Page 8 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 337

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

  1. #106
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Pressure was applied to get Pak's unconditional cooperation. Once obtained everything else they did was considered secondary

    Cooperate against the soviets, allowed to develop a nuke program, proliferate it and use out of work militants in Kashmir
    Cooperate in GWOT, allowed to harbour militants, OBL included

    Question is what price will the Paks extract for unconditional cooperation against sanctuaries ?

    They will insist in a say on how the afghan govt is constituted. They need a govt that is dependent on them to feel secure. How do they get that without the Taliban.

    Thing is everybody in the region except India is expecting to cut a deal with the Taliban.


    Thinking China. CPEC and militants don't mix


    What correlation do you see ?

    This is just grandstanding in public, we don't know what gets said in private


    I don't exactly understand what happens to these outfits once they get into politics. They have never done well there which is why they use the bullet

    Article i posted insisted they be disarmed before, in other words they will have to forswear violence. If not then that will have a corrosive effect on Pak polity


    As a result of Pak support to get China into the UNSC, the Chinese cooperated in their nuke program. Give them many things and asked for nothing.

    Pakistan lobby in the US is weaker after OBL was found in Abottabad. Do you really think Congress will stop Trump if he wants to sanction Pakistan ?

    Given Trump isn't a fork tongued establishment type, there is a good chance he will follow through with what he says. Unless the Paks can cut a deal, but they will need to pay up, where are those funds coming from.

    The Paks have till Feb to comply, we will see what happens after
    Giving up on terrorism means giving up the only thing for which Pak is known worldwide, in a certain way ofcourse. Giving it up means less leverage in Pak and on its neighbours. Thus losing control of the economy. Why would the PA do that? Terrorism is business, if you remember.

    I also feel not putting Indian boots on the ground in Afghanistan is a wrong move. If for nothing else, it would have spooked the Paks and the Chinese. We could have negotiated with the Afghans and put a squadron of IAF jets there. India should have gone in for the squeeze.

  2. #107
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,722
    DE, what you call mainstreaming of terrorist groups such as LeT, is a farce to throw the American hounds off-track. If pushed, the Paks would probably sell Afghan Taliban/Haqqanis to save terrorist groups that create problems in Kashmir and India as a whole.

    #1. Selling out Afghan facing groups restores a bit of credibility, possibly setting in motion USAID (civilian & military).
    #2. Future use of Kashmir facing groups to create nuisance in India, and gain control of Afghanistan when the US finally leaves.
    #3. The Pak army retains its dominance over Pak. This is the dominant agenda for which #1, #2 might come into play.

  3. #108
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Giving up on terrorism means giving up the only thing for which Pak is known worldwide, in a certain way ofcourse. Giving it up means less leverage in Pak and on its neighbours. Thus losing control of the economy. Why would the PA do that? Terrorism is business, if you remember.
    That is the great Pak dilemma. Terrorism under a nuclear umbrella is a strategic imperative they have employed in a futile attempt to have some sort of parity with India. The longer they keep the conflict up, the longer hyphenation gets entrenched. They hope so anyway in the interests of their ideology and self worth

    Going forward how do they attempt to keep up when India is growing and in a decades time will be even further ahead. Terrorism alone isn't going to change the growing imbalance, at most it can annoy and infuriate. Terrorism isn't working and never worked to compel India to acquiesce, if anything it stiffened state resolve to go hammer and tongs at the problem. India wants a ratification of the status quo from the Paks as condition to peace as the bigger party and sees no need to give in to Pak demands. Almost clinched exactly that with Musharaf, they keep pok, agree to the border, give up terrorism and normalise relations. Fell through.

    In the interests of regional stability, if the Paks mis-calibrate then we will march at them. So there is an accident waiting to happen that the US would like to prevent because it will be unpredictable. So the US is more likely to exercise pressure on the Paks than on us

    Recall that since 2001 the US is in the anti-terror business. So terrorism as a legitimate path to political change has been de-legitimised worldwide. A disconnect with Pak strategic imperative from a major partner. How to bridge that from the Pak pov

    The conundrum we hear, this big US problem is how does the US get the Paks to change course. Nothing changed since 2001, why will it now...is the common refrain. Period. End of story...Basically it is the US that will acquesce to the Paks

    But it is the big guy calls the shots whether the Paks like it or not, that is how it goes. Terrorism is no longer a Pak 'role' the US is going to tolerate. So how are the Paks going to continue to defy the US here.

    Right now the US wants to stabilise Afghanistan and then leave.

    Maybe the Paks can rear designer snakes, only bites Indians and not afghans, westerners or Chinese. All their assets will be aimed solely against India alone

    Is that possible ?

