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

[1980s]

US plan to improve Afghan intelligence operations branded a $457m failure: https://www.theguardian.com/global-...ntelligence-operations-branded-a-457m-failure

This story is one failure too many. For many years i was a firm supporter of an American and Western commitment to Afghanistan. But now i am of the view that it is an exercise is uselessness. Afghanistan is hopeless, it will never be a functioning, progressing and cohesive state. It is clear to me that it is perhaps the most corrupt, backwards and dysfunctional of all countries in the World by far, and America cannot help it to evolve. Indeed, it is a failed state on so many levels. The sucess stories post-2001 are artificial, and wholly dependant on American and other foreign backing. The Afghan state would collapse within a week without foreign aid of any sort. I dont believe that this artificial post-2001 state that was installed there should be propped up any further. They have to find their own way, and on their own terms as one state, or as many states and satellites of others.

Pathetic is the only word that comes to mind now when i hear "Afghanistan".

Time to call it a loss and just get out of there, right now!

 

[Double Edge]

Topic comes up from time to time
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=62911

i was a firm supporter of an American and Western commitment to Afghanistan. But now i am of the view that it is an exercise is uselessness. Afghanistan is hopeless, it will never be a functioning, progressing and cohesive state. It is clear to me that it is perhaps the most corrupt, backwards and dysfunctional of all countries in the World by far, and America cannot help it to evolve. Indeed, it is a failed state on so many levels.

I dont believe that this artificial post-2001 state that was installed there should be propped up any further. They have to find their own way, and on their own terms as one state, or as many states and satellites of others.

Pathetic is the only word that comes to mind now when i hear "Afghanistan".

Time to call it a loss and just get out of there, right now!

aka cut and run. Some years pass, something bad happens, its tracked down and people ask why did we leave Afghanistan

The sucess stories post-2001 are artificial, and wholly dependant on American and other foreign backing.

But they are real. We mostly hear about bad things because they are the exception. Time to worry is when we only hear good news because then the bad stuff is so common it isn't worth reporting on.

Has that point been reached in Afghanistan ?

The Afghan state would collapse within a week without foreign aid of any sort.

Najibullah lasted till '96. Soviets folded three years earlier. The reason was the mujahideen starting quitting soon as the soviets left. This actually allowed the afghan army to survive longer than anticipated and only had problems when soviet fuel shipments stopped entirely.

 

[1980s]

Topic comes up from time to time
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=62911



aka cut and run. Some years pass, something bad happens, its tracked down and people ask why did we leave Afghanistan


But they are real. We mostly hear about bad things because they are the exception. Time to worry is when we only hear good news because then the bad stuff is so common it isn't worth reporting on.

Has that point been reached in Afghanistan ?


Najibullah lasted till '96. Soviets folded three years earlier. The reason was the mujahideen starting quitting soon as the soviets left. This actually allowed the afghan army to survive longer than anticipated and only had problems when soviet fuel shipments stopped entirely.

I dont see the relevance or point of your reply. It's 2017, not 1992, when the Najibullah regime collapsed (not 1996 as you appear to claim - he was exeucted in '96, but had resigned years before). We are living in a very different time and age from the 1990s.

America has nothing left to offer, or to gain, from Afghanistan. This may be an entirely different situation for your country, but America is not fighting for India's agenda in Afghanistan, nor should it be.

Indians can foot the bill for propping up a failed and useless Afghanistan if they want to, but American tax payers should no longer do so. Afghanistan is a failure, and has always been so. This is an American war with zero benefit for America, but most importantly, zero benefit for the American people.

 

[Double Edge]

US policy has yet to come out for the region. So the lobbying has already started. I don't believe the US is leaving the area any time soon.

Indian servicemen haven't died in Afghanistan so what will you tell the families of those that did lose loved ones.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-trump-idUSKBN1AM0F5

Nothing has been decided yet. The question is of status quo or increase.

Full pull out isn't even an option but is included because of Trump.

 

[Double Edge]

Good summary here from Gen Keane, now to get Trump to agree. We'll only know after a month.

A fifth of the world's terrorists live in Afghanistan & Pakistan

See what happened in Iraq, US quits around 2011, it took just two years for Da'esh to spring up. Now the US is fighting Da'esh and is back in Iraq.

 

[Double Edge]

And we have a decision, thought it would take longer and only come out after Labour day (heard they needed all summer to make their minds up) but Trump just okayed the increase his generals asked for : )

Trump OKs sending 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan | Fox | Aug 22 2017

It's real simple, so long as the Afghans have a govt in office it means the Taliban are losing

The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach in how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries have worked together against common enemies. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices.

But Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately. No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order and to peace.

Now let's see just what price the Paks will pay for their position

Another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India, the world’s largest democracy and a key security and economic partner of the United States. We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development. We are committed to pursuing our shared objectives for peace and security in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region.

India get the cheque book out

Finally, my administration will ensure that you, the brave defenders of the American people, will have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work, and work effectively, and work quickly. I have already lifted restrictions the previous administration placed on our war fighters that prevented the secretary of defense and our commanders in the field from fully and swiftly waging battle against the enemy. Micromanagement from Washington, D.C., does not win battles. They’re won in the field, drawing upon the judgment and expertise of wartime commanders, and front-line soldiers, acting in real time with real authority, and with a clear mission to defeat the enemy.

That’s why we will also expand authority for American armed forces to target the terrorists and criminal networks that sow violence and chaos throughout Afghanistan. These killers need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms. Retribution will be fast and powerful, as we lift restrictions and expand authorities in the field. We’re already seeing dramatic results in the campaign to defeat ISIS, including the liberation of Mosul in Iraq.

