Thread: U.S. military says Taliban set to retake power: report

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

A world power does not sit on the fence. A middle power does.

This is the thing, the way its being spun here we are told that we are acting with a view to our self-interests wrt Iran. But i'm not sure the Iranians buy it, we've not been very reliable for them. China cuts its import from Iran by 50% and India moves in to pick up the slack to the point that in Jan we were Iran's biggest importer. Now at the end of Feb they will be sending a big trade delegation to Iran to pick up on the huge business opportunity that has opened since the west cut business ties with Iran. This is opportunism and our policy is ad-hoc.

Once China manages to wean itself enitrely from Iran i don't see how India will be able to continue. There will be a UNSC resolution and we will have to comply. So much for having a bakcbone and resisting the world.

So i think we are just sitting on the fence.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Sir, I will consider India a world power the day it actually manages to throw its weight around in Afghanistan. I'll consider that a litmus test.

S-2 alluded to this earlier but my question is if the Americans could not do it then what meaningful actions can India accomplish there ?

We gave up the chance to have a larger say in 1948 due to Nehru when we lost the northern areas, our land bridge to Afghanistan.

This from the NYT-

India Defends Oil Purchases From Iran-Jim Yardley NYT Feb. 11, 2012

Originally Posted by Double Edge

S-2 alluded to this earlier but my question is if the Americans could not do it then what meaningful actions can India accomplish there ?

Who says the Americans can not do it? They very well can.

The difference here is that the Americans are from halfway around the world and have started to question the meaning of their own presence in that region.

India does not have the same option of simply packing up and leaving the region it lives in!

I'm sure the Pakistanis could teach India a thing or two in perseverance.

We gave up the chance to have a larger say in 1948 due to Nehru when we lost the northern areas, our land bridge to Afghanistan.

One cannot simply look at history, give up hope and turn over. The loss of the Northern areas has been greatly undone by the growth of diplomatic and economic clout since than.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Who says the Americans can not do it? They very well can.

Yes and we've been hearing this since 2001 yet there still remains a very large gap between ability & delivery and it isn't going to be bridged.

Originally Posted by Tronic

The difference here is that the Americans are from halfway around the world and have started to question the meaning of their own presence in that region.

in other words its curtains for them. They're done.

Originally Posted by Tronic

India does not have the same option of simply packing up and leaving the region it lives in!

I'm sure the Pakistanis could teach India a thing or two in perseverance.

What more can we do that we've not done so far ?

More economic aid, more training for the Afghan administration as well as forces. This is what Musharaf is against, says we're indoctrinating them. We can't send anything to them via Pakistan, thats a no-go. We have to use Iran or fly over.

Originally Posted by Tronic

One cannot simply look at history, give up hope and turn over. The loss of the Northern areas has been greatly undone by the growth of diplomatic and economic clout since than.

How the heck are we supposed to pull off anything, that too remotely without boots on the ground. We won't send any on a fools errand.

All there is left is to start cultivating proxies for the soon to come civil war in Afghanistan.

Pakistan vs the world (the sequel)

Originally Posted by S2

This from the NYT-

India Defends Oil Purchases From Iran-Jim Yardley NYT Feb. 11, 2012

Did not get much out of this and it isn't Yardleys fault.

Maybe in six months time it might become clear what South Block has in mind.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Yes and we've been hearing this since 2001 yet there still remains a very large gap between ability & delivery and it isn't going to be bridged.


in other words its curtains for them. They're done.

Show me one place the Taliban has actually won. What I see is a Taliban force watching the clock tock.

What more can we do that we've not done so far ?

What have we done so far?

More economic aid, more training for the Afghan administration as well as forces. This is what Musharaf is against, says we're indoctrinating them. We can't send anything to them via Pakistan, thats a no-go. We have to use Iran or fly over.

Musharaf?

You're going to first get approval from Pakistanis on how to fight the Taliban? Seriously.

