AFGHAN CIVIL WAR Afghan-Iraq: back to the future

Discussion in 'Afghanistan' started by jus, Nov 30, 2014.

  1. jus

    jus Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Universe
    Washington hoped for a clean getaway from the two countries it invaded in the early 2000s. The Taliban, like the Islamic State, has other ideas.

    Pakistan has long been accused of aiding the Afghan Taliban as a means of maintaining its influence in Afghanistan. Its primary strategic motive - which has survived many changes of leadership in Islamabad - is to limit India's role in the region. Indeed, few external analysts appreciate how deeply fear of Indian power runs among the Pakistani elite. In particular, this underlies the army's determination to expand Pakistan’s nuclear force (a project now underway). In political and economic areas too, Pakistan is greatly concerned by the involvement of Indian organisations, both governmental and commercial, in Afghanistan’s development.

    In the wings

    Taliban elements have been steadily encroaching on a swathe of territory across much of southern and southeastern Afghanistan. The final phases of the main western evacuation have been relatively quiet, though almost certainly this is because Taliban commanders calculate that there's little point in losing men to western troops when most of the latter are leaving.

    The Taliban also benefit via revenues from opium production, which was at an all-time high in late 2013 (according to United Nations sources). The supply will probably hold at current levels, despite the United States and coalition partners having spent $7.5 billion on attempted eradication. Much of the opium is in areas of Taliban influence, thus making appropriate “taxation” of production and transport an easy source of income to finance the movement's activities.Most current Taliban violence is directed at the Afghan army and police rather than the departing westerners. Indeed, some districts quite close to Kabul are becoming no-go areas for government forces.

    On the ground

    The concerns raised by such attacks are increased by doubts about the capacity of the Afghan security forces. In early 2014, as the US withdrawal was being contemplated, it became obvious that the Afghan police and army could not cope.


    The United States's intention is still to withdraw most of its deployed troops by 2016, though also to leave around 1,000 to protect diplomats and other officials. However, the endemic insecurity in much of Afghanistan makes this frankly implausible. In short, Washington will continue to fight a war in Afghanistan while also pouring troops into Iraq to combat the Islamic State. After eleven years in Iraq and thirteen in Afghanistan, neither war shows any sign of ending.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/afghanistaniraq-back-to-future
     
  2.  
  3. jus

    jus Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Universe
    @Srinivas_K check ur loving Afghan .I don't have any personal enmity with them but i know afghan is&will be in Civil war

    Taliban brings war to Afghan capital, threatening stability and endangering foreigners.Well written by Washington post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...aef902-77d4-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html

    KABUL — Three gunmen and suicide bombers stormed a compound housing a foreign NGO in the Afghan capital on Saturday, exchanging fire with security forces before leaving three hostages two foreigners and one Afghan staffer — were killed, police said.

    Three Killed After Gunmen Storm Foreign Compound in Kabul, Afghanistan - NBC News

    On Thursday, individuals in Kabul, Afghanistan, were caught off guard when a suicide bomber ignited a bomb that resulted in the death of five people. A car that was ridden with explosives was detonated as a foreign embassy convoy passed by the 9th District in Kabul, Afghanistan. The bomb is said to have killed one British citizen, a member of the embassy’s security team, and four Afghans

    Bombing Attack Kills Five in Afghanistan
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    Srinivas_K likes this.
  4. jus

    jus Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Universe
    Will Afghanistan fail as a state after 2014?
    Big Question: what occurred as a tragedy in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 may repeat itself as a farce after 2014


    The suicide bombing of a UK embassy vehicle in central Kabul came just four days after an attack on a crowd watching a volleyball match in the southeastern province of Paktika, which killed more than 45 people.

    Neither of these suicide bombings, sadly, came as a surprise. It was evident that the scaling down of the Western military presence would lead to more violence: the Taliban’s intention to play a bigger political role in Afghanistan and its ability to undertake violent action across the country were well known.