Since my inauguration, we have achieved record-breaking success in that regard. We will also maximize sanctions and other financial and law enforcement actions against these networks to eliminate their ability to export terror. When America commits its warriors to battle, we must ensure they have every weapon to apply swift, decisive and overwhelming force. Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition. Attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy, with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will.

Finally, the pros will be allowed to get the job done

He wants an honourable and enduring outcome, a fitting tribute to those that paid with their lives.

Sounds good so far.

 

[Double Edge]

The question on peoples minds

How the U.S. Can Pressure Pakistan | Atlantic | Aug 24 2017

"it’s going to be very difficult to simultaneously be punishing the Pakistanis, and withdrawing aid, and financing, [while] at the same time … saying, ‘We really would like your help with Taliban reconciliation and supplying our troops in Afghanistan.”

But Haqqani, the former Pakistani envoy, sees it differently. Pakistanis, he said, have paid a heavy price in the form of terrorism, because of their leaders’ engagement with militants. The elites, he said, have little incentive to change their bad policies because those policies, despite U.S. criticism, work for them; the U.S. offers harsh words, but little else. Pakistan’s support for militancy will only stop, he said, when the “cost of that policy is greater for them than the perceived benefit.” And, he said of the plan he put forward with Curtis: “Things that haven’t been tried cannot be rejected as never having worked.”

With the paper’s coauthor now at the NSC, at least some of its policy prescriptions might have a chance at getting a hearing within the Trump administration.

Several months back When Haqqani was presenting this policy recommendation co-authored with Lisa Curtis, Chris Fair et al at the hudson institute. There were some characters in the audience most likely from the Pak embassy that had to be ejected for heckling him and accusing him of being a RAW agent : D

 

[Double Edge]

Zalmay Khalizads recommendations to deal with Pakistan

A key element of the new strategy is the recognition that America needs a new approach toward Pakistan. Unlike his two predecessors in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump has chosen to address the fact that Pakistan has been playing a double game. He unequivocally called out Pakistan for pretending to be a partner and receiving large-scale American assistance while providing sanctuary and support for the Taliban and the Haqqani terrorist network, which have been killing Americans and Afghans.

Mr. Trump’s announcement of a change in American policy implies that the United States will end its support and assistance for Pakistan. He also signaled that deference to Pakistani sensitivities will no longer prevent the United States from developing a stronger strategic partnership with India, concerning Afghanistan and more broadly.

The president must be ready for Pakistan to resist and test his resolve. This might come in the form of attacks on American assets in Afghanistan or of interference with supply routes across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Pakistan’s security apparatus will try to prove that the United States cannot succeed without cooperating on Islamabad’s terms.

Toward the end of his presidency, Mr. Obama signaled that the United States would seek to isolate Pakistan if it failed to change its policy of providing sanctuary to terrorists. In 2016, he also signaled that the drone strike that killed the Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour would be followed by more attacks on Pakistani territory against similar targets. Yet Mr. Obama never followed through.

Pakistan will seek to replay that cycle under the Trump administration, but the president can take effective countermeasures.

- The United States should impose sanctions against senior officials in the Pakistani military and intelligence services who play a direct role in supporting terrorists and extremists. (These sanctions should include bans on travel to the United States and allied countries, and the freezing of bank accounts.)

- Washington should also suspend all American aid to Pakistan and use its influence with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to do the same.

- It should begin a security assessment that would put Pakistan on the list of states that sponsor terrorist groups.

- Finally, the United States should conduct strikes against terrorist hide-outs in Pakistan.

The Trump administration should make clear to Islamabad that it would be willing to reverse these moves and repair relations — but only after Pakistan has demonstrated a change in conduct that has the clear result of diminished violence in Afghanistan.

lets see the Donalds resolve

Amrullah Saleh approves of this new policy

Trump Afghan strategy is as if Masood rules from his grave | IE | Aug 23 2017

 

[Double Edge]

It isn't just Pakistan that supports the Taliban but Iran & Russia as well. This committee hearing back in Feb this year has some interesting info

Why is Iran supporting the Taliban

Senator Cotton: A year ago, your predecessor, General Campbell, testified about his concern of the role Iran was playing in Afghanistan. Could you give us your view of what Iran has been up to in the last year since he testified?

General Nicholson: Iran is directly supporting the Taliban in western Afghanistan. There is a complex relationship between Afghanistan and Iran, and it not only involves security matters like this. Iran is also recruiting Afghan Shia to fight against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

On the other hand, there are also areas of cooperation between Iran and Afghanistan. Number one would be economic cooperation. The governments of India, Iran, and Afghanistan signed an agreement over the Chabahar Port in southern Afghanistan. Actually this initiative would be very beneficial to Afghanistan in terms of economic development. There are also ongoing conversations about water treaties between Afghanistan and Iran. Iran needs Afghanistan’s water. So it is a complex relationship. It has areas of potential synergy and benefit for both parties, but it also has important security equities. And so the Afghan Government is raising these issues with the Government of Iran and asking them not to support the Taliban and undermine the Afghan Government.

Senator Cotton: Is Iran’s support for the Taliban primarily or exclusively located in Herat and Farah, or are they supporting the Taliban throughout the country?

General Nicholson: Without getting into a lot of classified material in an open hearing like this, Senator, I would say it is primarily in the west, but their financial inroads go around the country in the north and in Kabul in particular.

Senator Cotton: So Iran, which is a Shiite-led government, is supporting a Sunni-led movement, the Taliban, in Afghanistan but recruiting Shia from Afghanistan to travel to Syria and fight. It seems like a complex act from Tehran united by a single consideration, which is undermining U.S. interests.

