Agnostic Muslim
New member
The existence of TTP sanctuaries in Afghanistan is not a recent occurrence, even if certain members on this particular forum are only now starting to acknowledge it:
Pakistan influence on Taliban commanders helped Afghan breakthrough
- Thread starter Agnostic Muslim
- Start date
Parihaka
Dirty Kiwi
Unlike NATO, Saleh was able to build an excellent intelligence service not just within Afghanistan but also in Pakistan, so much so he was able to pinpoint OBL within 8 miles of his actual location. I don't believe Saleh is the only smart man in Afghanistan. I also don't believe in the Genghis Khan scenario of mass slaughter indiscriminately, but I agree there will be a large number of targeted killings on both sides of the borders. I will allow there may be some wholesale slaughters as an example.
Parihaka
Dirty Kiwi
Uh huh.
I will certainly agree to the notion that attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan will increase and Pakistans claims are coming true.
Agnostic Muslim
New member
That particular article was from June 2012, Qari Zia-ur-Rehman (who played a major role in fighting the Pakistani military operation in Bajaur) was already operating out of Afghanistan against Pakistani troops in 2008/2009:
Like I said, the existence of TTP sanctuaries in Afghanistan is not a new development.
Last edited:
Agnostic Muslim
New member
Which have occurred several times in the past, perpetrated by both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance warlords - nothing new to the players in the region, as I pointed out earlier.
Last edited:
Parihaka
Dirty Kiwi
Well, looks like we're all in agreement. Who would have thunk?
Blademaster
Military Enthusiast
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 5,349
I disagree with your assessment. ANA can defeat Taliban on its territory but it can never truly eradicate or finish them off because Taliban have sanctuary in Pakistan and ANA are no match for the PA even with American help. As long as the Taliban have sanctuary, the Taliban can outlast the ANA because the Americans and NATO will get tired of supporting ANA and without support, ANA will wither and die or be a shell of itself or destroy itself like it happened after Moscow stopped supporting ANA in 1993-94. Taliban can't retake the country as long as American is against Taliban. The day America is no longer against Taliban is the day that they can start taking over Afghanistan.
To truly finish off Taliban, NATO has to go inside Pakistan ala Cambodia/Laos style and eradicate the sanctuaries.
Double Edge
Turbanator
Heh, i bet the Paks sincerely wish they had the power to do just that.
What is attributed to unwillingness is actually weakness and even fear. TTP assasinates BB and its the Americans that press the button on Baitullah Mehsud. The Paks cannot be seen to do it.
I've not figured out the angle the afghan general is pushing here, maybe just getting the Paks to squirm.
And the Paks fear the Afghans will do the same with the TTP. Earlier, OOE showed the Paks cannot effectively police their western border. They can't tie down tens of thousands of their troops there for this. No way. Paks know a thing or two about instigating insurgencies. They do not want to be on the receiving end.
Don't think the Taliban will turn on the Paks, its just that the Paks have limited leverage on them. This is proven by the fact they would not touch them and gave them sanctuary. Remember, the Paks do not touch anything that increases domestic instability.
The Taliban could tell the Paks to take a hike and this is where the Paks don't want to go as it will increase Pashtun nationalism. Bring it out in the open, unnecessarily.
Sources for funding. The Taliban want a piece of the action. They are the spoilers. Taliban is supposed to lay down their arms in exchange for what. They want something to go back to. The Paks want to send the Taliban home. They want them out of Pakistan where they will be somebody else's problem.
This is all just good old fashioned haggling
Ideal outcome for the Paks is the Taliban get into politics and demographics gives them seats in the south. Taliban does not have to win just have a voice if they are in the opposition. Taliban need to return to Afghanistan, they are useless, even a liability for the Paks in Quetta. In this way the Paks have a buffer of sorts from the rest of Afghanistan.
From this i conclude that ALL actors have a primary interest in stability of Afghanistan and not civil war. Civil war is a last resort if everything else fails.