    There are two primary reasons why the security situation in Afghanistan is worsening. The first and critical problem is politico-economic in nature. Having promised government jobs, money, and power to their supporters before the elections, both President Ashraf Ghani and the CEO Abdullah Abdullah are now struggling to keep their promises.
    With about 850,000-odd employees on its payroll, coupled with a desperate shortage of funds, the Afghan state has become a hub of disguised unemployment. No wonder corruption is a chronic problem.


    Instead of ensuring equitable distribution of funds and authority, those who have both simply don’t want to part with it. And those who don’t get their share are happy to part ways and seek revenge. All that the Taliban needs to do is capitalise on this burgeoning discontent.

    The other problem is the incapability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) to contain violence. There are two aspects to this. First, from a military tactical perspective, the Taliban, which controls the Afghan countryside, has freedom of manoeuvre that the ANSF does not enjoy. Restricted to securing the cities and key trade arteries of Afghanistan, Afghan soldiers often become sitting ducks for the Taliban.

    It is no surprise that the ANSF is struggling to reduce its attrition rates, which often run into double-digit percentage figures. Trained to kill, disgruntled soldiers may have no qualms offering their services to the opposition in the future.

    Will Afghanistan fail as a state after 2014? - Telegraph
     
  5. warrior monk

    warrior monk Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    731
    Location:
    Odisha
    Pakistan’s ‘strategic shift’ policy with respect to India will never allow Pakistan to forsake its stake on Afghanistan . Having treated Afghanistan as its backyard and pursued exceptionally intrusive policies for years it is unlikely it is going to change. Pakistan is suffering a delusion which ISIS also suffers from that is creating an Islamic Caliphate in South Asia a concept of "Nizam-e-Mustafa" establishment of Mustafa's (Muhammad) law in South Asia.
    The Huge superiority of India with respect to pakistan forces delusional pakistani elite to somehow merge Afghanistan with Pakistan . To understand pakistan's strategic depth delusion we have to go back in history.
    When Sir Mortimer Durand, of British India, drew a 2,640 kilometer line between Afghanistan and British India in 1893, his aim was to create a buffer state between imperial Britain’s territory and Czarist Russia. The border, popularly referred to as the Durand Line,‎ was established after an agreement between Sir Durand and the Emir of Afghanistan. The deal legalized Britain’s control over its Pashtun possessions by dividing Pashtun tribal areas. The Durand Line is disputed by Afghanistan as a myth since it divides the Pashtuns. While Afghanistan has sought to reintegrate the Pashtuns, Pakistan has come up with various arguments to justify a “fusion” of the two states the latest being creation of "Nizam-e-Mustafa".

    In the 1950s, Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s first military ruler, argued for a federation of the two states based on religion. He later called for a grand confederation of like-minded and territorially contiguous Muslim countries, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey. Khan’s vision of such a confederation would help Pakistan stand up to India, as it would provide resources and strength in numbers to match its larger enemy. The case that has been most often argued, especially since the late 1980s, is the Pakistani need for “strategic depth” in Afghanistan. In military terms, this broadly refers to the distances between the front lines and a country’s industrial nucleus, population centers, heartlands and locations of its military industry. It then became a policy to be pursued in order to respond to a potential military strike by India. Since then, the Pakistani military establishment has used this policy to justify manipulating the politics of Afghanistan, by using violence and terror.

    The Pakistani military doctrine behind the concept of strategic depth suggests transforming Afghanistan into a client state to create an Islamic Calipate and to take on the much larger Infidel Hindus. We in India do not believe in a theocratic state but the major compelling narrative in Pakistani elite is of a Islamic caliphate to convert India from Dar al-Harb to Dar al-Islam for that it does not have the military might or resources so it needs afghanistan for strategic withdrawl if Indian forces conduct a massive armoured thrust.
    In short to sum it up pakistan want a pliant afghanistan , to use pashtun terrorism for it's kashmir policy and bleed India by thousand cuts , for this it needs pashtun nationalism and theocratic islamis ideas to merge and take over afghanistan by overt or covert means. It nearly succeeded if not for 9/11 where NATO occupied Afghanistan dousing water on pakistani idea of nizamat. Now that americans are leaving it will be back with its dirty tricks from 2016 as US troops will stay upto end of 2015 end.
     
  6. Srinivas_K

    Srinivas_K Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    3,355
    In my view Civil war is not possible.

    The democracy in Afghanistan has many nations support USA,NATO, Russia ,India and Iran are supporting the Afghan. Govt.

    Unlike in the 90's There are various developmental projects , trade routes and pipe lines that are coming up in Afghanistan.

    USA is not leaving they are here to stay until 2024 and beyond. India is doing humanitarian assistance and is also rebuilding Afghan institutions. Soon trade routes and mining activities will start in that country. So there are many countries that are interested in Afghanistan, including China.

    Taliban cannot take over Afghan cities, but the terror activities will continue it seems since Pakistan is in no mood of abandoning the old strategy.





     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  7. jus

    jus Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Universe
    USA don't give sh*t to any one.They only care about their financials, if it is not profitable they run away.

    Only 2 cities are controlled by ANA and what about their supply routes,how goods will reach, how many days they can sustain on air support/hafta.I repeat the civil war will continue ... Man developments, it will take 1 -10 yrs to build a bridge/dam/buildings but Talibans will BOMB them in 2 seconds.Who wins :rofl:
     
  8. Srinivas_K

    Srinivas_K Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    3,355
    It is a complicated game !!

    Taliban are gaining in South and South Eastern regions. Most of them are trained in pakistani areas.

    An average Afghan is against Taliban unlike the soviet invasion times. Afghans even Pashtuns are favouring development. Taliban Ideology stood only because of fear, unlike in 90's people welcomed them and supported them.

    Regarding rebuilding works, There is an urgent need to rebuild the Afghan institutions and infrastructure.

    regarding USA, USA has many interests in Afghanistan region they are not leaving !

    Ever wondered why Taliban are still fighting when USA has might and economy to buy these groups and make an agreement??

    They want to keep the region in turmoil with weak governments. And also want to play great Asian game with China, India and Russia.

    the moment USA leaves Afghanistan, the three powers come together and establish trade links and co operation, this is what USA do not want.
     
  9. jus

    jus Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Universe
    Sorry what a idiot u are

    U mean usa can buy Taliban,do u know what are their demand 'RULE AFG under sharia'.How can u bribe them, they themselves want to die for 72 veg :lol:

    Read above articles carefully,They have huge internal problems like Drugs/wazeers/gun culture/islamic extremism/racial.... so it bound to fail
     
  10. Srinivas_K

    Srinivas_K Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    3,355
    :sarcastic:

    Theirs is radical Islamism, their tribal culture demands that no foreigner is allowed to rule their lands. But the fact is Afghanistan is ruled by Afgans how hard is it for them to understand??

    Regarding Sharia, how many Afghans want Sharia??

    If Afghans are coming in numbers and voting to choose their leaders, why are Taliban to fighting for Sharia, From where they get the motivation??

    Or is it that USA is funding PA and in turn these funds are going into Taliban??

    It is the game plan of USA to make the region volatile and make it difficult for Asian nations to come together and rise.


    One has to believe in the people of Afghanistan, not these radicals.

    An average Afghan wants change and this is the basis for the developmental projects India is doing there.
    There will be hiccups or some issues, but in Afghanistan India will get a good friend , through which India can reach to Central Asia and Russia.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2014
  11. jus

    jus Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Universe
    U forgot one thing IS is mostly educated and no power is fighting with them(except some covert support).But do u know Mujahid/Pakthuns are Tribals and they defeated mighty Brits/USSR/USA and they never allow anyone to settle.

    Some traitors always there,u can't won by some traitors(local intel).There are 2 guys ready if u kill one guy.So civil war will goon :lol:
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2014
  12. Srinivas_K

    Srinivas_K Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    3,355

    ISIS are a bunch of fanatics gathered in Iraq and Levante area. They attract certain kind of males in every society. May be they are a tool to achieve some agneda.

    Taliban are a tool used by ISI to occupy Afghanistan. A radical religious fanatic is the same, no fear and eager to go to heaven in split second with minimum pain.