(And if Musharaf says that we are indoctrinating them, than thank god we are doing something right. Indoctrinating the idea of Afghan nationalism is exactly what the Afghans need.)

How the heck are we supposed to pull off anything, that too remotely without boots on the ground. We won't send any on a fools errand.

The Indian military was running a hospital on the Afghan-Tajik border in the 90s in support of Massoud; that it's role in today's Afghanistan should inevitably be much greater, is a no brainer. More so, since the Indian government has spent billions in Afghanistan, and wouldn't mind spending a couple billion more if it keeps the Talibunnies out.

Arms, finances and military advisers.

Aswell as cultivating strong Iranian, Tajik and Uzbek channels in support of the GoA.

All there is left is to start cultivating proxies for the soon to come civil war in Afghanistan.

Pakistan vs the world (the sequel)

I hope the Indian government is not of your view and takes the initiative rather than wait for the world.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Show me one place the Taliban has actually won. What I see is a Taliban force watching the clock tock.

No military victory but its not like the Taliban are going to dissapear back into the dust of history are they. So its a PR win by default. Do you underestimate what this may entail ?

And now there is secret dealing between the US & the Taliban. They are trying to work out an arrangement. But as troungs article showed any agreed upon arrangement is not going to be worth much in the future. So we are left with a country divided into two wth the Taliban on the one side and the NA on the other.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Musharaf?

You're going to first get approval from Pakistanis on how to fight the Taliban? Seriously.

You misunderstand, they're always going on about how we are stacking the deck against them there, this was what i got out of one of his interviews. He was cheesed off that Pakistan wasn't asked for similar assistance

Originally Posted by Tronic

(And if Musharaf says that we are indoctrinating them, than thank god we are doing something right. Indoctrinating the idea of Afghan nationalism is exactly what the Afghans need.)

Thats the only thing i've heard from the other side that has some credibilty. Though indoctrinating is probably an exaggeration, maybe something more along the lines of the relations we have with the Nepalese army.

Originally Posted by Tronic

The Indian military was running a hospital on the Afghan-Tajik border in the 90s in support of Massoud; that it's role in today's Afghanistan should inevitably be much greater, is a no brainer. More so, since the Indian government has spent billions in Afghanistan, and wouldn't mind spending a couple billion more if it keeps the Talibunnies out.

Arms, finances and military advisers.

Aswell as cultivating strong Iranian, Tajik and Uzbek channels in support of the GoA.

ok, i suppose there's nothing to stop more engagement but it will be limited by logistics.

Originally Posted by Tronic

I hope the Indian government is not of your view and takes the initiative rather than wait for the world.

There are still two years left to come up with a plan.

Whats coloured my impression of the outcome is Davis article that S-2 posted. Where will the afghan national army be after 2014. Its going to be divided between the two main factions who will duke it out for supremacy or failing that agree to some sort of stalemate. There is the potential for unrest, everything is up in the air. We were counting on the US leaving Afghanistan in a stable configuration without the Taliban in charge, thats looking increasingly unlikely at the moment. It feels like the calm before the storm. Whats worse is that its almost like the US never even went there.

We've never had relations with the Taliban who were recognised by just three countries. Do you see the different variables that have to be juggled here. None of which add up to much.

Parthasaraty's article is a little more on the level. At least he admits we have a deadline. The Telegraph article posted earlier said we cut imports by 3-4%, he goes further saying..

Anticipating the tightening of sanctions on Iran's oil exports, India has worked to quietly reduce its exposure to Iranian oil imports, which are likely to fall to an estimated 13 million tonnes in this financial year, from 21.2 million tonnes barely two years ago.

No idea what that is in barrels, but its a halving of sorts, there is a trend and January could be seen as a glitch. He also goes on to say..

The Americans cannot claim to be our “strategic partners” on the one hand while undermining our energy security on the other. Moreover, given the uncertainties on American policies in Afghanistan, Iran, which is our primary gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, will remain a crucial partner for facilitating access to and safeguarding our interests in Afghanistan.

