Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Will be controversial if this goes ahead given the experience of private armies in Iraq

    Raja Mandala: Privatising the Afghan war | IE | Aug 28 2018
    These kind of news has been doing the rounds since President Trump has been sworn to office, so it brings nothing new that we don't know. What's interesting is Eric's proposal of 6K troops backed by 2K US SoF and 90 planes. This option should be given a shot.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
      These kind of news has been doing the rounds since President Trump has been sworn to office, so it brings nothing new that we don't know. What's interesting is Eric's proposal of 6K troops backed by 2K US SoF and 90 planes. This option should be given a shot.
      Prince has been proposing the same thing since Trump came to office and being booed away. The key point here is the US will remain engaged with the region. Even if there is political pressure to drawn down the contractors will go in. The Americans have options. There will be no complete disengage and pull out. This is important.

      Now, 8K total vs a few thousand over 10k right now. How then does that reduce dependence on the Paks for supply routes is what i want to know

      $4bn annual vs $50bn annual. Does his estimate cover everything. Low baling to get the contract and then prices escalating : )
      Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Aug 18,, 08:05.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        Prince has been proposing the same thing since Trump came to office and being booed away. The key point here is the US will remain engaged with the region. Even if there is political pressure to drawn down the contractors will go in. The Americans have options. There will be no complete disengage and pull out. This is important.
        #1. Pak mil, Pak ex-mil, ISI, and some Indian analysts - US is trying to bring Taliban to the negotiating table so that they can leave Afghanistan. This thinking worries me. Because then the floodgate of Jihad opens up in Kashmir.

        #2. What makes you think that the Americans are here to stay? From the link you posted about Robin Raphael flying to Qatar for negotiations with the Taliban, doesn't seem to be the case. So, I'd assume there are some within the US administration that wants a complete US pullout. Why do you also think contractors at some point will go in? What is the thinking behind that?

        I don't understand how can US and Indian interests converge if US pulls out of Afghanistan and leave the Jihadis to fight the IA.

        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        Now, 8K total vs a few thousand over 10k right now. How then does that reduce dependence on the Paks for supply routes is what i want to know
        I think they (ex-Blackwater guys) have a new supply route figured out.

        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        $4bn annual vs $50bn annual. Does his estimate cover everything. Low baling to get the contract and then prices escalating : )
        Prices will obviously escalate, but not to the extent of $50B. These contractors get paid very well for going in. I don't know if they pay that well while coming out muted or in a casket.
        Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

        Comment


        • The ‘Pakistan first’ approach

          In his maiden address to the nation, Prime Minister Imran Khan spoke at length on a number of issues ranging from fighting corruption to reforming education and health sectors and from austerity drive to restoring the dignity of the common man. However, in his 70-minute speech, the prime minister did not talk much about foreign policy. The only reference he made was about his government’s vision to seek peaceful ties with Pakistan’s neighbours. There were two explanations behind his move to overlook the foreign policy issue. (a) In his first address to the nation as prime minister, Khan wanted to stick to domestic issues concerning the common man. (b) Since he knew he would have little say on foreign policy, he did not feel appropriate to speak on it. Whatever might be the reason, the fact remains that foreign policy is a subject that Prime Minister Imran Khan cannot overlook by any means. This was the reason that within days of taking charge, the prime minister visited the Foreign Office to get the briefing on Pakistan’s external challenges.

          Khan told the Foreign Office that Pakistan’s national interests must be kept supreme in dealing with other countries. Elaborating further, in his maiden press conference Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said, “I want to convey a message to the people of Pakistan that the foreign policy will begin and end with the national interests of Pakistan. My priority will be to have a national consensus on our foreign policy, by adopting a bipartisan approach.”

          In developed democracies, political parties may have differences on certain domestic issues but they always maintain bipartisan consensus on foreign policy issues. In Pakistan’s case, this principle is even more important for the simple reason that we are facing multiple challenges on the external front. Also, no political party or any leader would disagree with Qureshi’s statement that the overarching goal of the country’s foreign policy should be “Pakistan first”. The problem, however, is that who would define what is in Pakistan’s interest and what isn’t? In the past, elected governments were sent home on this tricky issue of national interest. Similarly, there were a number of decisions Pakistan took in the past in the name of national interest that eventually turned out to be disastrous for the country. Two such follies include supporting the so-called “Afghan Jihad” at the behest of the West in 1979 and then switching sides and becoming part of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Both those major policy decisions were taken by the military dictators. At the time they might have justified those decisions but history tells us that Pakistan has paid and in fact and has still been paying the price of those blunders.