The Iranians have been using Afghan Shia to fight in Syria as the Iranian public became increasingly sensitive to body bags returning home. Taking shia fighters out of Afghanistan means less resistance to the Taliban so there is a modus vivendi of sorts with the Taliban but it also suggest a certain degree of confidence Iran has that the Taliban cannot over run the Northern alliance. There are shia fighters to spare in other words. Could also be a question of priorities. Syria & Iraq being the more important


Why is Russia supporting the Taliban

Chairman McCain: And the Russian involvement?

General Nicholson: The Russian involvement this year has become more difficult. First, they have begun to publicly legitimize the Taliban. This narrative that they promote is that the Taliban are fighting Islamic State, and the Afghan Government is not fighting Islamic State, and that, therefore, there could be a spillover of this group into the region. This is a false narrative. The Afghan Government, along with the U.S. counterterrorism forces, are successfully fighting against Islamic State in Afghanistan. In this year alone, we have reduced their fighters by half, their territory by two-thirds. We have killed their leader, in fact, their top 12 leaders, and continue to disrupt their operations.

If the US & Russia along with Iran are jointly fighting IS in Syria and Iraq then why would the US not do the same in Afghanistan ? that is the big hole in the Russian narrative.

Senator Fischer: You spoke about the increase in Russian involvement in Afghanistan and that growing relationship that they are having with the Taliban. Can you elaborate on that a little bit more for us, please?

General Nicholson: Yes, ma’am. So in addition to the public legitimizing of the Taliban, which is surprising given the Taliban have evolved over the years into a narco-insurgency and one that engages in extensive criminal activity, narcotics, kidnapping, illegal mining, and other forms of criminal activity to fund their operations, Russia has legitimized them with this false narrative of fighting ISIL-K. They also have initiated a series of meetings in Moscow to which the Afghans have not been invited for the first several meetings in which to discuss the future of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is trying to work with all of its neighbors and all of the stakeholders. They have reached out to the Russians about this. And we believe that a peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan should be Afghan-led, and this has been the position of the United States Government and we believe this will be the most lasting, enduring, effective peace arrangement. So ultimately where we are trying to go and help the Afghans go is to get to a point where they reconcile with the belligerents in this long war that they have experienced and be able to move forward with a peaceful and prosperous country.

Does not make much sense

Senator Perdue: You spoke in I think -- well, it was recently in December I think. You said that you condemn the malign influence of external actors, particularly Pakistan, Russia, and Iran. You said, quote, Russia has overtly lent legitimacy to the Taliban by claiming the Taliban is fighting ISIS. Do you believe Russia’s intent in Afghanistan has anything to do with ISIS?

General Nicholson: No, sir. I think it is to undermine the United States and NATO.

ok

Senator Graham: You mentioned in your testimony that you see a change in Russian behavior for the worse. Is that correct?

General Nicholson: Yes, Senator.

Senator Graham: What do you think their goals are in Afghanistan? Why are they changing?

General Nicholson: Senator, I think their goal is to undermine the United States and NATO in Afghanistan.

Senator Nelson: General, if the Russians’ stated goal is to undermine the influence of the United States, when did this effort start?

General Nicholson: Sir, with respect to Afghanistan --

Senator Nelson: Yes.

General Nicholson: -- they have not stated that as their goal.

Senator Nelson: No. I understand that is your opinion, and I agree with you.

General Nicholson: Yes, sir.

Senator Nelson: When did the evidence of them cozying up to the Taliban start?

General Nicholson: Sir, it started in 2016, so just within the last year this has started. And it was a gradual progression.

Senator Nelson: And is that progression increasing?

General Nicholson: Yes, sir.

Senator Nelson: I think we better let President Trump know that.

General Nicholson: Yes, sir.

Senator Nelson: If Russia is cozying up to the Taliban-- and that is a kind word -- if they are giving equipment that we have some evidence that the Taliban is getting it and other things that we cannot mention in this unclassified setting and the Taliban is also associated with Al Qaeda, therefore, Russia indirectly is helping Al Qaeda.

General Nicholson: Yes, sir.

Senator Nelson: In Afghanistan.

General Nicholson: Sir, the support of the Taliban -- the Taliban are the medium for many of these other terrorist groups to operate because of the convergence of these groups. So your logic is absolutely sound, sir.

Senator Nelson: Does that include ISIS?

General Nicholson: Sir, we do not see that same level of cooperation between the Taliban and ISIS. They are in conflict with one another. But the Taliban is not achieving the key effects and reducing IS. That is coming from the United States in the Afghan counterterrorism effort.

ISIS is a competitor to AQ & Taliban

Senator Nelson: How does the Taliban reconcile with the Government of Afghanistan when in fact they are being aided and abetted by the Russians to counter all of our efforts?

General Nicholson: Sir, you are exactly right. This is the challenge. And so this requires a whole-of- government approach, diplomatic, as well as military, to fundamentally get us to a place where we can have a reconciliation.

So the Russians are looking for leverage, same thing they did in Syria. Try to be the swing player any where and every where

Senator Nelson: Do you think there is any reason that the Russians, other than trying to undermine us, would be wanting to expand their sphere of influence and take back the territory that they got whipped and had to leave Afghanistan with their tail between their legs?

General Nicholson: Senator, I think they are concerned that if there is a coalition and a U.S. presence in Afghanistan, that this affects their ability to influence the Central Asian states to the north. So I do think this is part of their concern.

Senator Nelson: Yes, I agree.

I see this line in op-eds that the US can undermine russia in central asia but it seems more of a russian concern, as well as an iranian concern and possibly even a chinese concern than express US intent. The location is quite unqiue and for this reason why would the US leave any time soon.

General Nicholson: The Russians, of course, lack legitimacy in Afghanistan because of the anti-Soviet jihad. Millions of Afghans were killed by Russians and Russian-backed forces in Afghanistan. So there is a legitimacy question when it comes to Russia’s involvement in Afghanistan that is right at the forefront of this conversation with the Afghan people.

Senator Kaine: Although it is also the case, it shows how anti-NATO Russia is that they would engage with elements of the Taliban, some of whom were responsible for kicking the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, that they would try to bolster the Taliban as a check against NATO influence in Afghanistan. That is a pretty bold statement of how much they hate NATO.

General Nicholson: It is surprising, Senator, especially when you also consider the Taliban’s involvement in the narcotics trade and the detrimental impact that narcotics from Afghanistan are having on Russian society.

Strange indeed but at the same time tells me the Russians are open to deals in their interest

It's possible there may be some accommodation possible between the afghan govt, russia & Iran as their involvement is recent and more tactical than strategic. Neither Iran or Russia need the Taliban to win as badly as Pakistan. So i don't see the US as up against Iran & Russia to the same degree as with Pakistan despite news reports that would like to give Iran & Russia the same weight as Pakistan

 

[Double Edge]

China US objectives for Afghanistan aren't too out of line

China should be positively disposed towards elements of the new US strategy in Afghanistan too. Beijing will have been relieved that there is no precipitate military pull-out. Its concerns about an open-ended US troop presence will be mitigated by the fact the US has kept reconciliation with the Taliban alive as the political end goal, which China shares. Beijing also wants to see a stable settlement in place to ensure that Afghanistan cannot become a safe haven for Uygur militant groups or a threat to its growing strategic interests in the region.

Trump beware: Pakistan’s luck playing China card is turning | SCMP | Aug 27 2017

Can soften economic sanctions if imposed and lend some political support which is better than back in 2011.

 

[Double Edge]

Christine's recommendations from Nov last year

How the US can push Pakistan to abandon its terror proxies | Livemint | Nov 07 2016

 

[kuku]

Pakistan is not going to stop supporting the Taliban, it is in their good interest to keep these guys on their side.
And supporting Taliban does not seem to be an activity Pakistan can not do if there are sanctions after all China is going to support them through investments and weapons.
The US is not interested in anything, their purpose is served, the big bad Osama is dead.
From India's perspective it may be better to keep Afghanistan an active battle zone, otherwise, these crazy radical Muslim guys will end up showing up in Kashmir (where we have enough crazy radical Muslims of our own), it may be better to keep Pakistan investing its intelligence, military and financial resources in Afghanistan. we will have to spend the money though.

 

[Double Edge]

Taliban Leader Feared Pakistan Before He Was Killed | NYT | Aug 09 2017

More than a year after the event, Afghans on both sides of the war and a growing number of Western security analysts say that Pakistan most likely engineered Mullah Mansour’s death to remove a Taliban leader it no longer trusted.

“Pakistan was making very strong demands,” the former commander said. “Mansour was saying you cannot force me on everything. I am running the insurgency, doing the fighting and taking casualties and you cannot force us.”

After Mullah Mansour’s death, Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, an Islamic cleric with no military experience, was selected as leader of the Taliban. Yet Afghanistan has seen little reprieve with his death, as hard-liners within the movement took over and redoubled their offensive to take power.

There is little chance of anyone speaking out, the former commander said. “Ninety percent of the Taliban blame the Pakistanis,” he said. “But they cannot say anything. They are scared.”

so there can be differences between sponsor and client

Mullah Mansour had resisted orders from Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, to destroy infrastructure — schools, bridges and roads — to increase the cost of the war for the Afghan government. He opposed the promotion of Pakistan’s hard-line protégé Sirajuddin Haqqani to be his deputy, and he had dodged Pakistan’s demands to push its agenda in negotiations.

Critically, he wanted to devolve more power to regional Taliban commanders, allowing them to raise their own funds and make their own decisions, in order to own the Afghan nationalist cause and loosen Pakistan’s control over the insurgency.

Can't be too independent

For many in the Taliban, Mullah Mansour’s death represented a devastating betrayal by their longtime patron and sponsor, Pakistan, that has split and demoralized the ranks.

How to exploit that sentiment

 

[JCT]

US plan to improve Afghan intelligence operations branded a $457m failure: https://www.theguardian.com/global-...ntelligence-operations-branded-a-457m-failure

This story is one failure too many. For many years i was a firm supporter of an American and Western commitment to Afghanistan. But now i am of the view that it is an exercise is uselessness. Afghanistan is hopeless, it will never be a functioning, progressing and cohesive state. It is clear to me that it is perhaps the most corrupt, backwards and dysfunctional of all countries in the World by far, and America cannot help it to evolve. Indeed, it is a failed state on so many levels. The sucess stories post-2001 are artificial, and wholly dependant on American and other foreign backing. The Afghan state would collapse within a week without foreign aid of any sort. I dont believe that this artificial post-2001 state that was installed there should be propped up any further. They have to find their own way, and on their own terms as one state, or as many states and satellites of others.

Pathetic is the only word that comes to mind now when i hear "Afghanistan".

Time to call it a loss and just get out of there, right now!

We've heard this story before. In Webster's, look under corruption and it's now synonymous with Afghanistan. Corruption is endemic and people are not loyal to the state, but to their family and tribe. Historically (outside of a few exceptions) Afghanistan has never had a strong central state government. Tribal loyalties may have faded within the cities, but is still very strong in most of the rest of the country. This is not likely to change anytime soon and will make putting together a strong central government very difficult if not impossible.

 

[Double Edge]

Pakistan is not going to stop supporting the Taliban, it is in their good interest to keep these guys on their side.
And supporting Taliban does not seem to be an activity Pakistan can not do if there are sanctions after all China is going to support them through investments and weapons.

How long can Pakistan remain defiant ?

Does this mean Trump has to simply back down and return to the default mode when it comes to Pakistan’s jihadi strategy? Not so fast. The difficulties of sustaining the current US position do seem insurmountable in the face of America’s past record with Pakistan. Trump’s team has surely taken all these problems into consideration when it got the US President to demand that Pakistan must end — right now — its unacceptable commitment to jihadi terrorism.

The Trump team is saying the past is not always a guide to the future. Just because some lines of pressure on Pakistan were not tried out does not mean they won’t be now. While signalling a new political will to do things it would not in the past — kinetic and financial targeting of terror groups and their facilitators in Pakistan’s security establishment — the Trump administration has held these measures close to its chest. How and when they might be unveiled will depend on the political engagement with Pakistan in the coming weeks.

Although it has thumbed its nose at Trump, Rawalpindi is bound to talk with Washington sooner than later. It has always valued the special relationship with America and is aware of the dangers of inviting Washington’s wrath. Pakistan’s upper crust too has many personal and pecuniary links with the West. While defiance marks Rawalpindi’s public posture, its private approach might well be defined by pretended deference, claims of victimhood, protests against abandonment and obfuscation on supporting terror.

Raja Mandala: Curing Rawalpindi | IE | Aug 29 2017

The US is not interested in anything, their purpose is served, the big bad Osama is dead.

Yet for some reason they seen unwilling to leave six years later ?

From India's perspective it may be better to keep Afghanistan an active battle zone, otherwise, these crazy radical Muslim guys will end up showing up in Kashmir (where we have enough crazy radical Muslims of our own), it may be better to keep Pakistan investing its intelligence, military and financial resources in Afghanistan. we will have to spend the money though.

India can help build the Afghan air force amongst others, they need helicopters and light combat aircraft. If we're going to cultivate a proxy then make it more credible. Should be enough to push the Taliban back. Afghans are tired of battle zones. 70% of the population are in areas controlled by the govt. The Taliban have been reduced to a rural insurgency,

 

[Double Edge]

Watching Paks reaction after the speech. The civilian side has been busy condemning it, however the military has been more circumspect and quiet. If there are no sanctuaries why all the hot air. If this is business as usual why the commotion.

A tougher approach | Dawn (op-ed) | Sep 05 2017

On Pakistan’s side, the public reaction isn’t surprising. The mistrust vis-à-vis the US was always going to make a standoffish approach intuitive for many in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. They were also concerned that appearing weak would invite even harsher US rhetoric. Also, the general anti-US leaning of the public implied that a hard-hitting response would check the government’s popularity box.

If this was business as usual, we’d expect the huffing and puffing to go on for a bit before both sides got back to pretending they are on the same page. Even if this is still the plan, there are strong undercurrents that may make the outcome fundamentally different. Pakistani officialdom seems to have derived two extraordinary conclusions from Trump’s speech.

First, many seem convinced that the US is resolved to take Pakistan to task in the short run. The articulations of what the US might do range from diplomatic and economic pressure; to excessive use of drones; to the US even staging an Osama bin Laden type raid to embarrass Pakistan. The national security apparatus is contemplating untoward scenarios and mitigation options.

I asked someone relevant why options to find a conciliatory way out are not featuring prominently. The response? The US is going to create one excuse or the other to come after us. So it’s not the time to show flexibility.

Second, there is consensus across the policy spectrum that US intentions in Afghanistan are sinister: the principal US goal, I am told, is to retain military bases indefinitely — not to settle Afghanistan but to undercut China and Russia. The prime target for now is going to be CPEC. India will be a key partner in this endeavour.

Only one Pakistani policy direction can flow from this thinking: a decidedly negative one for the Pakistan-US engagement in Afghanistan.

These are not new thoughts. America’s worst critics in Pakistan have often insinuated such motives. The difference is that the mainstream is on board this time, including those who have traditionally been convinced of the merits of continuing to work with the US.

Have heard that underlined bit before, now i know its source. Makes sense, the meaning of this yarn is Russia & China should support Pakistan to thwart these evil designs. Maybe not so strange is the Russians are also promoting that line of evil US designs against Russia

The prognosis on the US side isn’t any better. One, perhaps for the first time, one can’t rule out a US decision to act on its coercive threats. While often overlooked in the Pakistani discourse, the US policy debate on Pakistan has always recognised the cons of going down the punishment path. Ultimately, those advocating calm have tended to win out.

They may still. But frustration levels with Pakistan are as high as I have ever seen them. And the narrative on the Pakistan policy has finally converged on the punishment approach. Fair or not, there is a belief that Afghanistan will only be won if the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network presence in Pakistan is neutralised; and that the only hope of making this happen is to use a stick-heavy approach. Even those who are sceptical seem to think it’s worth a try.

Before, people said US is letting Pakistan off easy because US was advised stick heavy won't work

Now US wants to try stick heavy and people still say stick heavy won't work. If stick heavy was never tried before how do these folks know it won't work ?

The current anti-engagement mood in Pakistan makes their task easier: the US must act upon its threats to call Pakistan’s bluff or it will be seen as rewarding its intransigence.

Nothing good can come out of a collision. US coercion has no chance of getting it what it wants from Pakistan; yet, Pakistan can’t pretend it won’t hurt badly if the US flexes its muscle. Meanwhile, the fallout of the increased bitterness will make things worse in Afghanistan. The only way out, again, is engagement. It is going to take some doing in the current environment. But they must — for the alternative this time round may not be business as usual.

He's saying Pakistan better cooperate or else, in not so many words.

 

[Double Edge]

Curious behaviour by China at the BRICS though welcome. That technical hold on Masood Azhar that China uses won't last long.