Last edited:
O
Officer of Engineers
Guest
You're not understanding. This is not military slaughter I'm talking about. These are Afghans. They don't want a stand up fight and steamroll each other. They are going after the women and children and the Taliban women and children are a lot easier to target than ANA women and children.
O
Officer of Engineers
Guest
The likes of Dostum are the norm, not the exception and we have far more of them lining up on our side than the Taliban has on theirs.
Blademaster
Military Enthusiast
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 5,349
Instead of killing them, why can't they adopt the Taliban women and children? That would be far more effective in destroying the Taliban.
O
Officer of Engineers
Guest
If I had my way, I send them all to school to get a grade 3 education so that they can at least read but it is their war soon and they will fight it the way they want to fight it. It will be blood vengeance up and down the entire country.
AM the difference is that the TTP are not getting support from the Afghan govt, whereas the Taliban are a proxy for the ISI/PA.
Agnostic Muslim
New member
There was a similar report on this a few months ago that I posted here: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/ce...ds-us-side-afghanistan-conflict-pakistan.html
Karzai wants US to protect Afghanistan from Pakistan
*NYT reports Afghan president also wants US to take direct military action against Taliban havens on Pakistani soil
KABUL: Afghan President Hamid Karzai wants a mutual security pact that would compel the United States to protect Afghanistan against Pakistan, and, possibly, even take direct military action against Taliban havens on Pakistani soil, the New York Times quoted Afghan sources as saying.
According to the newspaper, it was not until after the meeting of top security officials had ended – as Karzai stood in a corridor with a handful of advisers – that his frustration with the United States boiled over. Washington’s attempt to open peace talks with the Taliban in Qatar, he fumed, was “in reality an attempt to cut him out and make an American deal with the Taliban”, according to one of the officials who saw the outburst.
The Taliban’s sudden willingness to talk in June looked like a potential coup for American diplomacy. The result has been anything but — and not just because the Taliban have done more grandstanding than negotiating since opening their Qatar office. Karzai quickly called off Afghan participation in the talks. And now, two weeks later, persuading him to restore his delegation would most likely take more than the United States would be willing to deliver, according to Afghans familiar with his thinking.
He wants a firm commitment on the number of American troops that would stay in Afghanistan past next year, and a lead role in peace efforts, the Afghans said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic matters.
All of that is rooted in one of Karzai’s core beliefs, according to those who know him: that the central challenge facing his government is not the Taliban insurgency, but rather in bringing the United States around to his way of thinking.
“Assurances that America will take care of us will no longer do for the president,” said the Afghan official who witnessed the president’s outburst. To move forward, Karzai wants “certainties”.
The developments around the Qatar peace opening seemed to be ripped directly from Karzai’s personal nightmare script: that his government would be marginalised in Washington’s endgame in Afghanistan.
He has long voiced suspicions about American-orchestrated Taliban talks, and recently he has told those around him that the Qatar process could result in a separate peace deal between the United States, the Taliban and the group’s backers in Pakistan, and perhaps even his political opponents within Afghanistan as well.
The fact that the Taliban have pointedly refused to say they would talk with Karzai’s government even as they state their willingness to talk to the Americans has only reinforced his concerns.
He made that clear on Saturday, when after meeting with Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain he told reporters that the two had discussed “the fact that foreigners should not use the Afghan peace process for their goals and objectives”. He did not elaborate.
Karzai’s increasingly harsh response to American initiatives in recent years has struck some officials as verging on paranoia. But Afghans close to him say it is consistent with his view of the United States as an unreliable ally.
Afghans have not forgotten how the United States during the 1990s effectively outsourced its Afghanistan policy to Pakistan, which then helped bring the Taliban to power. That perceived abandonment remains a staple of conversation among many here. Karzai has often told those close to him of going to Washington for help in the 1990s and “having doors slammed in his face — nobody cared,” said another Afghan who has worked with him. “He’s seen this movie before,” the Afghan said.