So he also gives a nod to the govts spin. American sanctions waver is only for 6 months. We're going to need more time.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

No military victory but its not like the Taliban are going to dissapear back into the dust of history are they. So its a PR win by default. Do you underestimate this ?

The road to Kabul is still quite a far place away for the Taliban, so their PR victory will have to be short lived, I'm afraid.

The game changer is still the ANA. Despite all the pundits and their predictions, the real test of the ANA is still to come.

And now there is secret dealing between the US & the Taliban. They are trying to work out an arrangement. But as troungs article showed any agreed upon arrangement is not going to be worth much in the future. So we are left with a country divided into two wth the Taliban on the one side and the NA on the other.

Northern Alliance does not exist anymore.

I don’t get why you are waiting for another Northern Alliance when there is already a central Government of Afghanistan in place? Sort of counter-productive, don’t you think?

You misunderstand, they're always going on about how we are stacking the deck against them there, this was what i got out of one of his interviews.

The Pakistanis have completely opposite goals and interests than us, so I don’t see why you emphasize an importance there?

Thats the only thing i've heard from the other side that has some credibilty. Though indoctrinating is probably an exaggeration, maybe something more along the lines of the relations we have with the Nepalese army.

And how exactly are you gauging this “credibility”?

Infact, I think Musharaf is just being his old snakey self and its pretty foolish for someone to suggest that India goes to Afghanistan and “indoctrinates” Afghanis. Musharaf is just playing to the Pakistani audience; one who is not used to seeing their own shortcomings, rather blaming them onto other nations. (Afghans distrust Pakistan because of its actions, not due to any “Indian indoctrination”).

ok, i suppose there's nothing to stop more engagement but it will be limited by logistics.

Channeling funds, weapons and advisors does not require a large logistic trail. Infact, more so, when Afghanistan’s other neighbours have a history of doing the same. Except for the Pakistanis, each one of Afghanistan’s neighbours is anti-Taliban.

There are still two years left to come up with a plan.

Maybe, the plan has already been sketched. Maybe it’s already been put into action. Maybe it hasn't. We won't know for a long long time to come.

Whats coloured my impression of the outcome is Davis article that S-2 posted. Where will the afghan national army be after 2014. Its going to be divided between the two main factions who will duke it out for supremacy or failing that agree to some sort of stalemate. There is the potential for unrest, everything is up in the air. We were counting on the US leaving Afghanistan in a stable configuration without the Taliban in charge, thats looking increasingly unlikely at the moment. It feels like the calm before the storm. Whats worse is that its almost like the US never even went there.

Extremely pessimistic view.

For starters, the US isn’t really going anywhere.

Secondly, nor me, nor you can actually guage what the Indian government "has in mind", or what the GoI is actually "counting" on.

I trust that the men in power understand the situation in Afghanistan far better than any of us here. We are only feeding off the tid bits falling out now and than; there is no one with a more clearer picture of the situation than the chaps in power.

If we are talking about making arrangements after NATO forces, their think tanks are most likely in a much more advanced stage analyzing all the scenarios.

Originally Posted by Tronic

The road to Kabul is still quite a far place away for the Taliban, so their PR victory will have to be short lived, I'm afraid.

The game changer is still the ANA. Despite all the pundits and their predictions, the real test of the ANA is still to come.

True but how promising does it look ?

Originally Posted by Tronic

Northern Alliance does not exist anymore.

I don’t get why you are waiting for another Northern Alliance when there is already a central Government of Afghanistan in place? Sort of counter-productive, don’t you think?

If the taliban can get things done out of earhsot of the ISAF today, what more will the ANA be able to do tomorrow ?

The Taliban will remain potent insurgents for a long time to come. Is that what you're saying. As opposed to overcoming the ANA and marching to Kabul within five years. Its just that after being hammered by the americans for so long the Taliban still persist, their leader remains free and one thinks if you remove ISAF the Taliban get the elan required to take Kabul.

Originally Posted by Tronic

The Pakistanis have completely opposite goals and interests than us, so I don’t see why you emphasize an importance there?

No importance is implied, just threw that in.

Originally Posted by Tronic

And how exactly are you gauging this “credibility”?

By comparing it to another more oft mentioned, even more fantastic canard -- we are supporting Balochi insurgency or whatever other insurgency through our numerous consulates in Afg.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Infact, I think Musharaf is just being his old snakey self and its pretty foolish for someone to suggest that India goes to Afghanistan and “indoctrinates” Afghanis. Musharaf is just playing to the Pakistani audience; one who is not used to seeing their own shortcomings, rather blaming them onto other nations. (Afghans distrust Pakistan because of its actions, not due to any “Indian indoctrination”).

Perhaps but the interview was on Indian tv. We aren't going to Afg btw, rather the Afghans are coming to India for training.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Channeling funds, weapons and advisors does not require a large logistic trail. Infact, more so, when Afghanistan’s other neighbours have a history of doing the same. Except for the Pakistanis, each one of Afghanistan’s neighbours is anti-Taliban.

Yes and this points to a new civil war, the old NA gets back together and its back to the same old.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Extremely pessimistic view.

Yeah a very resounding slap at the adminstrations efforts to date.

Bear in mind where it appeared, the AFJ. There have been loads of reports over the years from various sources saying pretty much the same but for some reason they always fell short, one could never be sure if they were against the war or the americans. They never had the imprimatur this report has. Straight form the horse's mouth.

Originally Posted by Tronic

For starters, the US isn’t really going anywhere.

Thats what i read as well, they would like to have a base there and expand influence in the region. Right at the outset i remember senator mccain saying they would be there for a long time, no time frame mentioned. Whether the american public will allow a longer stay remains to be seen. The AFJ report will question that rationale much harder now.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Secondly, nor me, nor you can actually guage what the Indian government "has in mind", or what the GoI is actually "counting" on.

I trust that the men in power understand the situation in Afghanistan far better than any of us here. We are only feeding off the tid bits falling out now and than; there is no one with a more clearer picture of the situation than the chaps in power

Sure, but i don't think what i've said is far off the mark. The persistance of the Taliban has thrown a wrench into the thinking. Time to reassess

S-2's being ranting on about the situation since 2007, that AFJ report has vindicated his efforts. He's not in the club either. All we can do is make educated guesses here, always interesting to see how far off the mark or not they are.

Originally Posted by Tronic

If we are talking about making arrangements after NATO forces, their think tanks are most likely in a much more advanced stage analyzing all the scenarios.

Hopefully we will get to explore this more in your new thread.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

True but how promising does it look ?

Depends whose looking.

If the taliban can get things done out of earhsot of the ISAF today, what more will the ANA be able to do tomorrow ?

The Taliban will remain potent insurgents for a long time to come. Is that what you're saying. As opposed to overcoming the ANA and marching to Kabul within five years. Its just that after being hammered by the americans for so long the Taliban still persist, their leader remains free and one thinks if you remove ISAF the Taliban get the elan required to take Kabul.

Is it the Taliban which still persists or the Pak army?

It's ANA's home country, not ISAF's.

ANA can connect with the people; ISAF are seen as foreigners. Big difference.

The ANA's shortcomings need to be addressed; let's see how India fares here.

Besides, Last I checked in the polls, the Afghans are still not too enthusiastic about the Taliban.

As for Davis's article, he constantly keeps giving an example of the ANP. As far as I see it, ANP is nothing more than a poorly trained militia force. It is absurd asking them to mount patrols and take on the Taliban!

