Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 9101112131415161718
Results 256 to 262 of 262

Thread: US plan to improve Afghan intelligence operations branded a $457m failure

  1. #256
    Senior Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by PeeCoffee View Post
    I believe American forward-thinking was to pal up with Pakistan to keep Chinese and/ or Russian ambitions at bay.
    This has been already explained before.

    The pakistanis were put under American umbrella under kennedys presidency. Truman sent the Pakistanis a secret letter assuring the Pakistanis. In 1971, when India was about to invade Pakistan under Soviet umbrella, the Americans revealed the letter to the soviets. The soviets told India to halt.

    Now, what caused the Americans to reveal their cards?
    It was China.

    The americans asked the Chinese to invade India in 1971 but the Chinese refused citing Soviet invasion in the north.

    Bangladesh was created in 1971 by breaking Pakistan(the state that was under Americas umbrella). Imagine the outrage.

    In 1972, Nixon had no choice but to befriend the Chinese, with Pakistan as the liaison. The Americans began to position the Chinese as a counter-balance to the soviets. The Chinese understood it but they also recognised an opportunity. The positioning allowed China to get access to American technology and it used it to build it commerical and military industrial complex for the next 20-30 years.

    Here was the problem. The Chinese were not suckers. The Russians were never on their radar compared to the west. The Chinese had already made up their mind. They would rather ally with Russia to challenge the wests access to global resources.
    Last edited by anil; Today at 08:47.

  2. #257
    Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    The pakistanis were put under American umbrella under Trumans presidency. Truman sent the Pakistanis a secret letter assuring the Pakistanis. In 1971, when India was about to invade Pakistan under Soviet umbrella, the Americans revealed the letter to the soviets.
    Did you mean Nixon? Truman was out of Office in 1971.

  3. #258
    Senior Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    762
    No, I'm confusing western names again.

    It was kennedy, 1962

    https://history.state.gov/historical...961-63v19/d100

  4. #259
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    I really don't mind if we'd pull out and just let the Iranians, Pakistanis, and the Russians jockey and fight over it. That would be the silver lining. A strategic vacuum that would suck them in, keep them busy against each other, allowing Afghanistan to be a major source of tension and conflict between them. That's my realpolitik view.

    Pakistan has been double dealing on us since 2001, allowing logistical transit in exchange for economic and military aid, while at the same time tolerating and supporting the terrorist groups in Afghanistan, compelling us to continue to commit to staying there and thus keep up this farce of an arrangement. It's a vicious cycle, and quite frankly, I'm sick of it. India holds a world of promise for us as an ally, while Pakistan has nothing to offer.
    I have argued the same thing here before. Pak terrorism is what keeps the US engaged in this region, while US continues to reward Pak. But, if US pulls out, out of job abduls will be moved to the LoC between India & Pak, Kashmir becomes a flashpoint, and US will get dragged in again. Unless US puts Pak on a terror list, heavily sanctions its mil and intelligence apparatus, puts boot on the ground in Afghanistan, this wrangling would continue.

    You probably forgot to mention China. Think of forcing Pak change, by making China behave.

  5. #260
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    I really don't mind if we'd pull out and just let the Iranians, Pakistanis, and the Russians jockey and fight over it. That would be the silver lining. A strategic vacuum that would suck them in, keep them busy against each other, allowing Afghanistan to be a major source of tension and conflict between them. That's my realpolitik view.
    That's been the board's view for the last five years. Then Obama announces a pullout and what you said was to commence after 2015. I put myself on the opposite side of that argument as i didn't think chaos there would be conducive to stability of the region.

    If it is allowed to happen. China would support the Pak view and the Taliban would become dominant. Chinese would then cut a deal with the Taliban. Russia didn't have a problem with the Taliban back in 90s. They still do not, instead they think its IS that is the problem. Amrullah Saleh has scoffed at this distinction. But the Paks seem to have convinced the Russians to leave the Taliban alone.

    The Iranians were helpful in 2001. I'm not sure whether they still hold that anti-Taliban view or not. They've been working with the Taliban in some ways as well. In any case they've worked with the Russians in Syria. They would do the same here and reach an accommodation. So Afghanistan's neighbours have been planning for a while in anticipation of a US exit from Afghanistan.

    Would there be a fight then at all ? If the Paks get what they want and that isn't against the others then that is the solution that will materialise.