Though the offensive Taliban symbols have since been taken down, a senior State Department official said on Wednesday that the Taliban were demanding that their Qatar office be identified as the political office of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and that the sign with the name be restored.
In any case, a member of the Afghan High Peace Council, Said Muhammad Amin Tariq, said that removal of the flag and sign were not enough. “Karzai wants more assurances.”
In particular, he is said to be adamant about pushing the Obama administration to pin down the specific number of American troops it wants to keep in Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission ends next year, as a sign of commitment to his government.
Karzai and some in his inner circle also seem to believe that the United States needs Afghanistan just as badly, and that they can strong-arm the Obama administration, according to some Afghan officials.
American officials say that kind of thinking is misguided. Though many American commanders and diplomats are pressing for a quick decision on troop numbers, some White House officials say they are increasingly uncertain that a security deal can be secured. “People are asking whether that’s something we can live with,” said one administration official. “The Afghans probably wouldn’t like to hear the answer to that question.”
Much of what Karzai wants beyond the troop commitment seems even more unlikely — particularly his demands pertaining to the Taliban talks.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Karzai wants US to protect Afghanistan from Pakistan
*NYT reports Afghan president also wants US to take direct military action against Taliban havens on Pakistani soil
KABUL: Afghan President Hamid Karzai wants a mutual security pact that would compel the United States to protect Afghanistan against Pakistan, and, possibly, even take direct military action against Taliban havens on Pakistani soil, the New York Times quoted Afghan sources as saying.
According to the newspaper, it was not until after the meeting of top security officials had ended – as Karzai stood in a corridor with a handful of advisers – that his frustration with the United States boiled over. Washington’s attempt to open peace talks with the Taliban in Qatar, he fumed, was “in reality an attempt to cut him out and make an American deal with the Taliban”, according to one of the officials who saw the outburst.
The Taliban’s sudden willingness to talk in June looked like a potential coup for American diplomacy. The result has been anything but — and not just because the Taliban have done more grandstanding than negotiating since opening their Qatar office. Karzai quickly called off Afghan participation in the talks. And now, two weeks later, persuading him to restore his delegation would most likely take more than the United States would be willing to deliver, according to Afghans familiar with his thinking.
He wants a firm commitment on the number of American troops that would stay in Afghanistan past next year, and a lead role in peace efforts, the Afghans said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic matters.
All of that is rooted in one of Karzai’s core beliefs, according to those who know him: that the central challenge facing his government is not the Taliban insurgency, but rather in bringing the United States around to his way of thinking.
“Assurances that America will take care of us will no longer do for the president,” said the Afghan official who witnessed the president’s outburst. To move forward, Karzai wants “certainties”.
The developments around the Qatar peace opening seemed to be ripped directly from Karzai’s personal nightmare script: that his government would be marginalised in Washington’s endgame in Afghanistan.
He has long voiced suspicions about American-orchestrated Taliban talks, and recently he has told those around him that the Qatar process could result in a separate peace deal between the United States, the Taliban and the group’s backers in Pakistan, and perhaps even his political opponents within Afghanistan as well.
The fact that the Taliban have pointedly refused to say they would talk with Karzai’s government even as they state their willingness to talk to the Americans has only reinforced his concerns.
He made that clear on Saturday, when after meeting with Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain he told reporters that the two had discussed “the fact that foreigners should not use the Afghan peace process for their goals and objectives”. He did not elaborate.
Karzai’s increasingly harsh response to American initiatives in recent years has struck some officials as verging on paranoia. But Afghans close to him say it is consistent with his view of the United States as an unreliable ally.
Afghans have not forgotten how the United States during the 1990s effectively outsourced its Afghanistan policy to Pakistan, which then helped bring the Taliban to power. That perceived abandonment remains a staple of conversation among many here. Karzai has often told those close to him of going to Washington for help in the 1990s and “having doors slammed in his face — nobody cared,” said another Afghan who has worked with him. “He’s seen this movie before,” the Afghan said.
Though the offensive Taliban symbols have since been taken down, a senior State Department official said on Wednesday that the Taliban were demanding that their Qatar office be identified as the political office of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and that the sign with the name be restored.
In any case, a member of the Afghan High Peace Council, Said Muhammad Amin Tariq, said that removal of the flag and sign were not enough. “Karzai wants more assurances.”
In particular, he is said to be adamant about pushing the Obama administration to pin down the specific number of American troops it wants to keep in Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission ends next year, as a sign of commitment to his government.
Karzai and some in his inner circle also seem to believe that the United States needs Afghanistan just as badly, and that they can strong-arm the Obama administration, according to some Afghan officials.
American officials say that kind of thinking is misguided. Though many American commanders and diplomats are pressing for a quick decision on troop numbers, some White House officials say they are increasingly uncertain that a security deal can be secured. “People are asking whether that’s something we can live with,” said one administration official. “The Afghans probably wouldn’t like to hear the answer to that question.”
Much of what Karzai wants beyond the troop commitment seems even more unlikely — particularly his demands pertaining to the Taliban talks.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Agnostic Muslim
New member
An interesting development on the Afghanistan-India side that, if true, should bode well for India-Pakistan relations and in turn potentially increase the chances of a 'proxy-war less' Afghanistan:
India turns down Afghanistan’s arms plea
India has turned down Afghanistan’s request for supply of lethal weapons, saying it was neither in a position nor willing to contribute lethal weapons right now, days after Afghan President Hamid Karzai raised the issue with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
“We are going to help with non-lethal equipment but I don’t think we are either in the position to or willing to contribute lethal weapons right now,” External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid said here.
Noting that India already supplies important elements of supporting equipment, transportation, which includes helicopters, the minister said “...we think it is not advisable to go beyond that. It is a fragile area, there are stakeholders, there are other people. We don’t want to become part of the problem.”
During his recent visit to India, Mr. Karzai had handed a “wish list” to Indian leadership seeking greater military and civilian support in the wake of proposed withdrawal of US-led forces from Afghanistan in 2014.
Mr. Khurshid, in an interview to Straits Times, said there are lots of people who have perceptions about the future of Afghanistan and “if we can help Afghanistan without creating further problems for them, I think that would be a preferred way to do it.”
He said, “We are in touch with them constantly, and we are committed and have said very categorically... We are not looking at exit routes for ourselves which means we are there to stay for a long term. We are very comforted by the fact that Afghans have confidence in us. We won’t let them down.”
India turns down Afghanistan
======
India turns down Afghanistan’s arms plea
India has turned down Afghanistan’s request for supply of lethal weapons, saying it was neither in a position nor willing to contribute lethal weapons right now, days after Afghan President Hamid Karzai raised the issue with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
“We are going to help with non-lethal equipment but I don’t think we are either in the position to or willing to contribute lethal weapons right now,” External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid said here.
Noting that India already supplies important elements of supporting equipment, transportation, which includes helicopters, the minister said “...we think it is not advisable to go beyond that. It is a fragile area, there are stakeholders, there are other people. We don’t want to become part of the problem.”
During his recent visit to India, Mr. Karzai had handed a “wish list” to Indian leadership seeking greater military and civilian support in the wake of proposed withdrawal of US-led forces from Afghanistan in 2014.
Mr. Khurshid, in an interview to Straits Times, said there are lots of people who have perceptions about the future of Afghanistan and “if we can help Afghanistan without creating further problems for them, I think that would be a preferred way to do it.”
He said, “We are in touch with them constantly, and we are committed and have said very categorically... We are not looking at exit routes for ourselves which means we are there to stay for a long term. We are very comforted by the fact that Afghans have confidence in us. We won’t let them down.”