BRICS declaration may strain China-Pakistan ties: Chinese scholar | Livemint | Sept 04 2017

Chinese scholar Hu Shisheng says China will have a lot of explanation to do to Pakistan in the coming months over the BRICS declaration naming terror groups operating from that country
Published: Mon, Sep 04 2017. 10 11 PM IST
K.J.M. Varma

Beijing: The move to name some Pakistan-based terror groups in the BRICS declaration would “irritate” Islamabad and may strain its ties with China, a Chinese scholar said, in a rare criticism of the government’s decision.

Hu Shisheng, director of the state-run China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, said Chinese diplomats will have a lot of explanation to do to Pakistan in the coming months. “How will we carry forward?”

Hu also said that naming the Haqqani network, which operates in Afghanistan and targets the NATO forces stationed there, in the document was “beyond my understanding”.

“The head of the group is also the actual head of the Afghan Taliban. It will make China’s role for Afghan political reconciliation process more difficult. Or you can say we have no role to play in future,” the expert told PTI.

His criticism of China came after the BRICS declaration in Xiamen named the terrorist groups—including the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Jaish-e-Mohammad, Taliban, and Haqqani Network—for causing violence in the region.

“It is beyond my understanding how China agreed to this. I don’t think it is good idea,” Hu said. “I think some persons who prepared this declaration got mislead. Otherwise I could not understand why,” he said.

In the light of the inclusion of the JeM, China may reconsider its stand on blocking a proposed UN ban on the leader of the group, Masood Azhar, the Chinese expert said.

Hu said the declaration will augment pressure on Pakistan, especially after US President Donald Trump rebuked Islamabad for harbouring these terror groups on its soil. “This will irritate Pakistan. I don’t think when the BRICS declaration was made, Pakistan was consulted. In the coming days Chinese diplomats have to explain to Pakistan,” Hu said.

“I am not against listing LeT and JeM as terrorist groups. But there are more deadly groups than these—like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi al-Alami of Pakistan, which was behind killing of two Chinese youths in Balochistan,” he added.

China may have agreed to name these to include the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, which is active in its restive Xinjiang region. It is also said to have bases in Pakistan. “(But) This is too costly to China... Pakistan will be very upset,” he said, adding that this could be a victory for India, which “has done a lot of work”.

However, another Chinese scholar, Wang Dehua, head of the Institute for South and Central Asian Studies at the Shanghai Municipal Centre for International Studies, said the BRICS declaration will set an example for the world community. “To successfully counter all kinds of terrorism, the first important concern is violence caused by the Taliban, ISIS, al-Qaeda and its affiliates and should reach consensus on which terrorists we should attack,” he told PTI.

On potential listing of Maulana Masood Azhar as a global terrorist by the UN, he said China may have had its reasons to block the move but, “I guess after India has given more facts, China may have changed its former stand”.

Wang said all BRICS members should now adopt a comprehensive approach to combat terrorism. “May the BRICS member states make more contributions to counter terrorism, world peace and stability,” he said. PTI

 

[Double Edge]

And this..acts of contrition included

China, Pakistan Poised To Clash Over Militant Sanctuaries | RFERL | Sept 06 2017

Abubakar Siddique
September 06, 2017

For years, China had Pakistan’s back as it faced criticism over its alleged support for or inability to curb Islamist militant organizations often accused of fomenting insurgencies and terrorist attacks in neighboring Afghanistan and India.

Beijing now looks ready to publicly prod Islamabad to come clean on the issue in what would be a remarkable change after Chinese officials have reportedly tried to convey the same message privately for some time.

Differences between Beijing and Islamabad over the presence and handling of Islamist militants based in Pakistan are now coming to the fore despite the two capitals being keen on showcasing their alliance as rock solid.

Islamabad is scrambling to limit the fallout from a recent summit of leaders of emerging economies in the BRICS grouping that took place in the Chinese city of Xiamen this week.

In their September 4 statement, the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa “expressed concern on the security situation in the region and violence caused” by the Taliban, Islamic State (IS), Al-Qaeda and its affiliates including the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e Taiba, Jaish-e Mohammad, Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan, and Hizb ut-Tahrir.

While the statement didn’t name Pakistan specifically, some of the 10 groups still shelter inside the country despite official bans and claims of government crackdowns against them.

Moreover, India, Afghanistan and the United States have frequently asked Islamabad to move against some of the groups. Even those such as ETIM, IMU, IS, and TTP are seen as recruiting from Pakistan or have benefited from sheltering there in recent years.

An overlooked but more revealing change in Beijing’s posture was the condemnation of “terrorist attacks resulting in death to innocent Afghan nationals.”

While calling for an immediate cessation of violence, the BRICS declaration reaffirmed support for Afghanistan: “We support the efforts of the Afghan national defense and security forces in fighting terrorist organizations.”

The declaration appears to be a departure from Beijing’s efforts to publicly defend Pakistan, where it is currently investing more than $50 billion in infrastructure and energy development. Collectively called the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, these investments are a showcase project of Beijing’s One Road One Belt grand strategy to propel the country’s global reach and influence through trade.

Last month, Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi reportedly told U.S. State Secretary Rex Tillerson, "We must value Pakistan's important role in the Afghanistan issue and respect Pakistan's sovereignty and reasonable security concerns."

Yang, who outranks China's foreign minister, spoke with Tillerson on August 23 after U.S. President Donald Trump warned Islamabad that Washington “can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations.”

A day earlier, Beijing was all praise for Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts. “For many years, it [Pakistan] has made positive efforts and great sacrifices for combating terrorism and made important contributions to upholding world peace and regional stability,” said Hua Chunying, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman.

Beijing’s changing stance comes after consistently backing Islamabad on international forums. On Pakistan’s urging, China prevented the United Nations from listing Jaish-e Mohammad leader Masood Azhar as a globally designated terrorist twice this year. The organization is, however, mentioned in the BRICS declaration.

According to Pakistani daily Dawn, in an October meeting Pakistan’s most senior civilian foreign office bureaucrat conveyed a blunt message to the country’s political and military leaders.

Then Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry, now Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington, told participants that despite its public backing Beijing is pushing for a change in Islamabad’s course.

“Chinese authorities have conveyed their willingness to keep putting on technical hold a UN ban on Jaish-e Mohammad leader Masood Azhar; they have questioned the logic of doing so repeatedly,” the paper reported.

The explosive story stirred a political storm in Pakistan as the country’s powerful army rejected it as a “fabricated” and pushed for a probe, which eventually resulted in several senior civilian officials losing their jobs.

However, there was hardly any official discussion over whether Islamabad needed to change its course.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif, however, confirmed that now even allies are urging Islamabad to clean up its act.

“Did we prove to the world that we are acting 100 percent on the resolve we showed [to end terrorism] in 2014?” he asked in an interview with Pakistan’s Geo television.

Following a massacre at an army school in December 2014, Pakistan civilian and military leadership agreed on a comprehensive National Action Plan on counterterrorism. But the plan’s implementation has been patchy at best.

Asif sees no escape from taking the militant organizations head on.

“As long as we close our eyes to these [terrorist] organizations, we will keep on facing similar embarrassments [such as the one at the BRICS summit],” he said. “Let’s put our house in order and then talk to the rest of the world.”

Pakistan’s top diplomat empathically rejected the notion that militant organizations such as Lashkar-e Taiba, Jaish-e Mohammad, and the Haqqani network were of any value to his country.

“Every Pakistani must ask whether the people [militants] we nurtured during the past 30 or 40 years are still our [strategic] assets today. Are they our assets or liability? We have to define this on our national level. I am talking about what my children and their children will endure [if we fail].”

Scheduled to soon tour China and Russia, Asif is adamant that the country’s current civilian and military leaders are united in making a clean break with the past.

“First we need to confess our sins and then hope for atonement,” he said.

 

[Oracle]

US shuts Pakistan's Habib Bank over terror financing concerns

Seems the noose is getting tighter.

 

[Double Edge]

No Free Passes For India In The New Great Game In Afghanistan | Swarajya | Sept 5 2017

Good read with a regional perspective. Vikram Sood is the former head of R&AW, India’s external intelligence agency.

The US has remained extremely deferential to Pakistani hypersensitivity about Afghan rearmament.

The ANSF thus never had the equipment and adequate training to be able to function as an army that was both an effective counter-insurgency force and able to engage against conventional trans-border threats.

Ironically, foreign observers are now dismissive of the Afghan army’s capabilities as if the present state is entirely the fault of the Afghans themselves.

Consequently, despite the estimated $780 billion spent mostly by the US over 15 years, the Afghan army remains underequipped and undertrained.

A smarter, well-equipped, well-trained army comprising locals fighting on and for their own land would have been far greater value for money than well-equipped highly trained foreign troops.

Telling it like it is. We've heard a lot of bs about how the afghans were incapable of fighting and here we find out why

Can't arm the Afghans because the Paks don't like it (!) well maybe this could change
The Paks get to harbour whomever they want (!)

Today, no one really wants to discuss the two major problems afflicting Afghanistan; one, the opium trade that sustains the Taliban and the impoverished Afghan farmer; and two, the support Pakistan has rendered the Taliban and continues to.

Much is being made out of the presence of so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Nangarhar province of Afghanistan, bordering Pakistan. But informed opinion from Afghanistan asserts that there is no such entity like ISIS in the country. Some elements merely fly the ISIS flag. These are really those belonging to the Haqqani Network, closely associated with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The ISIS has brand equity amongst western nations, and now with Russia. Additionally, it provides Pakistan with deniability in its operations in Afghanistan. This might make the Haqqani faction look good, even humane, in the bargain. If the narrative about the Taliban among some powers can change to suit the occasion, so can that for the Haqqani Network. The ISIS is becoming a convenient diversion from the main threat to Afghanistan — the Taliban.

If the ISIS is seen as a global threat, then the correct way of handling it is through global efforts and not through appeasement of a regional menace — the Taliban.

The trouble is everyone knows this has to be done, but no one follows it up. Merely spraying opium cultivation with pesticides is not enough. It is essential to cut off this source of funds to the Taliban and the drug lords. Tonnes have been written about counter-insurgency but much less has been written or done about the drug menace.

Instead of a concerted counter--terror action against the Taliban, we are now seeing some of the most powerful powers of the world meeting to decide how best to acquiesce to them. As a result, what the world will have, including the world they seek to protect, is more of the same. Maybe even worse. The end of the Afghan jihad was seen as a victory of the faith over a superpower. A deal with the Taliban will lead to similar interpretations with consequences for all of us, including Pakistan.

Security analyst Sameer Lalwani has summed up the various policy recommendations available for handling Pakistan. He said: “(T)he greatest obstacle to any turnaround in Afghanistan is that there is the absence of a realistic strategy to deal with Pakistan”. If there is no strategy to change Pakistan’s behaviour – coercion, inducement or brute force — the situation in Afghanistan will not improve substantially. This is the crux.

The Russian angle

From Russia with ambition

The Russians, Chinese and Iranians are wooing the Taliban as Pakistan sits secure and smug that its policies of investing in the Taliban are seemingly beginning to give dividends. The only holdouts to this fervour are the Afghans themselves and the Indians. Quite naturally, the suitors have to construct a convenient storyline as each of the players have their own interests in mind; Afghanistan is only incidental.

The Russians see an opportunity in the weakening of US stature in the Middle East. Events in Iraq and Syria have left the Russians in an advantageous position. Moscow probably sees its navy having an assured presence in the Mediterranean through the Syrian coastline, and if they have access to Iran via Afghanistan, then they have access to the Persian Gulf. This may be an adequate counter to the Chinese presence in Gwadar and Indian interests in Chahbahar. The Russians thus see for themselves a new opportunity in the region provided they can handle two negative but related factors. One is that of the rising Islamist threat to themselves through Afghanistan and Central Asia. The second, related to this, is the never-ending problem of narcotics, which is now the centrepiece to any solution in Afghanistan.

Russia wants to be strategically relevant in the entire region in opposition to US interests. The clash between Russia and the US and its European allies has been building up since Georgia in 2008, onto Crimea in 2014 and finally, Ukraine. The allegations that Russia had interfered in the last US presidential elections have also exacerbated relations.

Russia has moved a considerable distance away from its stance in the 1990s when along with India, Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, a joint effort was made to keep the Taliban at bay. This was successful until the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud on 9 September 2001. The suicide bombers had travelled via Pakistan. The implications of this major event were lost in the catastrophe of 9/11.

The Russians have met Taliban representatives several times in the past two years. It is possible that the Russians seek to get the Taliban to destabilise the Ghani Government seen by the Russians as a US-backed regime. Besides, neither the Russians, Chinese nor Iranians have taken too kindly to the US decision to maintain its bases in Afghanistan for power projection into Central Asia. President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, has said Russia “will not tolerate this”.

Kabulov has also said that the ISIS is a bigger threat to the region than the Taliban. The storyline is that in the interest of peace in Afghanistan, the Taliban be considered as a political and social movement. The Russians believe that the ISIS cannot be eliminated without cooperation from Pakistan. This cooperation means being on the same page about the Taliban. It is interesting that none of the powers — America, Russia, China and Iran — is willing to even talk about the role that the Pakistan-backed Haqqani Network will be playing in the game that is unfolding.

The Russians do have genuine worries though. An estimated 50,000 Russians die every year due to heroin addiction. This is a huge number in any country but even more in a country with a declining population. Fifteen years ago, the Muslim population in Russia was about 10 per cent; today it is more than 13 per cent. Moscow is now home to about 1.5 to two million Muslims, making it the second largest Muslim city in Europe. The Muslims are mostly Sunni but many were without the traditional Muslim moorings. This is beginning to change with increasing radicalisation.

Russia does have a serious problem if one considers that an estimated 5,000 to 7,000 ISIS cadres speak Russian of which half are Russian citizens and the rest from Central Asia. This makes Russian the second most popular language in the ISIS. The Russian contingent have their own command and control structure. Inevitably, the fear now is that these jihadis will return to Russia. By 2015, these battle-hardened cadres were finding their way home.

The China angle

Chinese checkers

The Chinese seek to move into empty spaces that might be vacated by an America that is looking for exits and solutions that are not seen as failures. Yet the Chinese have until recently refrained from getting militarily involved and have let the Russians lift the heavy load for them in Syria. They themselves give the image of a responsible country with deep pockets, but most do not quite see the tight fists inside them. Their investments in Afghanistan designed for extracting mineral resources are less than India’s. China’s strategic interest in Afghanistan and Central Asia revolves around the One Belt One Road project, of which the CPEC is a subsidiary project. China sees an opportunity in Iran, which would enable it to have access to the Gulf through Afghanistan and to the Caspian Sea through Iran.

China’s security interests hover around keeping Xinjiang free of Islamist influences i.e. the Taliban and ISIS varieties. Banning beards of a certain length and veils may be a part of this attempt to provide conformity, but also indicates a growing fear among China’s rulers about this restive province. This may not be enough and hence the Chinese have been using the Pakistani connection for contacts with the Taliban. They will go along with the Pakistani distinctions between “good Taliban” and “bad Taliban”. It suits China to have direct contact with the Taliban, which gives both the Taliban and Pakistan greater legitimacy and the Chinese hope to secure themselves somewhat in Xinjiang. India may have provided some limited military assistance lately (M-25 attack helicopters) but the Chinese also have conducted joint patrols with Afghan forces to indicate their availability in the face of an US drawdown.

The Iran angle

Iran is decidedly uncomfortable with a strong Sunni presence on its borders. The Iranians are also apprehensive now of the recently formed Saudi-sponsored Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism, a collection of Sunni nations. Policies in and about Afghanistan are more likely to remain a reflection of a larger US-Russia antagonism and a high level of mutual suspicion accompanied by rising ambitions and fears of China and Iran.

The Iranians have been concerned about events in Afghanistan from the time the Afghan jihad started in the 1980s. The presence of Soviet troops in their neighbourhood and a jihad bankrolled by the Saudis along with archenemy America’s active assistance was a cause of deep concern. Later in the 1990s, they cooperated with India and Russia to try and stem the Taliban tide but many arrangements fell off the table after 9/11. The growing uncertainties in Iran’s neighbourhood and the fears about ISIS have also pushed the Iranians to seek a solution to the problems in Afghanistan that involve the Taliban. Iran has sheltered Taliban elements in the past. Obviously, Iran’s leaders remind themselves that they need a peaceful and secure border with Afghanistan and for that would need to come to terms with the Taliban.

A triangular relationship between Iran, Russia and China had been evolving for some time. China and Iran signed a military cooperation agreement in November 2016, which envisages bilateral military training and closer cooperation on regional issues, with Syria and terrorism being on the top of the Iranian list. Around the same time, the Russians also announced that the two countries were negotiating an arms deal worth $10 billion to supply Iran with T-90 tanks, artillery systems, aircraft and helicopters.

Russians and Iranians aren't looking at this from the afghan pov, they are looking at it from the prism of their country's relations with the US pov (!)