It is akin to asking the Kashmiri Village Defence Committees to go on patrol and tackle the cross border militants! The VDCs play a very important part, no doubt, but once the first shot is fired, it is the Indian army hunting for the insurgents, not the VDC! I find it ridiculous to expect the ANP to do the ANA's job.

We aren't going to Afg btw, rather the Afghans are coming to India for training.

Much easier bringing cadets to a Military Academy than it is taking a military academy over to the cadets.

And if in any way you are inferring that India will not/does not have a presence in Afghanistan; I point you towards the Indian Border Roads Organization where Indian military engineers have been operating in some of the deadliest and remotest regions of Afghanistan for nearly a decade.

Yes and this points to a new civil war, the old NA gets back together and its back to the same old.

You're stuck on the NA.

Think of the ANA as the NA, if it helps.

Yeah a very resounding slap at the adminstrations efforts to date.

Bear in mind where it appeared, the AFJ. There have been loads of reports over the years from various sources saying pretty much the same but for some reason they always fell short, one could never be sure if they were against the war or the americans. They never had the imprimatur this report has. Straight form the horse's mouth.

There are severe deficiencies in Afghanistan, no one is denying that. Where we disagree upon is, you are calling it quits, and rolling over simply because the Americans are leaving. I'm merely suggesting that this is just the start of the real Afghanistan-Taliban war.

The reports from the field are from an American view, not an Indian. America has shed much blood and is questioning why it should stay. Reasonably, they have grown tired of the war. India does not share that same weariness.

Besides, no one on this board has even slightly suggested that America can't set things right in Afghanistan; but, everyone agrees that America's policies in Afghanistan were deeply flawed.

India's strategy in Afghanistan is not the American.

Thats what i read as well, they would like to have a base there and expand influence in the region. Right at the outset i remember senator mccain saying they would be there for a long time, no time frame mentioned. Whether the american public will allow a longer stay remains to be seen. The AFJ report will question that rationale much harder now.

The general American public won't even realize US still has a presence after 2014.

Sure, but i don't think what i've said is far off the mark. The persistance of the Taliban has thrown a wrench into the thinking. Time to reassess

Into whose thinking? America's? or India's?

Originally Posted by Tronic

Depends whose looking.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Is it the Taliban which still persists or the Pak army?

Both, with the latter being the more enduring but here i realise the starting point of how you think about this.

Originally Posted by Tronic

It's ANA's home country, not ISAF's.

ANA can connect with the people; ISAF are seen as foreigners. Big difference.

The ANA's shortcomings need to be addressed; let's see how India fares here.

Besides, Last I checked in the polls, the Afghans are still not too enthusiastic about the Taliban.

As for Davis's article, he constantly keeps giving an example of the ANP. As far as I see it, ANP is nothing more than a poorly trained militia force. It is absurd asking them to mount patrols and take on the Taliban!

It is akin to asking the Kashmiri Village Defence Committees to go on patrol and tackle the cross border militants! The VDCs play a very important part, no doubt, but once the first shot is fired, it is the Indian army hunting for the insurgents, not the VDC! I find it ridiculous to expect the ANP to do the ANA's job.

Much easier bringing cadets to a Military Academy than it is taking a military academy over to the cadets.

Here we go, you're viewing this as a future insurgency to be dealt with COIN rather than the possibility of a civil war. This puts an entirely different spin on things and changes the potential outcome from bleak to perhaps manageable. Your frame of reference is the Kashmir insurgency and the common actor is the Pak army. This is why i think you mentioned them as early in your post.

3 essential components required for successful COIN -- political will, budget & manpower.

McChrystal's acrimonious parting of ways suggests that the political will was not present to allow him to do his job. Political will in a nutshell is the main reason the american effort was not more successful. It just wasn't politically acceptable to adopt policies that would have allowed their forces to succeed.

But the political will be present with the Afghan administration, the budget will be provided for by the various mining deals, further supplemented by interested powers and we will train the manpower.