India turns down Afghanistan
======
Agnostic Muslim
New member
Pakistan quietly preparing for civil war in Afghanistan
Mariana Baabar
Thursday, July 11, 2013
ISLAMABAD: Recognising the realities on the ground leading to fast changing events inside Afghanistan, with no one having a clue to what might happen subsequently after Nato withdraws next year, Pakistan is focusing on how to ‘secure’ its own territory, as it does not rule out a ‘civil war’ once again. It appears to be ready to face a blowback this time around.
It is for this reason that it realises that it is imperative to focus on a ‘contingency plan’ and avoid a situation where its own fragile internal security receives a further jolt from its western borders.
“It is difficult to understand and uncertainties surround us —— but if nothing moves we are heading towards a civil war (inside Afghanistan) which we want to avoid. Specially, if all reconciliation efforts do not succeed then there is likelihood of civil war. Then there will be a spillover into Pakistan and this will create its own problems, especially from the Pakistan Taliban”, said diplomatic sources in a meeting with the media here.
It is for this reason, said one of them, that this contingency plan has to ensure a scenario, which ensures that Pakistan’s own territory is well protected.As prices of property keep rising in areas outside Peshawar in anticipation of what comes next from across the Durrand Line, at this point the diplomat said the government could not contemplate the number of Afghan refugees that could flow in if there is a civil war.
However, there appeared some room for optimism, the diplomat said even though the Afghan Taliban have closed their Qatar office temporarily to protest demands that they remove a sign which said that the Qatar office was that of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
“This could just be a ‘tactical’ move by the Afghan Taliban to get noticed. The situation was mishandled in Qatar. However, talks can still be held in places other than the Qatar office, and also talks with the Northern Alliance can be held separately”, added the diplomat.
Another ‘tactical’ move that Pakistan points out is when out of sheer frustration with Hamid Karzai, Obama has threatened considering speeding up the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, ensuring that there would be none left after 2014.
Refusing to take the bait as Karzai’s rhetoric against Pakistan broke all barriers recently, the diplomat refused to get ruffled and instead said: “While Karzai is trying to become popular (domestically) when he takes on Pakistan and the US, our relations are very critical and Pakistan should look for immediate objectives. Of course the US will be happy to see the Taliban talk the Afghan High Peace Council even if it is under protest”.
Pakistan is also getting a sense that some Taliban groups are getting tired of the war and efforts should be made to get other such like-minded groups to support them. “Otherwise the hardliners will take over “, he said.
His comments came at a time when the Pakistani Taliban announced the dismissal of its spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan, signaling a further split amongst the militants.
Pakistan quietly preparing for civil war in Afghanistan - thenews.com.pk
Mariana Baabar
Thursday, July 11, 2013
ISLAMABAD: Recognising the realities on the ground leading to fast changing events inside Afghanistan, with no one having a clue to what might happen subsequently after Nato withdraws next year, Pakistan is focusing on how to ‘secure’ its own territory, as it does not rule out a ‘civil war’ once again. It appears to be ready to face a blowback this time around.
It is for this reason that it realises that it is imperative to focus on a ‘contingency plan’ and avoid a situation where its own fragile internal security receives a further jolt from its western borders.
“It is difficult to understand and uncertainties surround us —— but if nothing moves we are heading towards a civil war (inside Afghanistan) which we want to avoid. Specially, if all reconciliation efforts do not succeed then there is likelihood of civil war. Then there will be a spillover into Pakistan and this will create its own problems, especially from the Pakistan Taliban”, said diplomatic sources in a meeting with the media here.
It is for this reason, said one of them, that this contingency plan has to ensure a scenario, which ensures that Pakistan’s own territory is well protected.As prices of property keep rising in areas outside Peshawar in anticipation of what comes next from across the Durrand Line, at this point the diplomat said the government could not contemplate the number of Afghan refugees that could flow in if there is a civil war.
However, there appeared some room for optimism, the diplomat said even though the Afghan Taliban have closed their Qatar office temporarily to protest demands that they remove a sign which said that the Qatar office was that of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
“This could just be a ‘tactical’ move by the Afghan Taliban to get noticed. The situation was mishandled in Qatar. However, talks can still be held in places other than the Qatar office, and also talks with the Northern Alliance can be held separately”, added the diplomat.