    See few lines up about accident waiting to happen....

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I also feel not putting Indian boots on the ground in Afghanistan is a wrong move. If for nothing else, it would have spooked the Paks and the Chinese. We could have negotiated with the Afghans and put a squadron of IAF jets there. India should have gone in for the squeeze.
    Raised that question over ten years ago on Indian boards and the resistance was so stiff that Indian boots in Afghanistan is unlikely in the future for many reasons. Nothing has changed since. Operating plan is cooperate with the northern alliance,

    Iran has anywhere between 10-20k Afghans fighting for them in Syria. When they return back they will be a potent force, hezbollah like. Thats the thing, more Afghans than Hezbllah fighting in Syria
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Oct 17, at 17:26.

  4. #109
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Tillerson - Act against terrorists or we will.

    Pak - We have already done more than any other country on earth. We have lost some gazillion billion dollars and some thousands of Abduls. Do not put your failure in Afghanistan on us. We can do no more. This is not terrorism, this is holy Jihad and it is our foreign policy. Include us in NSG. Don't sell drones to India. HR abuses in Kashmir by Indian security forces.

    China - Everybody needs to appreciate Pak's efforts to tackle terrorism. India stop whining.

    Drones strikes have intensified, so are the attacks on Afghan and its forces by Pak proxies. China is meddling everywhere, but remains unscathed. India has earned the goodwill of the Afghans but is unwilling to put boots on the ground. Meanwhile attacks by Pak based terrorists continue in Kashmir and on the LoC.
    Oppose, disagree in public. For domestic consumption

    Co-operate in private. Pak foreign policy isn't up for domestic public debate

    Will take some careful tracking and reading between the lines to understand the full picture.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Oct 17, at 20:02.

  5. #110
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    DE, what you call mainstreaming of terrorist groups such as LeT, is a farce to throw the American hounds off-track. If pushed, the Paks would probably sell Afghan Taliban/Haqqanis to save terrorist groups that create problems in Kashmir and India as a whole.

    #1. Selling out Afghan facing groups restores a bit of credibility, possibly setting in motion USAID (civilian & military).
    #2. Future use of Kashmir facing groups to create nuisance in India, and gain control of Afghanistan when the US finally leaves.
    #3. The Pak army retains its dominance over Pak. This is the dominant agenda for which #1, #2 might come into play.
    1.Americans want to stabilise Afghanistan so are more interested in curbing taliban and haqqanis than LeT. Possible

    2. Use them at India ? yes

    3. As power imbalance grows between india & Pakistan, the PA becomes ever more powerful at the expense of civilian democracy. Their role in civilians affairs will become even more dominating. Just recently you had ISPR spokesperson talking about economic affairs and other areas that are not military

  6. #111
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    That is the great Pak dilemma. Terrorism under a nuclear umbrella is a strategic imperative they have employed in a futile attempt to have some sort of parity with India. The longer they keep the conflict up, the longer hyphenation gets entrenched. They hope so anyway in the interests of their ideology and self worth

    Going forward how do they attempt to keep up when India is growing and in a decades time will be even further ahead. Terrorism alone isn't going to change the growing imbalance, at most it can annoy and infuriate. Terrorism isn't working and never worked to compel India to acquiesce, if anything it stiffened state resolve to go hammer and tongs at the problem. India wants a ratification of the status quo from the Paks as condition to peace as the bigger party and sees no need to give in to Pak demands. Almost clinched exactly that with Musharaf, they keep pok, agree to the border, give up terrorism and normalise relations. Fell through.

    In the interests of regional stability, if the Paks mis-calibrate then we will march at them. So there is an accident waiting to happen that the US would like to prevent because it will be unpredictable. So the US is more likely to exercise pressure on the Paks than on us

    Recall that since 2001 the US is in the anti-terror business. So terrorism as a legitimate path to political change has been de-legitimised worldwide. A disconnect with Pak strategic imperative from a major partner. How to bridge that from the Pak pov

    The conundrum we hear, this big US problem is how does the US get the Paks to change course. Nothing changed since 2001, why will it now...is the common refrain. Period. End of story...Basically it is the US that will acquesce to the Paks

    But it is the big guy calls the shots whether the Paks like it or not, that is how it goes. Terrorism is no longer a Pak 'role' the US is going to tolerate. So how are the Paks going to continue to defy the US here.

    Right now the US wants to stabilise Afghanistan and then leave.

    Maybe the Paks can rear designer snakes, only bites Indians and not afghans, westerners or Chinese. All their assets will be aimed solely against India alone

    Is that possible ?