    Basically these guys consider death in battle field as a ticket to heaven, there is also a hadith which says the martyrs do not feel the pain when they die, it is like a mosquito bite. I wonder how many have felt like that while they are dying??

    The main issue in Afghanistan is geography, USA achieved its objectives. They never wanted terror to go away from those lands.

    If you check out the history USA has the strength to recover from its losses.

    Many countries consider Afghanistan as a graveyard of empires, But British and USA fought there and still maintained their empires in tact.

    USSR lost in Afghanistan because CIA is superior to KGB in Vietnam, if one compares Afghan Jihad and Vietnam.

    India is not there to invade, India is there to rebuild Afghanistan and make Afghan - India relations strong so that India will have strategic advantage in Asia!!
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2014
  13. jus

    jus Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Universe
  14. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    India
    Afghan War Costs American Taxpayers $4 million Per Hour: Study

    New data shows that America’s war in Afghanistan is costing taxpayers roughly $4 million an hour, despite the Obama administration’s drawdown of troops leaving only 10,000 soldiers in the country.

    Despite the colossal cost, the Obama administration and Afghan leadership both recognize the war will only end with peace negotiations, according to observers.

    More than $700 billion has been spent on the Afghan war since the George W. Bush administration authorized the invasion in 2001, including more than $35 billion in fiscal year 2015, according to figures from the National Priorities Project, a non-profit, non-partisan federal budget research group.

    The initial budget for the Afghan war was over $20 billion for 2001/02. The budget dropped to $14 billion over the next two years as spending was shifted to the war in Iraq. Expenditures on the Afghan war took a back seat to Iraq war spending before ballooning to more than $100 billion in 2010 when the cost of the Iraq war began to decline. Spending in Afghanistan continued to top $100 billion annually until 2013, when it began falling by increments of $10 billion, finally reaching the current budget of $35 billion.

    The cost of deploying just one solider in Afghanistan is approximately $1 million a year, far higher than the $390,000 congressional researchers estimated in 2006, according to a New York Times article. Military analysts said the increase in expenditure reflects a surge in the cost of mine-resistant troop carriers and surveillance equipment. Unique to Afghanistan is the additional cost of as much as $400 a gallon to deliver fuel to troops moving through mountainous terrain.

    Even so, the $700 billion price tag for the Afghan War is misleading, according to NPP, as it doesn’t include a full accounting of all the costs of the war. Missing is potential future spending on medical care for wounded soldiers and veterans. Additionally, the budget doesn’t include interest payments on national debt resulting from war spending.

    NPP uses research from the Congressional Research Service as well as assessment and budget documents from relevant federal agencies to compile their data.

    Harvard economist Linda Bilmes calculated in 2013 that the Afghan and Iraq wars have become “the most expensive wars in the US history,” with additional medical and care costs looming before the wars even end.

    Since taking office in September, Afghan President Mohammed Ashraf Ghani has made it a priority to find a peace settlement with the Taliban. Peace talks between Afghan officials and Taliban representatives lasting one day have recently ended, with both sides agreeing to meet again after the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. American foreign policy observers say the next step will involve negotiations with the US.

    “The government of President Ghani has been attempting for a while to engage in these talks, although it is politically controversial. This has been his position for some time and this has been the US position,”Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, said to RT.

    “The Obama administration has recognized for some time that eventually the only end to the war in Afghanistan is going to have to come with some kind of negotiations. The question is at what cost, and after how many more Afghanistan lives.”


    http://www.globalresearch.ca/afghan-war-costs-american-taxpayers-4-million-per-hour-study/5462352
     
  15. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    India
    The Afghanistan Map Of War

    The Kabul government is preparing for a big advance in northern Afghanistan.

    National Security Forces have been involved in intense clashes with the Taliban in 7 provinces.

    At the moment security forces have gained round only in Faryab province. The Taliban has now started a new offensive in the Badakhshan province by taking control of the “Kala” military base, seizing several checkpoints and capturing 100 pro-government fighters. Islamic State has also participated in clashes at the Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border.

    [​IMG]

    1. July 20-27, The operations of Afghan National Security Forces against the Taliban are underway in 7 provinces of Afghanistan. The attacks on the positions of militants were performed in Takhar, Kunduz, Faryab, Nangarhar, Sar-e Pul, Uruzgan and Logar. The Afghan Ministry of Internal Affairs reported government forces killed 20 and detained 2 militants. Also, a serviceman of the Afghan National Security Forces was killed. The most intense clashes were observed in Kunduz, Nangarhar and Faryab (on July 13, Taliban forces captured 22 checkpoints and over 40 settlements there). At the moment, Afghan National Security Forces have liberated a part of the Faryab province and destroyed 2 Taliban bases in the Almar district.
    2. July 24-25, Taliban militants along with the “Unity of Islamic Jihad” took control of the “Kala” military base in the Wurduj district of the Badakhshan province. 25 Afghan servicemen were either killed or wounded, 100 were taken prisoner. Militants captured 10 Kalashnikov LMG, 90 assault rifles, 2 mortars and some other equipment. The Taliban stated it had taken control of 6 check points and 12 settlements around the military base. However, this information wasn’t confirmed by Kabul. Earlier, the acting governor of Badakhshan Shah Wali Adib was alarmed by the situation and asked the central government to send reinforcements.
    3. July 26, The chief of the Badakhshan police General Abdul Wahid Baba Jan accused captured “Kala” servicemen of making a secret deal with the Taliban. According to him Kala servicemen had enough arms and equipment to defend the military base, but they preferred to make a deal with militants.
    4. July 27, The Taliban released the 100 servicemen captured after taking control of “Kala”. The event confirms that General Abdul Wahid Baba Jan’s allegation that they didn’t try their best in clashes against the militants. At the very least, it indicates low morale among the Afghan forces.
    5. July 27, The Ministry of Defense of Afghanistan has been preparing a military operation in the northern part of the country: Badakhshan, Takhar, Kunduz, Balkh and Baghlan. The operation is a result of numerous reports from localized pro-government forces about the lack of support from Kabul.
    6. July 1-27, Islamic State has been advancing at the Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border since early July. 3000 to 4000 of IS militants are concentrated in the region. According to official reports, at least 12 border guard servicemen were killed there. Different reports state a number over 80 Turkmenistan servicemen killed. It’s possible that Islamic State is there is to capture gas fields of Turkmenistan.
    Despite Afghan government’s official reports that clashes are underway in 7 provinces, there are many more zones of military activity in the country. The Taliban has party taken control of other Afghan provinces too. Attacks on military servicemen and policemen constantly come around the south, east and central regions. 4100 Afghan National Security Forces servicemen were killed and 7800 wounded since the start of 2015. Kabul’s big advance in the north is a reaction to numerous requests of local authorities and an overdue attempt to get the situation under the control. However, the events in the Badakhshan province on July 24-25 indicate that government forces have most likely been losing the will to fight against the Taliban.

    Islamic State militants have increased activity at the Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border. From 12 to 70 Turkmenistan bodyguards have been already killed since early July. The terrorists aim to capture gas fields of Turkmenistan. There are two opportunities for IS there:

    • To create an attack corridor through the border
    • To “infiltrate” the border under the cover of local fights and attack the border guard from two sides (IS uses this strategy regularly)
    The increase in IS activity is synchronized with signing of The Iran Nuclear Deal and is clearly pushing the USA’s interests: to prevent the supply of Turkmen gas to China (through TAPI or Uzbekistan) and redirect the flows to the Europe. Iran will replace Russia in energy supplies, enforcing the USA for further anti-Russian actions in the central Europe.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-afghanistan-map-of-war/5465309

    Afghan power play: It was never really about Karzai, it’s about Ghani


    Western media reports alleging that former Afghan President Hamid Karzai is conspiring to usurp power in Kabul do not make sense. Karzai’s sophisticated intellect and vast experience in statecraft will tell him that without American backing, he cannot hope to survive in power.