There is more than just COIN though, the Afghans have to learn how to take back their country and run it more effectively. The main point in our favour is the Afghans want us to help them.

Originally Posted by Tronic

And if in any way you are inferring that India will not/does not have a presence in Afghanistan; I point you towards the Indian Border Roads Organization where Indian military engineers have been operating in some of the deadliest and remotest regions of Afghanistan for nearly a decade.

Good, so we can maintain a small but essential footprint in Afg, if necessary.

Originally Posted by Tronic

You're stuck on the NA.

Think of the ANA as the NA, if it helps.

Done

Originally Posted by Tronic

There are severe deficiencies in Afghanistan, no one is denying that. Where we disagree upon is, you are calling it quits, and rolling over simply because the Americans are leaving. I'm merely suggesting that this is just the start of the real Afghanistan-Taliban war.

The reports from the field are from an American view, not an Indian. America has shed much blood and is questioning why it should stay. Reasonably, they have grown tired of the war. India does not share that same weariness.

India's strategy in Afghanistan is not the American.

Right

Originally Posted by Tronic

Besides, no one on this board has even slightly suggested that America can't set things right in Afghanistan; but, everyone agrees that America's policies in Afghanistan were deeply flawed.

And they can keep on arguing ability vs delivery till the cows come home but for all intents & purposes the west is done in Afg and currently looking for the right exit strategy.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Into whose thinking? America's? or India's?

India's, but your previous post is making me rethink all that now

"S-2's being ranting on about the situation since 2007..."

Hopefully between my fits of temper there's been the occasional lucid thought or two.

Off topic but both sides will have to accomodate a long-view to any U.S.-Indian strategic partnership. It's in the interests of both countries that relations both expand and gain depth. India's energy policy, right now, appears acquisitive. Forgive me but, in short, energy-whores.

That's o.k. Most of us that seriously study this get it. As such, we won't see eye-to-eye on Iran. You can't for two reasons. Regardless of available energy elsewhere, Iranian energy is nearby and they'll be selling at bargain prices during the near term. Iran selling energy on the cheap, btw, doesn't necessarily conflict with our sanctions. Clearly their crude isn't pulling anywhere near top-dollar because they're leveraged.

That's not a sustainable policy, however, and might quite likely create Iranian resentment. India must tread more carefully than China on that matter because the REAL goal is development of Chabahar as a terminus for CAR minerals and energy. That requires Indian development/security money AND BLOOD expended in Afghanistan to link CAR to the Chabahar port.

Oh yeah. If you're counting on the afghans to secure your investments without your own very active presence? Forget it. Opportunism dominates their thinking as much as it might your's. It'll take a very sophisticated and extensive presence by India in Afghanistan to secure, long-term, those ambitions.

In effect, you'll be replacing the ISAF effort to transform Afghanistan because you'll only achieve your objectives with true stability there. That will only occur by a transformation of the social and cultural ambitions that, heretofore, have largely rested on petty larceny, brigandry, tribal feudalism and corruption at every official level.

That's the price for playing top-dog in a shitty neighborhood.

OR...India can take a more global perspective, recognize the costs associated with development of CAR (hardly where it needs to be and nearly as bad as Afghanistan in every other respect) and Afghanistan, recognize that Iran doesn't hold every drop of oil and nat'l gas below the ground and that other locations far more stable may offer greater long-term stability for far less long-term cost.

When India factors the degree of difficulty in developing and maintaining CAR/Afghanistan/Iran and adds that to the price of oil at the well-head, there may be cheaper and more stable alternatives. Example-is there any reason a pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia might only serve the PRC's energy needs? Is there some reason that India should take a backseat to the PRC there? I guarantee that B.C. energy is closer and cheaper than you might imagine and CAR/Iranian energy might be further upon closer inspection.

S-2,

India's infrastructure and industry is not sufficiently developed to do what you are suggesting. For better or worse, India is stuck with the Iran option if India wants to pursue a secured energy option.