    See few lines up about accident waiting to happen....
    Great term. Designer snakes, hahaha!

    What you have said is correct. My issue is what if the Paks agree to US demands and start ops against the Haqqanis, and then an accident happens in some Indian metro. Paks will raise their hands saying those were non-state actors, and force the civilian government to stand infront of US rage telling them to mediate or they scale back their ops and put troops on the border with India. The PA have tried it twice (2001, 2008) and it worked for them. Why do you think it won't work for them this time? Okay, let me put it this way, the PA thinks that terrorism is working for them for decades lining their bank accounts with tens of millions of dollars, why give it up?

    Will the Paks actually bend to US demands? Doing so would mean losing the strategic depth they had for decades, which in their mind works, forget the reputation they have built in the world - TERRORISTAN. The more important question is can the US force a change of track w.r.t to the PAs' state policy of terrorism. China, Iran, Russia all want US to fail in Afghanistan, such is the nature of geo-politics. Pak has already termed US as a loser in Afghanistan. Now where does that leave India? Economically helping the Afghans, ok, my and your tax-dollars are being spent there, fine. But, it was last week that the India built dam was targeted IIRC by the Taliban. So for whatever reason some Indians are celebrating, it is pre-mature to even think of an outcome that would be to our liking. Since independence, this is the first time when India and US' interests mutually converge on almost all strategic issues. Defense, global terrorism, Pak, China. I just can't see where it goes from here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Raised that question over ten years ago on Indian boards and the resistance was so stiff that Indian boots in Afghanistan is unlikely in the future for many reasons. Nothing has changed since. Operating plan is cooperate with the northern alliance,

    Iran has anywhere between 10-20k Afghans fighting for them in Syria. When they return back they will be a potent force, hezbollah like. Thats the thing, more Afghans than Hezbllah fighting in Syria
    Which Indian board? PM me if you can't say it out in the open. We didn't try to recapture Kashmir, instead we went to UN. We stood silently and Tibet was forcefully occupied. We were silent in the 80s. We're silent now. Thinking about becoming a regional power, we are caught up with our silly strategic mistakes. He who doesn't take risks, never wins.

    Btw, there are Pak jihadis fighting too in Syria.

  7. #112
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Oppose, disagree in public

    Co-operate in private

    Pak foreign policy isn't up for domestic public debate
    /\/\ We all know that. I am just not so confident of the outcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    1.Americans want to stabilise Afghanistan so are more interested in curbing taliban and haqqanis than LeT. Possible

    2. Use them at India ? yes

    3. As power imbalance grows between india & Pakistan, the PA becomes ever more powerful at the expense of civilian democracy. Their role in civilians affairs will become even more dominating. Just recently you had ISPR spokesperson talking about economic affairs and other areas that are not military
    So, you actually agreed with my points, or....?

  8. #113
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    So, you actually agreed with my points, or....?
    Agree they might pull their Afghan proxies and direct them towards India. LeT can hold the ghar vapasi do : )

    Even if the Paks acquiesce in Afghanistan things remain the same with India. As the power imbalance grows they are likely to get more aggressive. We have to keep our side up and our responses to whatever comes should be clear

    My issue is what if the Paks agree to US demands and start ops against the Haqqanis, and then an accident happens in some Indian metro. Paks will raise their hands saying those were non-state actors, and force the civilian government to stand infront of US rage telling them to mediate or they scale back their ops and put troops on the border with India. The PA have tried it twice (2001, 2008) and it worked for them. Why do you think it won't work for them this time? Okay, let me put it this way, the PA thinks that terrorism is working for them for decades lining their bank accounts with tens of millions of dollars, why give it up?
    Their India campaigns have progressed in phases

    Punjab in the 80s. Stop

    J&K in the 90s, culminating with Kargil. Stop

    A pan India campaign starting with the parliament attack culminating with 26/11. Stop.
    Both beginning and end of this campaign were sufficient to provoke a reaction. If it worked in 2001 how did it work in 2008 when we didn't react ?
    Also i don't think the aim of the parliament attack was to get out of Afghanistan. 9/11 showed them how to attack India. Had parliament been a one off event then i'd be more inclined to see it that way but as you know it was the start of more attacks to come.

    A few years pass and then they attack the Indian military. This is followed by more infiltration but its J&K only

    You are positing they restart their pan india campaign with the intention of getting off the hook in Afghanistan. Can we think this through

    What is the end result. More pressure on Pakistan and now from a second party.

    What happens if they get declared a state sponsor of terrorism. International sanctions. Can CPEC continue in this environment. All this to protect their proxies ?