          Given this baggage, it would be a great step forward if the PTI government led by Khan is able to determine Pakistan’s national interests. For this purpose, some hard questions need to be asked. For example, is it in Pakistan’s interest to move away from the security-centric state? Is it in Pakistan’s interest to follow a set of policies that help the country get rid of this notorious tag of supporting certain militant groups as proxies? Is it in Pakistan’s interest to have friendly or at least manageable relationship with its neighbours, including India? Is it in Pakistan’s interest to further enhance strategic partnership with China and deepen ties with Russia while at the same time not to follow a confrontational path with the US? Is it in Pakistan’s interest to maintain a delicate balance in our ties with both Iran and Saudi Arabia? If the answer to all those questions is yes, then the new government led by Prime Minister Khan shouldn’t have any difficulty in formulating a “Pakistan first” foreign policy.
          Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

          Comment


          • China is ‘building a training camp in Afghanistan’ to fight terrorism
            Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
              #1. Pak mil, Pak ex-mil, ISI, and some Indian analysts - US is trying to bring Taliban to the negotiating table so that they can leave Afghanistan. This thinking worries me. Because then the floodgate of Jihad opens up in Kashmir.
              Taliban or not, once fighting stops in Afghanistan is when they direct their forces at Kashmir. So fighting going on forever there means quiet in Kashmir.

              #2. What makes you think that the Americans are here to stay? From the link you posted about Robin Raphael flying to Qatar for negotiations with the Taliban, doesn't seem to be the case. So, I'd assume there are some within the US administration that wants a complete US pullout. Why do you also think contractors at some point will go in? What is the thinking behind that?

              I don't understand how can US and Indian interests converge if US pulls out of Afghanistan and leave the Jihadis to fight the IA.
              I don't know how long they will stay. I'm saying we don't wake up one morning and find Trump pulled the plug.

              Fewer coffins return with flags on them.

              There are people who want a pullout, a complete disengagement. The trouble is that helps nobody but the Paks.

              If troops reduce contractors will increase. You get a war by proxy with many powers supporting various groups. It becomes a never ending war. The afghans don't want that as everything reverts back to zero with this scenario


              I think they (ex-Blackwater guys) have a new supply route figured out.
              The numbers aren't that different from the present. So how can they do what the USG cannot ?

              Thing is we don't know the real numbers there presently, because only permananetly deployed are mentioned not temporarily deployed and they don't count contractors to begin with. There are counter insurgency people there that aren't counted.


              Prices will obviously escalate, but not to the extent of $50B. These contractors get paid very well for going in. I don't know if they pay that well while coming out muted or in a casket.
              Trump wanted to kill terrorists, contractors can do that. They can be sourced from any number of countries as well.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Oracle View Post

                Is it in Pakistan’s interest to move away from the security-centric state?

                Is it in Pakistan’s interest to follow a set of policies that help the country get rid of this notorious tag of supporting certain militant groups as proxies?

                Is it in Pakistan’s interest to have friendly or at least manageable relationship with its neighbours, including India?

                Is it in Pakistan’s interest to further enhance strategic partnership with China and deepen ties with Russia while at the same time not to follow a confrontational path with the US?

                Is it in Pakistan’s interest to maintain a delicate balance in our ties with both Iran and Saudi Arabia?

                If the answer to all those questions is yes, then the new government led by Prime Minister Khan shouldn’t have any difficulty in formulating a “Pakistan first” foreign policy.
                Fascinating list of questions.

                Comment


                • They're being gentle about it

                  Pentagon cancels aid to Pakistan over record on militants | Reuters | Sept 02 2018

                  WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military said it has made a final decision to cancel $300 million in aid to Pakistan that had been suspended over Islamabad’s perceived failure to take decisive action against militants, in a new blow to deteriorating ties.

                  The so-called Coalition Support Funds were part of a broader suspension in aid to Pakistan announced by President Donald Trump at the start of the year, when he accused Pakistan of rewarding past assistance with “nothing but lies & deceit.”

                  The Trump administration says Islamabad is granting safe haven to insurgents who are waging a 17-year-old war in neighboring Afghanistan, a charge Pakistan denies.

                  But U.S. officials had held out the possibility that Pakistan could win back that support if it changed its behavior.

                  U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, in particular, had an opportunity to authorize $300 million in CSF funds through this summer - if he saw concrete Pakistani actions to go after insurgents. Mattis chose not to, a U.S. official told Reuters.

                  “Due to a lack of Pakistani decisive actions in support of the South Asia Strategy the remaining $300 (million) was reprogrammed,” Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Kone Faulkner said.

                  Faulkner said the Pentagon aimed to spend the $300 million on “other urgent priorities” if approved by Congress. He said another $500 million in CSF was stripped by Congress from Pakistan earlier this year, to bring the total withheld to $800 million.

                  The disclosure came ahead of an expected visit by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the top U.S. military officer, General Joseph Dunford, to Islamabad. Mattis told reporters on Tuesday that combating militants would be a “primary part of the discussion.”

                  Experts on the Afghan conflict, America’s longest war, argue that militant safe havens in Pakistan have allowed Taliban-linked insurgents in Afghanistan a place to plot deadly strikes and regroup after ground offensives.

                  INCREASING PRESSURE
                  The Pentagon’s decision showed that the United States, which has sought to change Pakistani behavior, is still increasing pressure on Pakistan’s security apparatus.

                  It also underscored that Islamabad has yet to deliver the kind of change sought by Washington.

                  “It is a calibrated, incremental ratcheting up of pressure on Pakistan,” said Sameer Lalwani, co-director of the South Asia program at the Stimson Center think tank in Washington.

                  Reuters reported in August that the Trump administration has quietly started cutting scores of Pakistani officers from coveted training and educational programs that have been a hallmark of bilateral military relations for more than a decade.

                  The Pentagon made similar determinations on CSF in the past but this year’s move could get more attention from Islamabad, and its new prime minister, Imran Khan, at a time when its economy is struggling.

                  Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves have plummeted over the past year and it will soon decide on whether to seek a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or friendly nations such as China.

                  “They are squeezing them when they know that they’re vulnerable and it is probably a signal about what to expect should Pakistan come to the IMF for a loan,” Lalwani said. The United States has the largest share of votes at the IMF.

                  Khan, who once suggested he might order the shooting down of U.S. drones if they entered Pakistani airspace, has opposed the United States’ open-ended presence in Afghanistan. In his victory speech, he said he wanted “mutually beneficial” relations with Washington.

                  A Pakistani official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he was unaware of a formal notification of the U.S. decision on assistance but said one was expected by the end of September.

                  Pakistan has received more than $33 billion in U.S. assistance since 2002, including more than $14 billion in CSF, a U.S. Defense Department program to reimburse allies that have incurred costs in supporting counter-insurgency operations.

                  Pakistan could again be eligible next year for CSF.

                  Comment


                  • It's not aid, US owes money to Pakistan in CSF: Qureshi

                    Alms is alms, whichever the manner in which it is donated. Bloody beggars.
                    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                    Comment


                    • India’s Afghan projects face higher risk after Pak army, ISI’s ‘role’ in Ghazni attack
                      Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                      Comment


                      • Curious bit

                        An NDS officer told ET on condition of anonymity that the ISI had tasked terrorist group Lashkare-Taiba with executing the attack and that the group dispatched terrorists from Peshawar, Quetta and Punjab. Pakistan Army men were on the ground guiding Taliban and other terrorists, the officer alleged.
                        I guess they needed more people. Just see the numbers

                        Some of the wounded attackers had been shifted to hospitals in Waziristan and Quetta through Paktia and Khost provinces of Afghanistan, the officer said.

                        The attackers were divided into four groups, according to the NDS.

                        The first, named Zubir Bin Al-Alum, had 120 attackers from Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Zubair (not his real name) from Gujranwala city led the group.

                        The second group, Khalid Bin Walid, with 90 Lashkare-Taiba terrorists, was headed by Khalid Ahmad (not his real name).

                        The third group, Al-Mansoor, had 120 members from the Haqqani network, Paktia, Paktika, Ghazni, Zabul and southern Waziristan. The terrorists had planned to overrun the entire province.

                        In the five-day fighting, hundreds of people were killed and wounded. The insurgents also set ablaze many markets, shops, transmitters of National Radio and Television and private radio stations, as well as media houses in Ghazni.
                        No numbers for the fourth group but that's already 300+ people involved in the Ghazni assault. The Paks mounted a battalion strength attack on Ghazni
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Sep 18,, 14:12.

                        Comment


                        • Why is the President of a Jewish group defending Pakistan?

                          Holy cow!!!
                          Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                          Comment


                          • Lobbying. Best Rosen can do is write something for a publication out of Seoul ? Who is going to even read that thing he wrote

                            why not the NYT like Erdogan
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Sep 18,, 20:17.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                              Lobbying. Best Rosen can do is write something for a publication out of Seoul ? Who is going to even read that thing he wrote

                              why not the NYT like Erdogan
                              Yeah, you're right. But it makes one notice the lengths to which the Paks can go to continue getting their alms. Erdogan's op-ed is written to feel good about himself.
                              Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                              Comment


                              • Pakistan seeks US help to ease tensions with India

                                Another lie that PA has mainstreamed -> we need peace on the eastern border to concentrate on the western border. Yeah, keep sending Islamic Jihadis across the border to India and Afghanistan, then beg US to meddle for peace. These buggers don't want to change their decades old policy of supporting terrorism as it brings them big moolahs.
                                Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X