Jihadi ambassador is back with another Jihad article. Endgame in Afghanistan
Two things in the article that is worth noticing amidst all the crap ISI mercenary failed country rhetoric:
#1. Khalilzad’s talk or fight rhetoric in Kabul may not be all bluster.
#2. US may revert to more aggressive options eg privatising the war, as recommended by ex-Blackwater’s Erik Prince; installing a hardliner like Hanif Atmar in Kabul to continue the fight.
From the noise coming in, Atmar is pro-talks, and I don't really understand the endgame from his POV. His pro-Russia credentials are all over the place, and anyone not pro-Terroristan, oops, Pakistan, is what the PA(ISI) fears. Maybe, he's not pro-talks afterall, why else will he split his loyalty with both Karzai and Ghani, to that of Afghanistan(maybe). Pro-talks has become a dirty word in Afghanistan, it means letting Afghanistan slip into terrorist ranks controlled, aided, abetted by Pakistan.
US wants a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. Trump wants a cheap way out. There's no cheap way out, unless Pak is tamed, purged of its terrorist/hawala/narcotics infrastructure. That can only happen, when bold risks are taken. That bold risk is bombing Pakistan so very badly that not a single blade of grass grows there for the next 50 years. US has very potent hard power, it should use it, not whine later, as it is doing now after 17 lost years.
N.B.: All ex-KHAD/KGB, anti-Taliban people in Afghanistan has been shown the door from time to time. Saleh, Atmar, many more whose names remain in the shadows.
Reminder: Pervez Musharraf once threatened Saleh physically and told Karzai 'Why have you have brought this Panjshiri guy to teach me intelligence?', when Saleh suggested that Usama Bin Laden was hiding in some prominent part of Pakistan. That came true on the intervening night of 01/02-May-2011, when Usama Bin Laden was bitch-slapped by US Navy Seals.
Two things in the article that is worth noticing amidst all the crap ISI mercenary failed country rhetoric:
#1. Khalilzad’s talk or fight rhetoric in Kabul may not be all bluster.
#2. US may revert to more aggressive options eg privatising the war, as recommended by ex-Blackwater’s Erik Prince; installing a hardliner like Hanif Atmar in Kabul to continue the fight.
From the noise coming in, Atmar is pro-talks, and I don't really understand the endgame from his POV. His pro-Russia credentials are all over the place, and anyone not pro-Terroristan, oops, Pakistan, is what the PA(ISI) fears. Maybe, he's not pro-talks afterall, why else will he split his loyalty with both Karzai and Ghani, to that of Afghanistan(maybe). Pro-talks has become a dirty word in Afghanistan, it means letting Afghanistan slip into terrorist ranks controlled, aided, abetted by Pakistan.
US wants a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. Trump wants a cheap way out. There's no cheap way out, unless Pak is tamed, purged of its terrorist/hawala/narcotics infrastructure. That can only happen, when bold risks are taken. That bold risk is bombing Pakistan so very badly that not a single blade of grass grows there for the next 50 years. US has very potent hard power, it should use it, not whine later, as it is doing now after 17 lost years.
N.B.: All ex-KHAD/KGB, anti-Taliban people in Afghanistan has been shown the door from time to time. Saleh, Atmar, many more whose names remain in the shadows.
Reminder: Pervez Musharraf once threatened Saleh physically and told Karzai 'Why have you have brought this Panjshiri guy to teach me intelligence?', when Saleh suggested that Usama Bin Laden was hiding in some prominent part of Pakistan. That came true on the intervening night of 01/02-May-2011, when Usama Bin Laden was bitch-slapped by US Navy Seals.
Comment