    Are there no better options that deliver the same result with less cost. The world only found out Mullah Omar was dead two years later

    http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead...cle7558254.ece

    So if the heads the US wants show up, does it mean the outfits have been disbanded. The Taliban has been through a number of leadership changes already but still exist. So the next test will be about sanctuary

    Which Indian board? PM me if you can't say it out in the open.
    Not defense boards, consumer ones, what the general public thought. Completely averse to the idea of deployments abroad if not wearing a blue helmet

    https://blogs.economictimes.indiatim...o-afghanistan/

    Five reasons in there

    We didn't try to recapture Kashmir, instead we went to UN. We stood silently and Tibet was forcefully occupied. We were silent in the 80s. We're silent now. Thinking about becoming a regional power, we are caught up with our silly strategic mistakes. He who doesn't take risks, never wins.

    Btw, there are Pak jihadis fighting too in Syria.
    see post #76

    India, therefore, has a real interest in these talks, for they involve the future of the South Asian regional order — including Islamabad’s relations with Kabul and Delhi, the Pakistan army’s dominance over the domestic polity and Rawalpindi’s use of terror as an instrument of regional policy. Instead of worrying about “re-hyphenation”, India should focus on shaping the outcomes from the US-Pak negotiations. Whatever the eventual give and take between Washington and Rawalpindi, Delhi has enough room to respond with vigour and confidence to a potentially historic shift in the Subcontinent’s geopolitics.
    Up to india to figure this out. How to shape outcomes from US-Pak negotiations

  9. #114
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,089
    It seems the Haqqanis are having trust issues with their sponsors

    Pakistan’s Strained Alliance With The Haqqani Network | RFERL | Oct 25 2017

    In interviews with RFE/RL’s Gandhara website, well-placed Afghan and Pakistani sources confirmed that, for the first time, tensions and mutual mistrust now mar the clandestine ties.

    “Definitely there are strains in the relationship between Rawalpindi and the Haqqani network,” a Pakistani politician with intimate knowledge of Islamabad’s decade-old covert support for the Afghan insurgent group told Gandhara. Requesting anonymity because discussing such sensitive and previously unreported developments could endanger his security, the politician said key interlocutors in Pakistan’s western Federally Administered Tribal Areas confirmed the tensions, spurred by Islamabad’s repositioning after Washington’s demand to end militant sanctuaries on its territory.

    “Rawalpindi wanted to stagger the network’s operations across the border to avoid U.S. retaliation,” he said.

    The politician said the Haqqanis were roiled over Pakistan’s recent rescue of North American hostages because they had wanted to exchange them for their own imprisoned militants.

    Anas Haqqani, a younger son of Jalaluddin, has been held by the Afghan government since 2014.

    Islamabad’s changing stance has rekindled hopes for cooperation in Kabul.

    Speaking on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media about the issue, an Afghan government adviser acknowledged relations between the Pakistani military and the Haqqanis were strained.

    “Mutual fear and some degree of mistrust have developed between them,” he told Gandhara. “The Haqqanis fear Pakistan might make a compromise [and give them away] while Pakistan fears the Haqqanis could abandon them and instead side with Iran and Russia.”

    Since the withdrawal of most NATO forces in late 2014, Afghan officials and analysts see Tehran and Moscow as extending increasing covert support to the Afghan Taliban.

    The adviser, who is privy to most security-related issues and particularly the Taliban insurgency in his country, warned against reading recent developments as proof that Islamabad would abandon the network it has cherished as an ally through cycles of Afghan war since the 1970s.

    But he says U.S. and international diplomatic pressure on Islamabad and aggressive Afghan and U.S. attacks on the insurgents might prompt the insurgents to take stock.

    “When it comes to survival, it becomes a different consideration,” he said of the Haqqani network’s possible new course.

    In North Waziristan, a beleaguered tribal district serving as the Haqqanis’ de facto headquarters for decades, there are signs of change. The Pakistani politician familiar with recent developments said the Haqqanis are seeking to reclaim old houses in Dande Darpakhel, near regional capital Miran Shah.

    The Haqqanis insisted on retaining their traditional abodes, but Rawalpindi wouldn’t agree,” he said, adding the disagreement is preventing Dande Darpakhel’s displaced residents from returning after a Pakistani military offensive forced them to flee in June 2014. Out of more than 1 million North Waziristan residents displaced, most have already returned.

    At the time, Islamabad claimed thousands of militants were killed in the offensive and their networks crippled. But most militants appear to have survived the operation by moving across the border into Afghanistan or relocating elsewhere in Pakistan. The Haqqani network was seen as simply moving into neighboring Kurram tribal district where their hideouts have been repeatedly targeted in suspected U.S. drone attacks.

  10. #115
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,089
    Weeks, months to deliver...

    Pakistan has weeks, months to deliver, indicates US | Pahjwok | Oct 28 2017

    CIA's Secret war in Afghanistan

    A Funeral of 2 Friends: C.I.A. Deaths Rise in Secret Afghan War | NYT | Sept 6 2017

    The number of C.I.A. deaths in Afghanistan rivals those killed in the Southeast Asia conflicts of nearly a half-century ago.
    By ADAM GOLDMAN and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
    SEPT. 6, 2017

    WASHINGTON — On a sweltering day earlier this summer, operatives with the Central Intelligence Agency gathered at Arlington National Cemetery to bury two of their own. Brian Ray Hoke and Nathaniel Patrick Delemarre, elite gunslingers who worked for the C.I.A.’s paramilitary force, were laid to rest after a firefight with Islamic State militants near Jalalabad in Afghanistan, close to the border with Pakistan.

    There had been scant mention of Mr. Hoke’s death in local news reports in Leesburg, Va., his home, and nothing at all about Mr. Delemarre in news accounts in the Florida Panhandle, where his family lives. Their deaths this past October were never acknowledged by the C.I.A., beyond two memorial stars chiseled in a marble wall at the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Va.

    Today there are at least 18 stars on that wall representing the number of C.I.A. personnel killed in Afghanistan — a tally that has not been previously reported, and one that rivals the number of C.I.A. operatives killed in the wars in Vietnam and Laos nearly a half century ago.

    The deaths are a reflection of the heavy price the agency has paid in a secret, nearly 16-year-old war, where thousands of C.I.A. operatives have served since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The deaths of Mr. Hoke, 42, and Mr. Delemarre, 47, show how the C.I.A. continues to move from traditional espionage to the front lines, and underscore the pressure the agency faces now that President Trump has pledged to keep the United States in Afghanistan with no end in sight.

    “We are going to be fighting this war for a very long time,” said Ken Stiles, a former C.I.A. counterterrorism analyst who worked closely with paramilitary officers in Afghanistan and who lost three friends in the war.

    The Makings of Secret Gunslingers
    Mr. Hoke grew up in South Dakota, played violin and football in high school, graduated from the United States Naval Academy with a degree in oceanography and in 1997 passed the grueling test to become a member of the Navy SEALs. He was deployed to the Middle East and Europe, and in 2004 joined the C.I.A.

    At the agency’s training facility in Virginia, known as the Farm, Mr. Hoke learned how to recruit and handle spies and the art of crafting secret messages. He stood out, a classmate recalled, as among the best in the class. Mr. Hoke moved on to the agency’s advanced training course, held at a secret location in the southeastern United States, and was soon part of the agency’s paramilitary arm, the Special Activities Division.

    Like Mr. Hoke, many of those in the Special Activities Division came from the SEALs, the Army’s Delta Force and other elite military units.

    During his 12 years in the C.I.A., Mr. Hoke played the role of both commando and spy. He deployed to Iraq and other hot spots but also posed as a foreign service officer — the agency’s typical cover for a covert officer — in Greece and Denmark. The agency had Mr. Hoke serve outside war zones to broaden his experiences, friends said.

    Mr. Hoke, like his colleagues, knew there were great risks. In a desk drawer at home in Leesburg, he kept a clipping of a newspaper article about another C.I.A. operative, Maj. Douglas A. Zembiec, a Marine officer and fellow Naval Academy graduate known as the “Lion of Falluja,” who was killed in Iraq in 2007.

    In 2008, Mr. Hoke was deployed in Afghanistan when he was called on to reinforce a group of C.I.A. operatives who had been ambushed by the Taliban. One of the operatives, Donald Barger, 40, a former Ranger and Green Beret who earned the Bronze Star, was dead by the time Mr. Hoke arrived at the scene, former agency officers said.

    Friends say that Mr. Hoke turned to painting to help decompress after his tours. In an email exchange, Mr. Hoke’s wife, Christy, described her husband as “the kind of person movies are made about, as are most of his colleagues. Unbelievable human beings.”

    “He lived by a code that I will not break for anything. Even writing this email feels like a small betrayal,” she said. Mr. Hoke left behind three children.

    Little is known about Mr. Delemarre’s service in the C.I.A. According to military records, he spent roughly a dozen years as a radio operator in the Marine Reserves, where he was a lance corporal. Friends willing to talk about him said he joined the C.I.A. after the Sept. 11 attacks and later shifted to the Navy Reserves — a commitment he maintained while also working at the spy agency — where he became a commissioned officer.

    Mr. Delemarre’s wife declined to be interviewed. He left behind two daughters.

    The C.I.A. in Afghanistan

    Since 2001, as thousands of C.I.A. officers and contractors have cycled in and out of Afghanistan targeting terrorists and running sources, operatives from the Special Activities Division have been part of some of the most dangerous missions. Over all, the division numbers in the low hundreds and also operates in Somalia, Iraq, the Philippines and other areas of conflict.

    C.I.A. paramilitary officers from the division were the first Americans in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks, and they later spirited Hamid Karzai, the future president, into the country. Greg Vogle, an agency operative who took Mr. Karzai into Afghanistan, went on to run the paramilitary division and became the top spy at the C.I.A.

    The first American killed in the country, Johnny Micheal Spann, was a C.I.A. officer assigned to the Special Activities Division. He died in November 2001 during a prison uprising.

    In the years since, paramilitary officers from the Special Activities Division have trained and advised a small army of Afghan militias known as counterterrorism pursuit teams. The militias took on greater importance under President Barack Obama, who embraced covert operations because of their small footprint and deniability.

    The militias, and their C.I.A. handlers, were at times accused by Afghan officials and others of acting as a law unto themselves, running roughshod over civilians and killing innocents. Raids by C.I.A. paramilitary officers and militia fighters also resulted in airstrikes that killed Afghan civilians.

    In 2009, in the worst loss for the agency in Afghanistan, a suicide bomber detonated an explosives vest and killed seven C.I.A. employees — none were from the Special Activities Division — at a forward operating base in Khost, on the Pakistan border.

    At the same time, the C.I.A. helped build the Afghan intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security, which has long faced accusations of torturing suspected militants.
    The C.I.A. also spent more than a decade financing a slush fund for Mr. Karzai. Every month, agency officers would drop off cash in suitcases, backpacks and even plastic shopping bags. Mr. Karzai’s aides would use the cash to run a vast patronage network, paying off warlords, lawmakers and others they wanted to keep on their side.

    The slush fund, which was exposed in 2013, was seen by many American diplomats and other officials and experts as fueling the rampant corruption that has undermined the American effort to build a functioning democracy in Afghanistan.

    An Assault and a Funeral of Two Friends
    On Oct. 21, 2016, Mr. Hoke and Mr. Delemarre were shot in an assault on an Islamic State compound in Jalalabad, where the militant group has made inroads in recent years.
    Details are sparse. Friends say that as Mr. Hoke made his way around a wall, a militant shot him. Mr. Hoke radioed that he was down, Mr. Delemarre heard his close friend’s voice, left his position of safety and ran to Mr. Hoke’s aid, but Mr. Hoke soon died. Mr. Delemarre was wounded in his attempt to help and was evacuated to Germany, where he died shortly after his wife arrived.

    The two were awarded stars at the C.I.A. in May, when the agency held its annual memorial for officers who died in the line of duty. A third C.I.A. paramilitary officer, George A. Whitney, 38, who was killed in December in the Jalalabad area, also received a star. As a Marine captain, Mr. Whitney served with the Third Marine Reconnaissance Battalion in Anbar province in Iraq. Relatives of Mr. Whitney, who studied classics and played fullback on the football team at Bates College in Maine, declined to comment.

    Other C.I.A. operatives killed in Afghanistan since 2001 include Dario Lorenzetti, a West Point graduate and former Ranger, who died in 2012 after a member of the Afghan intelligence service detonated a suicide vest in an insider attack; Jay Henigan, 61, a contractor and plumber who was gunned down in Kabul in 2011 during an attack; a pair of paramilitary officers killed in 2003 while tracking terrorists in southeastern Afghanistan; and Nathan Ross Chapman, a Green Beret who was detailed to a C.I.A. paramilitary team in Afghanistan when he was shot to death hunting Al Qaeda in January 2002.

    The seven C.I.A. employees killed by a suicide bomber in 2009 in Khost were at Forward Operating Base Chapman, which had been named for him.

    The ranks of C.I.A. operatives aren’t easily replaced, said Mr. Stiles, the former counterterrorism analyst.

    “That’s going to be one of the challenges for the government,” he said. “How do we maintain the level of experience and expertise in a war that is going to last for another 20 or 30 years or longer?”

