Page 18 of 27 FirstFirst ... 9101112131415161718192021222324252627 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 402

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
    777
    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; 21 Feb 18, at 07:47.

  2. #257
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    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
    777
    No, I'm confusing western names again.

    It was kennedy, 1962

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

  4. #259
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,323
    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
    7,626
    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. China, Iran & Russia working with the Taliban. Why ? they must believe the Taliban will return to power one day and for now none of the three is against that idea. Doesn't mean they will enable it, just that they may not protest too loudly

    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.

    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; 21 Feb 18, at 21:44.

  6. #261
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,323
    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
    7,626
    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 breakout in the 80s. The Paks were promoting insurgencies but our hands were tied to a certain extent as the US shielded them long enough to have some sort of nuke deterrent.

    This is when you hear vocal US support for Kashmir etc. US keeps up these pretences through the 80s & 90s. We hear less from the aughts onwards. Why ? Paks already crossed the breakout bridge

    Now the US nuke deal happens. Why facilitate an exclusive nuke deal if US ostensibly is a Pak ally in the first place.

    So whether this former Kashmir policy still holds today is up for debate. Thing is we haven't tested the Americans on this yet. Piss them off and see what they do ? So you could argue either way i suppose

    Maybe this is why India never tried to regain POK. There was some sort of barrier there, either in '65 or '71

    This ploy of a weaker power catalysing a superpower to intervene on it's behalf isn't new. The Israeli's did it in the '73 war using the threat of breakout. Idea is US intervenes in exchange for not breaking out. A variant without nukes of this idea was mentioned in a book about Sadat if you check the books section
    Last edited by Double Edge; 22 Feb 18, at 23:13.

  8. #263
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    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.
    You forget that Afghanistan was used as a base of operations to attack the US 5 times (Khobar Towers, US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzinia, USS COLE, and 11 September) and the reason why Al Qaida was able to do this was that they worked without interference being protected by the Taliban.

    It would be completely idiotic to allow another terror group to set up another base of operations against the US.

  9. #264
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,819
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    You forget that Afghanistan was used as a base of operations to attack the US 5 times (Khobar Towers, US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzinia, USS COLE, and 11 September) and the reason why Al Qaida was able to do this was that they worked without interference being protected by the Taliban.

    It would be completely idiotic to allow another terror group to set up another base of operations against the US.
    A guy who had ideas for attacks lived there. People can have ideas from anywhere. Operational and logistical support took place elsewhere. Karachi and Hamburg come more prominently to mind.

  10. #265
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    Yes, and he freely issued his orders from Afghanistan without interference, transferring money as needed, without the need to hide his communications nor worried about being hunted and move everynight. He had an active and protected HQ.

  11. #266
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,626
    French agree

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Serval

    Operation Serval (french for a species of wild cat) was a French military operation in Mali. The aim of the operation was to oust Islamic militants from the north of Mali, who had begun a push into the center of Mali.

    This then leads to

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane

    The operation is "to become the French pillar of counterterrorism in the Sahel region." According to French Defence Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, the main objective of Operation Barkhane is counter-terrorism: "The aim is to prevent what I call the highway of all forms of traffics to become a place of permanent passage, where jihadist groups between Libya and the Atlantic Ocean can rebuild themselves, which would lead to serious consequences for our security." French President, François Hollande, has said the Barkhane force will allow for a "rapid and efficient intervention in the event of a crisis" in the region.

    The operation will target Islamist extremists in Mali, Chad and Niger, and will have a mandate to operate across borders.
    Which sounds pretty similar to what the US intends to do in Afghanistan

    The ongoing operations against IS in Iraq & Syria is another

    The idea is to ensure ungoverned spaces do not remain that way
    Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Feb 18, at 20:51.

  12. #267
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,819
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Yes, and he freely issued his orders from Afghanistan without interference, transferring money as needed, without the need to hide his communications nor worried about being hunted and move everynight. He had an active and protected HQ.
    With Pakistani acquiescence and support, which they continue to do.

  13. #268
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    With Pakistani acquiescence and support, which they continue to do.
    Which plays to our advantage. The more they try to keep the Taliban in Taliban Afghanistan, the more the TTP becomes stronger and the more unstable the entire region would be.

    We've given up civilizing Afghanistan but we can make it too unstable for anyone to set up shop.

  14. #269
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,626
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Which plays to our advantage. The more they try to keep the Taliban in Taliban Afghanistan, the more the TTP becomes stronger and the more unstable the entire region would be.
    How does keeping Taliban in Afghanistan make the TTP stronger ?

  15. #270
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    The drug trade. Pakistan got the infrastructure to get the drugs out to the world.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 8 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Oregon Stimulus plan miserable failure
    By highsea in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 17 Mar 10,, 04:13
  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,, 15:16
  3. Bush's Intelligence Overhaul a `Failure
    By Ray in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02 Feb 07,, 05:20
  4. Reid branded 'an enemy of Islam' during speech
    By Parihaka in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21 Sep 06,, 05:34
  5. 15 year old boy branded by employer
    By platinum786 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04 Jun 06,, 01:26

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
  •