The Next Afghan War

[ambidex]

By that logic (DE quoted) the peace will prevail up 2017 for sure.

$16 bn civilian aid to Afghanistan from 2014-2017 | NDTV.com

Wasn't Afghanistan been provide the aid after when Russian left ?

I was watching a video of a Pakistani (self appointed) defence analyst that the Russian invasion was fought with almost equal amount aid what USA provided by Arab countries. So what happened next, even the Afghan refugees were not rehabilitated back from Pakistan. They were left high and dry; the money theory looks not flawed to me.

 

[Double Edge]

DE,A-stan's exports of whatever nature did not prevent war in the past,although they did shaped the conflict.Where are those mines?Why the Hazara's share is bigger than that of the Pashtuns?Why are the apostates putting money before Allah?There will be mining,but there will be also war.

Correct me if i'm wrong but I get the impression that people are using the experience after the Soviets to predict what will happen in the future. History repeating itself so to speak.

To that i ask for what did the Americans spend a decade in the wilderness along with billions only to have it revert back to square one soon after they leave. No, i think they will ensure that outcome is less likely.

The level of mineral contracts this time is much larger than last time.

Why the Hazara is larger, i don' know...
- Is that the mineral rich part of the country.
- Is that place relatively more peaceful than the pashtun areas and more conducive to business.
- Are the Hazara more business savvy than the Pashtun.

Where is the question of Allah after the Americans leave ? Its always been against foreign domination..

For now I stick with insurgency rather than war.

The chinese in Africa made some friends among the bosses and a good share of foes among those they displaced economically.I'm mightily curious how the Afghans will see them in a few years.

There are other players in the game besides the Chinese. The areas that promote peace will prosper faster than those without. The only way to keep the peace is to have money flow.

 

[n21]

S2,
considering what the TTP has done against india, somehow i have my doubts that india will support an afghanistan trying to use the TTP as a proxy.

I would agree to this thought. The rationale of TTP is that they are fighting PA because it supports US. Once US leaves, there is no reason for TTP to fight PA. It is a simple tribal warfare.

PA can easily convince TTP to stop attacks, the way they did in 2008 after Mumbai attacks.A PA General openly called TTP patriots and convinced Baitullah Mehusd with side with PA.

TTP is no enemy of Pakistan.

We also need to keep in mind that when we refer to "Afghan government", we probably mean non-Pashtuns. Pashtuns are never going to support Baluchs. PA has made sure of that in Baluchistan.
Pashtuns are PA's cannon fodder. They are used in Karachi, Baluchistan, Northern Regions against the Shias.

PA needs to keep the Pashtuns diverted towards Afghanistan to prevent Pashtun nationalism knocking off almost 30% of Pakistan.

 

[n21]

Civil war depends on how the ISI directs the Taliban. Keep the Pak Army hopping in Balochistan and Afghanistan will have peace and will grow economically.
Balistan is another lovely area itching for a fight with the PA.

I would suggest support to Ugihirs in Pakistan to fight the Chinese. Nothing like "Pakistan needs to do more" from the "all weather friend" the Chinese after the Americans leave. Quite easy. Some money, some propaganda CD/DVD and pay some mullahs in Pakistan to "highlight Chinese atrocities".

 

[Tronic]

PA can easily convince TTP to stop attacks, the way they did in 2008 after Mumbai attacks.A PA General openly called TTP patriots and convinced Baitullah Mehusd with side with PA.

lol, Clearly.

 

[S2]

n21 Reply

n21 Reply

"...The rationale of TTP is that they are fighting PA because it supports US. Once US leaves, there is no reason for TTP to fight PA. It is a simple tribal warfare."

Wrong. Their discontent runs much deeper although those issues appear to have eluded you...again. You may as well also put forth the rationale that the afghan taliban will have no reason to continue fighting after the Americans have left.

 

[S2]

Mihais Reply

Mihais Reply

"Dude,by the Soviet standards it may have been peaceful..."

Dude? DUDE?

I'm "The Dude" here-

 

[troung]

No, by Afghan standards. That comment was made by someone living in Afghanistan at the time and who still lives there today.

He is clearly mistaken as years of very bloody fighting followed the period between the Soviet pull out and the end of the DRA. The DRA fell because they ran out of money but they were hard pressed during the intervening years and were forced to fight a series of meat grinders to keep power over southern cities.

His rosy/hazy memories don't remove the cold hard facts.

 

[Doktor]

Soviets were sending aid to DRA, but at the same time many countries including USA were sending aid to the Mujahideens.

Now, who is gonna send assets to the Talibans? Pakistan,KSA?

 

[Bigfella]

"Dude,by the Soviet standards it may have been peaceful..."

Dude? DUDE?

I'm "The Dude" here-

Damn straight. You abide.

 

[Double Edge]

DoK, exactly.