    At the Arlington funeral of Mr. Hoke and Mr. Delemarre on July 14 — long delays before interment are common — heavily muscled men with beards and sunglasses sweated through their suit jackets as a Navy honor guard played taps and performed a rifle salute. Mr. Vogle, the C.I.A. operative who took Mr. Karzai into Afghanistan, stood among the mourners.
    A program from the service shows a smiling Mr. Hoke in a tuxedo and a grinning Mr. Delemarre on the beach. On the back of the program is a quote from Adm. Chester W. Nimitz: “They fought together as brothers in arms; they died together and now they sleep side by side.”

    Correction: September 8, 2017
    Because of an editing error, an article on Thursday about deaths of C.I.A. paramilitary operatives in Afghanistan referred incorrectly to the location where Brian R. Hoke, one of the operatives killed, grew up. As the article correctly noted, he grew up in South Dakota, but not in the town of Park River. (The specific location in South Dakota where he lived has not been confirmed.)

  11. #116
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Agree they might pull their Afghan proxies and direct them towards India. LeT can hold the ghar vapasi do : )

    Even if the Paks acquiesce in Afghanistan things remain the same with India. As the power imbalance grows they are likely to get more aggressive. We have to keep our side up and our responses to whatever comes should be clear
    Which makes me think if getting our hands & feet dirty should be the way to go. That is, fight terrorism with terrorism. We have the money, we can buy merceneries. Allah's mullahs and Abduls need money too. Maybe India should align its thought-process with the PA for once and see where it takes us. Instead of fire-fighting at the LoC and along the IB, fight inside Pakistan with PA's assets and Indian money. Light fires in Baluchistan, GB and at the border with China. We should not be looking back 20 years from now and saying 'we could have done that'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Their India campaigns have progressed in phases

    Punjab in the 80s. Stop

    J&K in the 90s, culminating with Kargil. Stop

    A pan India campaign starting with the parliament attack culminating with 26/11. Stop.
    Both beginning and end of this campaign were sufficient to provoke a reaction. If it worked in 2001 how did it work in 2008 when we didn't react ?
    It worked because there was no war. So Pakistan didn't lose the war which would have been the case, if US didn't mediate. PA got to save its ass, its face and its hold on Pak. Simply put, if there is a war, Pak loses and PA loses grip on Pak albeit for sometime, until a coup happens. Abduls brainwashed in madrassahs are easy to fool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Also i don't think the aim of the parliament attack was to get out of Afghanistan.
    I did not say that. The aim was to give Osama a safe passage to Pak from Afghanistan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    9/11 showed them how to attack India. Had parliament been a one off event then i'd be more inclined to see it that way but as you know it was the start of more attacks to come.

    A few years pass and then they attack the Indian military. This is followed by more infiltration but its J&K only

    You are positing they restart their pan india campaign with the intention of getting off the hook in Afghanistan. Can we think this through

    What is the end result. More pressure on Pakistan and now from a second party.

    What happens if they get declared a state sponsor of terrorism. International sanctions. Can CPEC continue in this environment. All this to protect their proxies ?

    Are there no better options that deliver the same result with less cost. The world only found out Mullah Omar was dead two years later

    http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead...cle7558254.ece

    So if the heads the US wants show up, does it mean the outfits have been disbanded. The Taliban has been through a number of leadership changes already but still exist. So the next test will be about sanctuary
    To protect an important proxy, PA might initiate a big terrorist attack in an Indian metro. This is completely understandable. But your point of world opinion has its merits. But if we go by the recents events of the rescue of the Canadian hostage and his family, the PA did so because another humiliation like the one of Osama, was on the cards. PA is still unwilling to fight. PA is still letting loose Jihadis on Kashmir. I told you about the scenario, Pak gives up the Haqqanis and the Afg Taliban, Trump praises the Paks and US/NATO forces pack up their bags and leave. PA can then use Kashmir facing groups in both Afghan and on India.

    Tillerson said Pak must remove all sanctuary from its soil, does all include those groups which focus on India. I am also not very clear about Trumps policy. They want India to invest more in Afghanistan, India is already doing so. What more do the Americans want? Doval probably would have jumped up to the idea of Indian special forces conducting ops alongwith US/NATO/Afghan troops, but did the Americans really wanted it. Or, Tillerson did not want Indian boots in Afghanistan, so as not to spook the Paks. Things are confusing as of now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Not defense boards, consumer ones, what the general public thought. Completely averse to the idea of deployments abroad if not wearing a blue helmet

    https://blogs.economictimes.indiatim...o-afghanistan/

    Five reasons in there

    see post #76

    Up to india to figure this out. How to shape outcomes from US-Pak negotiations
    I think India needs to be very clear with the Trump administration that if US can't handle Pak and it's terrorist manufacturing industry, India will go alone and do it. It can be and not limited to surgical strikes, and every angle of covert/overt action will be explored, including ones that Pak has been using for decades. Throw the message out and rejoice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    It seems the Haqqanis are having trust issues with their sponsors

    Pakistan’s Strained Alliance With The Haqqani Network | RFERL | Oct 25 2017
    I don't buy this.
    Last edited by Oracle; 29 Oct 17, at 04:36.