    Paks could have chosen any Afghan group to promote their interests but they cultivated the religious nutjob Taliban on purpose. India isn't the problem, the Pashtuns are. Paks are afraid that they could lose territory to some ethno-linguistic difference like occurred in 1971. The Pashtuns don't care for the Durand line. So the Paks are now trying to fence it.

    The Taliban with their brand of religion helps offset differences like this.


    Pakistan has been double dealing on us since 2001, allowing logistical transit in exchange for economic and military aid, while at the same time tolerating and supporting the terrorist groups in Afghanistan, compelling us to continue to commit to staying there and thus keep up this farce of an arrangement. It's a vicious cycle, and quite frankly, I'm sick of it. India holds a world of promise for us as an ally, while Pakistan has nothing to offer.
    Why aren't you supporting your govt's current stand then ? it seems a severely understaffed state dept has allowed for a moment of clarity when it comes to Afpak. The old hands cultivated by the Paks are no longer able to act as spoilers to US policy for the region. The commentators are still there but the people that matter ie in the WH are a new breed. This is the objective of those that voted Trump in. Kick out the establishment, tame the deep state and enact a regime change. Drain the swamp that DC has become. MAGA. It's an aspiration.

    What is the US still doing in Afghanistan ? trying to forestall a Taliban win at which point the question what good was the war becomes even more pertinent than right now. Building up the Afghan air force will do that. Too bad there are Russian sanctions otherwise sponsoring purchases of Russian materiel would have been effective here and cheaper

    the CT story is US will esconce there for the next hundred years as Afghanistan's unique position allows to meddle with Iran, Russia & China. Thing is i've never seen any evidence of US doing this since 2001

    Markey's article some pages back suggested the US didn't know how to leave and was looking for an honourable way out. Now is not the time to be developing cold feet.
    Last edited by Double Edge; Today at 16:42.

  6. #261
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,584
    Quote Originally Posted by PeeCoffee View Post
    Afghanistan is Islamic...same as Pakistan. Welcome to the brotherhood.

    India is predominantly Hindu.

    Both are jacked with nuclear arsenals.

    I believe American forward-thinking was to pal up with Pakistan to keep Chinese and/ or Russian ambitions at bay.

    Paling up with India will swiftly drag the US in once India and Pakistan start seriously swinging for the fences at each other.
    Kashmir aspirations could light that tinder-box off in a heartbeat.

    Think back to the last time that kettle heated up. Just saying.
    India is secular and so are its Defense Forces, and Cold Start has been discussed even recently, as a war with Pak under a nuclear overhang i.e. the Indian Army expects to fight a war with Pak, with Pak nukes coming into the picture, and secure the OPOBJ. And, in no scenario does Pak win a war against India according to some uncle there in US. ;-))

    W.r.t Kashmir, US policy has not changed. What has changed is US has stopped talking about it. We'd like the US to stay out, since they have been since the 90s. And if it is not too much to ask, not to meddle in Indo-Pak affairs i.e calling for calm, strategic restraint etc. We can take care of Pak on our own and I believe that Indians can re-write history much like 71', again, with or without Pak nukes in the scene, with China backing the terrorist state.

  7. #262
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    W.r.t Kashmir, US policy has not changed. What has changed is US has stopped talking about it. We'd like the US to stay out, since they have been since the 90s. And if it is not too much to ask, not to meddle in Indo-Pak affairs i.e calling for calm, strategic restraint etc. We can take care of Pak on our own and I believe that Indians can re-write history much like 71', again, with or without Pak nukes in the scene, with China backing the terrorist state.
    Am starting to believe the Paks forced the US to intervene on their side by threatening to go nuclear in the 80s. This is when you see US support for Kashmir etc. Well, US kept up that pretence through the 80s & 90s. Whether that policy still holds today is up for debate. We heard less about this from the aughts onwards. Though Trudeau's behaviour recently pushes against the grain.

    This ploy of catalysing a superpower to intervene on one's behalf isn't new. The Israeli's did it in the '73 war as well

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Oregon Stimulus plan miserable failure
    By highsea in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 17 Mar 10,, 05:13
  2. Afghan and U.S. Officials Plan to Recruit Local Militias
    By 1980s in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24 Dec 08,, 16:16
  3. Bush's Intelligence Overhaul a `Failure
    By Ray in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02 Feb 07,, 06:20
  4. Reid branded 'an enemy of Islam' during speech
    By Parihaka in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21 Sep 06,, 06:34
  5. 15 year old boy branded by employer
    By platinum786 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04 Jun 06,, 02:26

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •