pakistan army to be very much a part of it. But there is no military solution to this conflict and if against better judgment Pakistan’s leadership, military and political, is too weak to resist American blandishments or pressure, Pakistan risks being ravaged, just as Cambodia was, by a conflict initiated and now being fuelled by American blundering. Part of our problem is that we want to have our cake and eat it too. We don’t want to fight America’s war but at the same time we don’t want to do without American economic and military aid. This is a contradiction. If we accept American largesse we put ourselves under an obligation to do America’s bidding. If we want to reclaim national sovereignty then, whatever the pain, we must learn to live without American crutches.

We face a serious problem in FATA. Terrorism is a threat. We must do what we can to bring peace to the Frontier and to see that FATA is not a staging post for the Afghan insurgency. Let the Afghans settle their own affairs. We should wish them well but it is none of our business to interfere in their affairs. But we have to deal with the problems of FATA on our own, with our own resources and our own judgment. The moment the army or the state appears to be an extension of American policy, we land ourselves in trouble. The Biden aid package being pushed through the U.S. Congress will be absolutely fatal for Pakistan for it will tie us irretrievably to American interests. We should be friends with America, not its unthinking appendage. That is, if we are to save Pakistan from the typhoon gathering along its western marches.

The need for clear thinking about the war on terrorism

Monday, July 21, 2008
Khalid Aziz

Many years ago I attended a class on international trade and which was discussing the inequity in the terms of trade between the rich and the poor nations; between those who produced technological goods and those that produced agricultural commodities. During the heated discussion I made an immature comment to my dour Scottish professor, “The West should be ashamed for giving a bad deal to the poor nations of the world.” He retorted, “So what?” I infuriatingly mumbled in anger, “If I had the ability I would nuke you.” He smiled and said, “Now you make sense and in that case we will negotiate a fair price for primary commodities, since you could de-stabilize us.” That conversation 28 years ago has left an indelible impression on my mind and is a good guide about the real politics of international relations.

Pakistan is facing a similar situation today. It is a nuclear power yet it is fast losing control over parts of her territories because of the pressure applied on her to sacrifice her security for peace in Afghanistan. Should we be paying that price? Finding answer to this and other similar riddles is essential for our future security. I feel that we are in the midst of events that are generating plenty of emotion leading to confused thinking on a whole range of security concerns that makes an average Pakistani fearful of his future. Some of my fellow writers are adding to the confusion.

For example some argue that the militants are fighting the US for the protection of Afghanistan’s Islamic identity; it is also argued that the Taliban are keeping the US away from the energy resources of Central Asia. Others add that the actions of the militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan have prevented the US from attacking Iran. According to this convoluted thinking the Taliban are credited with being the bulwark against US domination of the region. Can we please stop and think what that is doing to Pakistan?

Even the barbaric practices of the Taliban are rationalized away by saying, “… (That) the Taliban became vicious because of the treachery and violence they had to suffer.” I wonder what sort of justification is that for slaughtering and murdering captives or persons belonging to a different sect of Islam. Will the US be permitted to use the same argument as defense for the death of innocent people who become victims of collateral damage?

A second type of muddled thinking arises when viewing the militants as fighters against US imperialism. A corollary of this argument is that in doing so the militants are preserving Pakistani independence against the imperialists. Even if I accept this argument, how would the supporters of the militants justify the killing of Pakistani security personnel who are trying to secure the writ of the state? Recently, a whole contingent of the frontier constabulary was ambushed in Hangu and more than 19 men were killed after they refused to surrender. Was their slaughter in any way a strike against an imperialist power? To me the only result is Pakistan’s destabilization.

I also fail to understand how the militants will succeed in their war against the US by burning girls’ primary schools by the dozen or torching a tourist resort in Swat. Other instances of kidnapping of polio vaccinators and doctors also abound. The militants are against education of females thus preventing them from becoming doctors or teachers; yet at the same time they demand that males should not provide services to women. If they are going to prevent the education of the girl child how will female service providers created? If the militants succeed in coming to power in FATA or NWFP what would life be like under their rule and what model of governance will they follow? What type of existence will it be for the people? To answer these questions one has to note how they ruled first Kandahar and latter Afghanistan in 1996.

Within 24 hours of taking over Kabul the Taliban imposed their version of the strictest Islamic system. All women were banned from work including those in the civil services, teaching and health-care system. Girl schools and colleges were shut affecting 70,000 students. A strict dress code for women was ordered and 25,000 families who were headed by widows of the Afghan wars, lost their bread winners; their families became destitute! TV, radio, satellite broadcasts, music and games were all outlawed. Sharia courts with the religious police peering into the personal lives of people were instituted. Politics and political parties were banned because as Mullah Wakil, Mullah Omar’s secretary said, “The Sharia does not allow politics or political parties.”

The first thing is to be very clear about the nature of the threat facing us. It is convenient to say that it is the work of a religiously driven group. It is and it is more. What we have under the loose classification of Taliban is a group of diverse militant groups with separate histories. Their origins lie in state manipulation to undertake proxy wars and who have now coalesced into a critical mass. According to a report in early June, fighters from the Kashmiri Jihadi groups including representatives of Lashkar-e- Tayyaba, Jaish and Hezbul Mujahideen met and agreed to prioritize fighting foreign troops in Afghanistan rather than in Kashmir. This is a momentous decision for NWFP, FATA and Afghanistan; it will cause destabilization in Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, since Pakistan has a larger institutional base it will be more harmful to Pakistan.

The US reports a 40 per cent increase in Taliban attacks in Afghanistan this year as compared with 2007. For two months in a row, the deaths of US soldiers in Afghanistan exceed those in Iraq. Recently the US lost nine soldiers in one attack in Kunar, which was conducted by Hikmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami and the Jaish e Muhammad. While we regret the US losses we forget to lament our own!

In Fata and NWFP the situation is deteriorating rapidly. One indicator is the decision taken by the ANP in NWFP recently to reorganize their party’s security arm - the Nanglalay Pukhtun and morph it into peace and development committees. The re-organization is based on mobilizing rural communities. The ANP historically has rarely taken recourse to arming except on a limited scale when the Maoist Mazdoor Kissan party under Maj Ishaq in the 1970’s challenged the landlords who are the ANP’s main supporters in Hashtnagar and Mardan. This region is the Pukhtun’s intellectual and political heartland and to which its party leadership belongs. The party has taken the risk of challenging the cells of the Islamists which are sprouting like mushrooms throughout the province – they are armed, funded and motivated. This is no ordinary decision. The party feels threatened. If the ANP program fails then we will see a rapid takeover of the Peshawar – Mardan valley in the weeks to follow.

It is thus evident that the militants are neither fighting imperialism nor permitting peace to prevail; they are slowly destroying the only nuclear power in the Muslim world. On the other hand there is ambivalence, confusion and ambiguity within our security apparatus the like of which has never been witnessed before. The political leadership is too divided to arrest the downslide that is gaining momentum with each passing day. There is not only an absence of policy but a failure to realize the gravity of the situation; it is critical. One wonders if there can be any other outcome other then the de-stabilization of Pakistan. Thus the real question to answer is whether Pakistan ought to be sacrificed for Afghanistan? It is time for clear thinking and quick actions.

The writer is a former chief secretary of NWFP and heads the Regional Institute of Policy Research. Email: azizkhalid @gmail.com

Breaking the silence on Pakistan and terrorism

By Con Coughlin
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 20/07/2008



The biggest threat to the West is not al-Qa'eda, Afghanistan or Iran, but the country that, thanks to its laxity, has become the terrorists' chief hideout and breeding ground

It's the threat to world peace that dares not speak its name.

We hear plenty about the dangers posed to our security by al-Qa'eda, Afghanistan and Iran. But when it comes to talking about the country that arguably constitutes the greatest threat to our everyday wellbeing, Pakistan hardly ever seems to merit a mention.

This is rather surprising, given that if you talk to any of the military commanders or politicians responsible for prosecuting the war against Islamist terrorism, Pakistan is the country that is almost universally identified as constituting the most serious active threat to our national security.

And it is also seen as the greatest obstacle to our efforts to combat the pernicious threat of jihad by terrorism.

Last week, the subject came up in conversations I had with one of our leading military commanders and a senior politician who is personally involved in the defence of the realm.
advertisement


About the only response I could evoke from my military acquaintance when I raised the thorny issue of Pakistan was a deep sigh and a shrug of the shoulders. "Ah yes, Pakistan," he said with a world-weary sigh. "A multitude of problems with no obvious solutions."
# Books: Sameer Rahim reviews Descent into Chaos by Ahmed Rashid
# Read more from Con Coughlin

As for the politician, I was curious as to why the Government seems to have imposed a news blackout on making any statement that might be deemed critical of the Pakistani government. "The fact is, the country is teetering on the precipice of total collapse, and we don't want to be the ones to push it over the edge."

Indeed, the idea of Pakistan replicating the near-anarchy that prevails across the border in Afghanistan is almost too terrifying to contemplate.

While coalition forces have enjoyed much success in eradicating the operational infrastructure of the Taliban and al-Qa'eda in southern Afghanistan, they are deeply frustrated by the fact that the terrorists have simply been allowed to regroup and rebuild across the border in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas.

British military commanders last week told The Sunday Telegraph that the five-fold increase in roadside bomb attacks in southern Afghanistan was the result of the training that Taliban fighters were receiving at religious schools in Pakistan, where they are being taught to make explosives and build improvised explosive devices.

And while al-Qa'eda is not the force it was when it carried out the September 11 attacks, Western intelligence experts believe the core of al-Qa'eda's leadership - possibly including Osama bin Laden himself - is based in the inhospitable mountain ranges of Waziristan in Pakistan, where they continue to plot their diabolical schemes to attack the West.

To this potent Taliban/al-Qa'eda terrorist mix has now been added the new ingredient of Pakistan's home-grown Islamist radicals, which Western security experts call the Pakistani Taliban to distinguish them from their Afghan neighbours.

The Pakistani Taliban is made up of indigenous Muslims who have been radicalised in one of the hundreds of Saudi-funded madrassahs, which openly preach that young Muslims have an obligation to wage Jihad against the infidels of the West.

Nearly all the major terror plots against Britain - both those that succeeded, such as the July 7 bombings, and those that have been foiled by the vigilance of our security services - have been linked in some way to Pakistan.

The emergence of a new, home-grown terrorist organisation in Pakistan has dramatically increased the threat the country poses to Britain.

As if this wasn't enough to give us all sleepless nights, Pakistan is the only Muslim country known to possess a nuclear weapons arsenal.

So long as President Pervez Musharraf remains the country's titular head, the West has some degree of assurance that Pakistan's nukes remain secure for, in his former capacity as the head of Pakistan's armed forces, Musharraf allowed US officials to make sure the necessary safeguards were in place to ensure the nukes did not fall into the wrong hands.

Al-Qa'eda's training manuals make no secret of the fact that the organisation would love to get its hands on a nuclear device, and the only two likely places it could do this are Pakistan and Iran.

Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal, spent the Nineties making a tidy profit from hawking his nuclear-bomb blueprints to some of the world's less stable regimes, and North Korea, Libya and Iran were among some of the more notorious beneficiaries.

Although Dr Khan was placed under house arrest after his activities were exposed by Western intelligence agencies in 2002, Pakistan's new coalition government, bowing to nationalist pressure, has indicated it is prepared to rehabilitate the disgraced nuclear scientist, even though the West is still struggling to come to terms with the consequences of his clandestine nuclear proliferation network.

This is just one of several disturbing developments to emerge from Pakistan since the new coalition government took power earlier this year, in reaction to the West putting pressure on Mr Musharraf to return the country to democratic rule.

At the time, both London and Washington believed that Pakistan having a democratic government would increase its co-operation in fighting terrorism. In fact, the opposite appears to have happened.

The West might have been frustrated by what it perceived as Mr Musharraf's lack of commitment to rooting out terror groups in Waziristan, but at least while he was directly running the country there were sporadic bouts of activity.

But talk to any of the military commanders involved with prosecuting the war against the Taliban and al-Qa'eda, and they will tell you that Pakistani co-operation has virtually ground to a halt since the coalition government took control.

Until now, the West has maintained a discreet silence about its concerns regarding Pakistan's lack of commitment to rooting out Islamist terror cells, hoping that the new government in Islamabad can be persuaded to mend its ways. But the West's mounting frustration is unlikely to be contained for much longer.

Barack Obama, the Democrat presidential nominee, last week became the first leading Western politician to voice his frustration with Islamabad when he declared that he would have no hesitation in ordering American troops to pursue terror suspects across the Pakistani border "if Pakistan cannot or will not act".

The Pakistanis ignore this shot across their bows at their peril.

As I've said, time is up. Various groups may continue to pour money into Pakistan: deciding which faction and which territory to pour it into will become increasingly difficult.

Originally Posted by Ray

Parihaka,

You seem to have been divorced from your roots - Christian compassion.

That sums it up!

I have high regards for you. You disappoint. Say what you want to say with a little easier words. You are shoving it up the arse without oil!!

Sorry I am being crude for the first time, but it is because I think you are an intellectual and capable of saying the same thing in better words.

I've never been a Christian Sir, not even baptised. First time I went into a church was when I was studying some architecture papers.

Pagan compassion then.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Some different perspectives as regards Pakistan's 'war on terror'

The gathering tempest

If you can call this sarcastic tripe a perspective...

His analogy comparing NWFT incursions to US bombing of Cambodia is only one of many in history that he could have used. I think something like the US Army's hot pursuit deal with Mexico during the Apache uprisings might fit the bill. That was a smooth 2-way deal that worked.

He says coalition forces are failing in Iraq. When was this article written?

He insinuates OBL was/is just a petty no-body. What can one say about a view like that?

He says US should have read about Afghan handling of English and Russians before going in after OBL. Does he think the US didn't know? No one is absolutely invincible, especially not the T-Ban who are not exactly loved by the Afghan man in the street. They are the enemy, not Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Breaking the silence on Pakistan and terrorism

A better article in that it analyses realities on the ground. However, it's conclusion that Pakistan is teetering on the brink of collapse ignors the latent potential of the PA to step in and boot the civilian leadesrship when it falls into gridlock. My guess is that any real threat that the jihadists might get the hands on Pak's nukes will provoke a massive respond from the PA, regardless of the civilian government's desires to the contrary.

Overall, it seems to me that Pakistan's leadership is waiting for a more compelling case to move on the T-ban and jihadists. I can't see it acting like sheep going quietly to slaughter. It may be that offical US circles are not fingering Pak as our enemy because they are not our enemy, but rather an overly cautious partner perplexed with how to act without inflaming Islamic sentiments at home and abroad. Sure it's frustrating for NATO forces, but NATO's capabilities would not be able to contend with a total meltdown of Pakistan. Obama's public position is not official, nor is it helpful IMHO. In short, Pakistan should not be seen as capitulating to US pressure, but rather as responding to an threat festering on its territory.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Gentlemen, I'm not sure what you are suggesting...

I'm not sure if this was at all addressed to me, but I should clarify that I haven't read much on this thread -too much stuff to read and I'm too busy. I was not suggesting anything by my seconding of Ray's post, I just really liked what Ray said about the value diversity of opinions on the WAB.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

If you can call this sarcastic tripe a perspective...

His analogy comparing NWFT incursions to US bombing of Cambodia is only one of many in history that he could have used. I think something like the US Army's hot pursuit deal with Mexico during the Apache uprisings might fit the bill. That was a smooth 2-way deal that worked.

He says coalition forces are failing in Iraq. When was this article written?

He insinuates OBL was/is just a petty no-body. What can one say about a view like that?

He says US should have read about Afghan handling of English and Russians before going in after OBL. Does he think the US didn't know? No one is absolutely invincible, especially not the T-Ban who are not exactly loved by the Afghan man in the street. They are the enemy, not Afghanistan.

It was written by Ayaz Amir, a Pakistani journalist and Politician two days ago.
Ayaz Amir

Ayaz Amir is a renowned Pakistani journalist, and is a newly elected Member of National Assembly in Pakistan's Parliament.

He is most famous for his columns in the newspaper Dawn. He is also known as a politician. His columns are critical of the Pakistan Army's role in politics throughout the history of the country. He is considered to be liberal, arguing passionately the case for rule of law, democracy, and an end to failed military rule along with extremist versions of Islam. In recent years he has written some controversial stories about the 1965 war with India[citation needed]. His articles are humorous yet spot-on, capturing the essence of scandals in the brewing. He has recently joined the newspaper, The News International, which is owned by Jang Group of Newspapers, another national English daily widely circulated.

He also hosts a talk show "Counter Point" on ARY One World television. He is known for his political satire.

In parliamentary elections, held on February 18th, 2008, Ayaz Amir won a seat in the National Assembly contesting from Chakwal (Punjab province), representing the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz)or PML-N.

Ayaz Amir was a captain in Pakistan Army who resigned/released his commission. He remained an MPA in the Punjab Assembly representing Chakwal.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

A better article in that it analyses realities on the ground. However, it's conclusion that Pakistan is teetering on the brink of collapse ignors the latent potential of the PA to step in and boot the civilian leadesrship when it falls into gridlock. My guess is that any real threat that the jihadists might get the hands on Pak's nukes will provoke a massive respond from the PA, regardless of the civilian government's desires to the contrary.

Overall, it seems to me that Pakistan's leadership is waiting for a more compelling case to move on the T-ban and jihadists. I can't see it acting like sheep going quietly to slaughter. It may be that offical US circles are not fingering Pak as our enemy because they are not our enemy, but rather an overly cautious partner perplexed with how to act without inflaming Islamic sentiments at home and abroad. Sure it's frustrating for NATO forces, but NATO's capabilities would not be able to contend with a total meltdown of Pakistan. Obama's public position is not official, nor is it helpful IMHO. In short, Pakistan should not be seen as capitulating to US pressure, but rather as responding to an threat festering on its territory.

It's the one thing I've been wondering, whether the P.A. is watching and perhaps encouraging the current morass of ineptitude as regards Pakistan's internal terrorist problems so that it can once more sweep to power with a coup as the saviour of Pakistan along with a nod to overseas interests saying "see, we tried democracy and it didn't work"

Obviously the Indian source of this site lays it open to claims of bias, but a lot of the facts do rather tend to speak for themselves.

Pakistan Assessment 2008

Going back to my previous post as regards the P.A., it's occurred to me later that in fact they may well fracture along with the rest of the country, something only likely to be hastened if the P.A. leadership takes too firm a hand. It's not 1999 anymore.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

It was written by Ayaz Amir, a Pakistani journalist and Politician two days ago.
Ayaz Amir

In this case, the politician showed through more than the journalist. And as such, it's interesting to see what elected politicians in Pak are thinking these days. Is muddled too strong a word?

Originally Posted by Ray

There was no Indian support to the Northern Alliance when the Mujahideens were engaging the Soviets. It was when the Taliban had taken over Afghanistan that India and Iran supported the Northern Alliance.

I don't understand what you mean by ''and their elements settling old scores''.

..

I was referring to Indian support for Russian invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 80s, Afghan Mujahideens with active support of arms, training and dollars from alliance of US/Pakistan/Saudis and others had defeated USSR military there. Your post above seems to have gone on a different tangent.

India to Provide Aid to Government in Afghanistan

By BARBARA CROSSETTE, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: March 7, 1989

India has been alone in South Asia in support of the Soviet-backed Najibullah Government in Afghanistan. India, a nonaligned nation that has generally supported Soviet foreign policies in Asia, continues to maintain a diplomatic presence in Kabul, although all Western and several Eastern European embassies have withdrawn.

India to Provide Aid to Government in Afghanistan - New York Times


India is a fine democratic, pluralistic society but that was a disgraceful chapter in their history to stand behind Russian killing of millions of almost defeseless Afghans while much of free world stood with Afghan people.


I was commenting above on your post above on Kashmir and Russians:

Typical action as in Kashmir.
..
Russians would love that Pakistan is ''taught a lesson'' for meddling earlier with them.

We need to win WOT and restore stability in the region but taking advice from old enemies like these with possibly old grudges won't be smart move as some Russian, Indian elements with cold war mentality may be happy to see expansion of conflict between Afganiustan-Pakistan to settle old scores. We need to eliminate sanctuaries of radical elements by stregnthening allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan and isolating Talibans. We have better relations with Russians, Indians now but because of recent history, they should be kept out of Afghan war. Current Karzai and Musharaf regimes have been ineffective, focus on helping better leadership there and isolating Talibans would be winning strategy.