  12. #117
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    So, Pakistan has been asked to act against terrorists that target India too. That came very fast. If US (not UNSC) sanctions Pak, can the Russians and the Chinese do business with them?

  13. #118
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,722
    Much thanks for 'Tis' relief: India and Afghanistan tell US for Chabahar

    The current USGov can't see eye to eye with Iran, but why allow India to commence trade via Iran? In the past when Iran was under sanctions, India was given a free pass to buy Iranian gas citing India's energy needs. Trade with Afghanistan can't be the only reason. Is US considering its position vis-a-vis Iran for a second supply route for NATO forces in Afghanistan?

  14. #119
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,722
    Expectations should be logical, Pakistan tells US

    ISLAMABAD - Pakistan has told the United States that it was willing to work with them but the “expectations should be logical”, The Nation has learnt.

    Senior officials at the foreign ministry who remain in contact with Washington said Islamabad wanted to work as an ally not as an “inferior partner”.

    We are trying to convince them that their expectations should not be influenced by India. Our [Pak-US] bilateral ties should not be dictated by India,” one of the officials told The Nation.

    He added: “Of course the partners do have expectations from one another but the expectations should be logical .”

    This week, US Acting Secretary of State for South Asia and Central Asian Affairs Alice Wells said her country had specific expectations from Pakistan to “help create conditions” that will help “bring Taliban to the negotiating table.”

    Earlier, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson - who visited Pakistan this month - said: “Here’s what we need for Pakistan to do. We are asking you to do this; we are not demanding anything. You are a sovereign country. You’ll decide what you want to do, but understand this is what we think is necessary. And if you don’t want to do that, don’t feel you can do it, we’ll adjust our tactics and our strategies to achieve the same objective a different way.”

    Later, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said Pakistan being a sovereign country could not accept the idea of joint operation with the US against the militants inside Pakistan .

    He said Tillerson, during his recent visit, had not handed over any list of Pakistani militants to Pakistan .

    Abbasi reiterated Pakistan’s stance that Afghan issue could only be resolved through dialogue.

    Pakistan can contribute to this peace process, he added.

    Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif had told the Senate last week that Washington had given a list of 75 Afghan militants to Islamabad in its bid to increase pressure on Pakistan .

    “The Haqqani network is on the top of the list, but none of the militants are Pakistanis,” he maintained.

    Asif claimed the Taliban leaders whose names were on the list were either dead or operating as “shadow governors” in Afghanistan.

    The US and Afghanistan allege Haqqani network leaders were hiding inside Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan, and carrying attacks on the other side of the porous border.

    Pakistan rejects the claim.

    Another official at the foreign ministry said Pakistan had told the US not to impose “Indian demands” on Pakistan through Washington.

    “Our [Pak-US] bilateral ties should not depend on India. We have a long history of partnership and we are willing to continue that as a sovereign country,” he told The Nation.

    The official added: “The US is trying to understand our point of view as we continue the talks process. The situation is not ideal but we are hoping for good results as we move ahead.”

    International relations expert Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal said the US had to change its policy towards south Asia.

    “The US seems aggressive but they know there will be no solution with this attitude. President Donald Trump is realising the realities and is likely to change his stance,” he said.

    Jaspal said US could not impose its will on Pakistan as it was no longer dependent on Washington militarily.

    “Pakistan’s good ties with China and improving ties with Russia are strong points,” he added.

    International affairs expert Dr Huma Baqai believed Pakistan had rightly rejected the US proposal of a joint operation against the militants on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.

    The US and India, she said, wanted to counter Chinese strategic footprints in Asia Pacific but the US also needed Pakistan if it was interested in peace in the region.

    Dr Huma Baqai criticised the Afghan president for his tilt towards India despite Pakistan’s long history of cooperation.
    Pakistan wants regional alliance against 'foreign presence' in Afghanistan: ex-ISI chief

    This guy is one of the biggest supporters of Islamic terrorism, worldwide.
    Last edited by Oracle; 30 Oct 17, at 05:29.

  15. #120
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Land of the One Horned Rhino
    Posts
    2,722
    India, Pak hold DGMO talks at Islamabad's request

    Why do India even attend these kind of meetings? There is just no gain.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 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
  •