Another ‘tactical’ move that Pakistan points out is when out of sheer frustration with Hamid Karzai, Obama has threatened considering speeding up the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, ensuring that there would be none left after 2014.
Refusing to take the bait as Karzai’s rhetoric against Pakistan broke all barriers recently, the diplomat refused to get ruffled and instead said: “While Karzai is trying to become popular (domestically) when he takes on Pakistan and the US, our relations are very critical and Pakistan should look for immediate objectives. Of course the US will be happy to see the Taliban talk the Afghan High Peace Council even if it is under protest”.
Pakistan is also getting a sense that some Taliban groups are getting tired of the war and efforts should be made to get other such like-minded groups to support them. “Otherwise the hardliners will take over “, he said.
His comments came at a time when the Pakistani Taliban announced the dismissal of its spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan, signaling a further split amongst the militants.
Pakistan quietly preparing for civil war in Afghanistan - thenews.com.pk
Double Edge
Turbanator
Article is silent on the contours of this 'contingency plan'.
You cannot seal your western borders.
Your internal security situation ties your hands from moving on either Taliban.
Further, if the Afghan situation deterioates you are SOL.
Continuing support of the Afghan Taliban is to continue to endure TTP inroads into Pakistan.
Last edited:
Double Edge
Turbanator
Not much of a "development" considering the fact that India has publicly turned down Afghanistan's requests for weaponry numerous times in the past.
Is it a 'development' on Pakistan's side that it is finally starting to appreciate this gesture?
As for your posted article, Pakistan quietly preparing for civil war in Afghanistan; the Afghans are also not being abandoned:
The ball is really in Pakistan's court, however it wishes to play things out in Afghanistan. If Pakistan chooses to throw it's weight behind the anti-GoA actors, you will be surprised at how fast those weapon supply lines open up.
Karzai is right to be afraid. Pakistan would want nothing better than a return to the good old pre 9/11 days when their Taliban dogs ruled the roost in Afghanistan. After the US leaves there is no one to stop the Pakistanis from wreaking havoc inside Afghanistan using the Taliban, except the ANA. Obviously Karzai doesn't fancy the ANA's chances too much.
India seems to be doing what it can (like training the ANA) without hurting the current Indian government's misguided "Appease Pakistan" policy. It may even reverse its decision not to supply weapons to the ANA in the future if things start going bad. But I doubt it'll be enough. The ANA is not going to become a potent COIN force this easily. It took the IA many years of hard lessons in Kashmir before they got a handle on it. The ANA will have little time and even less resources.
Last edited:
What is the point of India openly arming the ANA when the Afghans already outgun the Taliban? It only gives more ammunition to the anti-Indian hawks in Pakistan to drown out the moderates. If push comes to shove, there is no doubt India will throw it's weight behind the GoA. They have got more than $11 billion USD worth of investments to protect.. but that urgency to arm the ANA is not it's main need.. it's training, especially their junior officers core...
Last edited:
The "moderates" in Pakistan (who are as invisible as the Himalayan yeti when it comes to India) seem to get drowned out no matter what we do. But anyway that is beside the point. I'm saying that whether or not we supply arms or don't, it won't matter in the end. The ANA faces the same problem that the IA does in Kashmir. The enemy's bases are on the other side of the border, beyond reach. The IA eventually countered that with excellent HUMINT in the safe-haven areas on the Indian side, fencing the entire LOC, flooding the troublesome area with troops to create a rock solid COIN grid and using tactics refined over several years to flush out the intruders. The ANA can't fence the AF-Pak border. They have less troops and too many Taliban sympathizers on their own side of the border as well. Karzai is right. The only way to deal with the Taliban would have been for the ISAF to go in and destroy their bases inside Pakistan. It is never going to happen now. So things can only get worse.