Meanwhile, some of the mujahideen benefited from expanded foreign military support from the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other nations. The primary beneficiary of U.S. support, delivered through its middleman Pakistan, was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The primary beneficiaries of Saudi support, especially financial one, were Abdul Rasul Sayyaf and Jalaluddin Haqqani who had had strong contacts to Arab fighters in the war against the Soviets. The U.S. provided Ahmad Shah Massoud with close to no support despite the Wall Street Journal calling him "the Afghan who won the cold war" and was primarily responsible for the mujahideen victory. Part of the reason why he still got only minor support was that the U.S. permitted its funding and arms distribution to be administered by Pakistan, which favored Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who considered himself the archenemy of Massoud. Massoud was also seen as "too independent". Primary advocates for still supporting Massoud instead were State Department's Edmund McWilliams and Peter Tomsen, who were on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Others included two Heritage Foundation foreign policy analysts, Michael Johns and James A. Phillips, both of whom championed Massoud as the Afghan resistance leader most worthy of U.S. support under the Reagan Doctrine.

With the end of the Soviet Union, Najibullah's regime lost all credibility and by 1992, after a Russian decision to end fuel shipments to Afghanistan, Najibullah's regime began to collapse.

It was this halting of fuel shipments that ended the DRA.

He is clearly mistaken as years of very bloody fighting followed the period between the Soviet pull out and the end of the DRA. The DRA fell because they ran out of money but they were hard pressed during the intervening years and were forced to fight a series of meat grinders to keep power over southern cities.

His rosy/hazy memories don't remove the cold hard facts.

Civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992)

All the Mujahiden factions were fighting the DRA. Whereas now the NA has become the ANA. There are moves afoot to co-opt the Taliban into power sharing. Good vs. bad taliban thing. But Omar has refused any talks until the Americans leave.

What this means is that the opposition that was present after the Soviets left is smaller come 2014.

 

[n21]

"...The rationale of TTP is that they are fighting PA because it supports US. Once US leaves, there is no reason for TTP to fight PA. It is a simple tribal warfare."

Wrong. Their discontent runs much deeper although those issues appear to have eluded you...again. You may as well also put forth the rationale that the afghan taliban will have no reason to continue fighting after the Americans have left.

I do not see such a deep discontent that will prevent TTP from announcing ceasefire and stop attacks against Pakistan. TTP got a flip due to the Lal Masjid incident as lot of those killed in this incident were from the region where TTP tribes are.

What is the objective of TTP fight against PA/Pakistan? Islamic state? NWFP free from Pakistan federal control? Pakistan support to US on drone attacks?

TTP are mostly from Meshud tribes. There have always been in NWFP and made deal with PA all the time. There are no demands from TTP which would be hard for Pakistan to implement, specially once US leaves Afghanistan.

TTP after 26/11 Mumbai attack.

Taliban are 'patriots,' says Pakistani Army official - The Long War Journal

Atleast Afghan Taliban have the reason of fighting NATO troops, then Hazaars, Tajik etc.

 

[1980s]

We also need to keep in mind that when we refer to "Afghan government", we probably mean non-Pashtuns. Pashtuns are never going to support Baluchs. PA has made sure of that in Baluchistan.
Pashtuns are PA's cannon fodder. They are used in Karachi, Baluchistan, Northern Regions against the Shias.

This is not correct. Pashtun dominated regimes in Afghanistan have had a history of sympathy towards Baloch nationalist aspirations since the Balochs were absorbed into Pakistan upon its creation. Daoud Khan's Presidency during the 70s perhaps being the most friendly. Karzai's regime seems not far behind however. Even under Najibullah's short-lived regime Afghanistan was seen as a suitable refuge by Baloch nationalists. Suitable enough that a number of Baloch elders and opposition leaders stayed there in exile until his downfall in 1992.

 

[1980s]

Amrullah Saleh's piece on this topic from a few weeks ago:

Amrullah Saleh's piece on this topic from a few weeks ago:

The crisis and politics of ethnicity in Afghanistan - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

An insightful piece from Amrullah Saleh.

 

[Double Edge]

Afghanistan Civil War Unlikely, U.S. Official Claims | AP | Jul 12 2012

U.S. Ambassador Hails 'Significant' Turn in Afghan Talks | WSJ | Jul 12 2012

Ryan Crocker, who is retiring a year earlier than expected, also said he thinks it's unlikely that the departure of most foreign troops by 2014 will plunge the country into another civil war or prompt a precipitous economic slide.

"I tend to consider those unlikely scenarios," Crocker told The Associated Press in an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

Crocker, a soft-spoken, gray-haired diplomat who became the civilian face of America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, said the international community has pledged support for Afghanistan post-2014. And he said minority ethnic political leaders seem more interested in positioning themselves in the next Afghan administration than bracing for a civil war like the one that led to the rise of the Taliban after the Soviet exit in 1989.

"Politics is breaking out all over," he said of the uptick in political activity ahead of the Afghan presidential election in 2014. "You don't see many signs of the people saying `Well, it's time to start digging the trenches again.'"

On prospects for peace talks with the Taliban, Crocker said moderate Taliban figures like Agha Jan Motasim were "sending out feelers." Motasim, one of the most powerful men on the Taliban leadership council, told the AP in May that a majority of the Taliban want a peace settlement and that the movement has only a few hard-liners.

Asked if these Taliban leaders – some of whom are based in Pakistan – were worried about getting killed by the hard-liners, Crocker replied "Yep."

He said Pakistan is believed to have given some safe passage to attend reconciliation discussions.

"Let me just put it this way. We are certainly aware that senior Taliban figures have made their way to third countries. Exactly how they did that, I can't say, but I'd like to assume that they did so with Pakistanis not interfering."

Bhadrakumar's take on the above.

 

[astralis]

this meme has been getting a lot of traction lately. here's an excellent piece by dexter filkins.

Will Civil War Hit Afghanistan When The U.S. Leaves? : The New Yorker

 

[S2]

Excellent article, Astralis. Thank you. Nothing offered by Filkins has changed my view but it was, again, another example of his excellent journalism. Many worthy souls committed to a better Afghanistan are condemned to suffer horribly by what lies shortly ahead.

 

[JAD_333]

Good article. Drills down to where the reality lies. My hunch is that there won't be a widespread civil war like in 1993. I have nothing to go on except what I hear from time to time that the Afghans are tired of fighting. Of course, if the US pulls the aid plug or skimps on aid, all bets are off.

 

[1980s]

Good article. Drills down to where the reality lies. My hunch is that there won't be a widespread civil war like in 1993. I have nothing to go on except what I hear from time to time that the Afghans are tired of fighting. Of course, if the US pulls the aid plug or skimps on aid, all bets are off.

They may be tired of fighting, but they'll have no choice but to fight as there is no indication that the Taliban will sincerely settle with the Karzai regime, and more importantly, no indication that Pakistan has abandoned its support for them. The Pakistanis in fact just continue to mock the US - Tense Talk in Conference Between U.S. and Pakistan: NYT - These people are not serious at all.

Great article btw. Very informative.

 

[Double Edge]

this meme has been getting a lot of traction lately. here's an excellent piece by dexter filkins.

It starts off with the usual FUD but has its bright spots.

One illuminating example comes from 1989, as the Soviet Union began withdrawing its soldiers. The mujahideen, suddenly deprived of an enemy, began to quit in droves, making the Afghan Army’s job easier. The Afghan Army did indeed come apart—but only after three years, and only after the Soviet Union itself collapsed. Even today, people marvel at the resiliency of the now defunct Afghan Army.

One of those is Lester Grau, the author of “The Bear Went Over the Mountain,” a history of the Soviet war in Afghanistan and a civilian employee of the U.S. Army. “If the money hadn’t stopped flowing, I firmly believe that the Afghan Army would still be intact today,” Grau said. “The Afghan state would probably have held together, and there probably wouldn’t have been a civil war.”

In a recent article published on a U.S. Army Web site, Grau and a co-author argue that the challenges faced by the United States in Afghanistan appear to be far smaller than those faced by the Soviet Union in 1989. Now as then, there is a good bet that Taliban insurgents will start quitting once the United States begins to depart. The international community—having seen Afghanistan implode once before—also appears to be far more committed to the state’s survival, Grau noted. And, as grave as America’s economic problems are, Grau pointed out that there is no apparent danger that the United States is going to collapse, as the Soviet Union did.

ancing-Banana:

Of course, if the US pulls the aid plug or skimps on aid, all bets are off.

This is the only situation where i see things falling apart. $16 billion has been pledged through to 2017, pledges are just that, promises not commitments.

Isn't it cheaper for interested parties to just fund the right groups. I'm guessing that should work out to much less than $16billion.

When i see articles like this it makes me wonder as to their intent.
- they want the donors to stick to their pledges because the expectation is the donors will cut & run. If a civil war occurs then the donors have an out.

Which begs the question, what has the US achieved to date in Afghanistan ? How about the other allies that make up ISAF.

After eleven years, nearly two thousand Americans killed, sixteen thousand Americans wounded, nearly four hundred billion dollars spent, and more than twelve thousand Afghan civilians dead since 2007, the war in Afghanistan has come to this: the United States is leaving, mission not accomplished

The US & the rest could have left much earlier and just supported the right groups and saved a bundle.

Therefore a civil war breaking out in Afghanistan isn't in US interest and i expect moves from the US to delay that outcome.

Bear in mind there is yet a SOFA to be worked out this year. If that does not happen as happened in Iraq then the picture changes.