    Karzai’s comeback to power is impossible without American support. Now, why would America support him?

    Karzai was not even on talking terms with President Barack Obama when his presidency ended. Karzai deliberately stalled on the US-Afghan security pact, which was intended to give legal underpinning for the establishment of American military bases in Afghanistan.

    He wanted all US military operations on Afghan soil to be brought under Kabul’s supervision. Karzai and Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki are chips of the same block.



    Besides, any usurper in Kabul will not enjoy international legitimacy and Karzai is intensely conscious of his standing in the international community. He is a national figure – even a historical figure – and why would he diminish himself as a factional leader in a fragmented country?

    Above all, being a staunch nationalist, Karzai cannot compromise on Afghanistan’s unity and integrity, whereas, he’d know that an illegitimate set-up in Kabul will only the open door to large-scale external interference.

    All this, therefore, raises the question as to who stands to gain from the orchestrated media campaign against Karzai. The heart of the matter is that the real target of this US media campaign is not Karzai himself – it is actually President Ashraf Ghani.

    The western media campaign aims at rattling Ghani, making him feel insecure, and reminding him constantly that without American protection he cannot survive in power for even a single day in Kabul.

    The point is, Ghani is quintessentially an American creation. He polled only 3% votes in the 2009 presidential election and yet he managed to win the 2014 election because Washington wanted this former World Bank official to succeed Karzai, estimating that lacking any form of political base himself, he would be utterly dependent on the US support. Without US prodding, Pakistan wouldn’t have delivered Pashtun votes in such large numbers to Ghani.

    But then, the US will still not take chances with Ghani. If the Karzai saga taught Washington anything, it is that the Afghans are a fiercely independent and proud people and they do not like being mentored – and worse still, to be seen as the lackey of a foreign power.

    Having said that, the US’ main agenda in Afghanistan continues to be the establishment of long-term military presence in that country. The new Cold War with Russia, the acceleration of China’s Belt and Road initiatives in Central Asia, the growing Sino-Russian entente in Eurasia, Iran’s rise, the potential threat to North Caucasus and Xinjiang (“soft underbelly” of Russia and China) posed by the forces of radical Islam – all these make Afghanistan a crucial theatre in the US’ regional strategies.

    On the contrary, Ghani’s policies to press ahead with Afghan reconciliation by seeking the cooperation of Pakistan have incrementally brought about a certain “marginalization” of the US lately, especially with China and Pakistan working in tandem to foster peace talks. The Chinese president Xi Jinping staked his prestige by calling for an “early settlement” in Afghanistan.

    If these trends accelerate, the US should be happy about it. But in reality, Washington is worried like hell, since the Taliban has made the vacation of American military occupation the main precondition for peace in Afghanistan and it is a fair guess that both Beijing and Islamabad would also like to see the back of the last American soldier in the Hindu Kush.

    Interestingly, Islamabad claimed recently that Pakistan and China are willing to be the “guarantors” of any Afghan settlement. The assumption so far has been that without US’ financial assistance, Afghan economy won’t be able to survive. But that is also not the case anymore, since China looms large as a potentially much bigger benefactor for Afghanistan if only peace gets established in that country, creating a climate for launching the multi-billion dollar Silk Road projects. China has pledged $46 billion investment in Pakistan to build an Economic Corridor.

    Again, the integration of Afghanistan into China’s Belt and Road strategy seriously threatens the US’ regional influence insofar as it would create an altogether new power dynamic in the region bringing together China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Russia on a single platform on issues of regional security and stability. In sum, the US’ celebrated “pivot” to Asia has come under serious challenge in Central Asia.

    Clearly, Ghani increasingly found himself between the rock and a hard place. He felt uncomfortable about Karzai’s intentions and it created acute insecurity in his mind. Most certainly, he needs American protection.

    Yet, his political survival is also dependent on bringing peace to the country and kick starting development-oriented governance for which he needs to reconcile with the Taliban.

    However, the reconciliation with Taliban is wholly dependent on Pakistan’s willingness to cooperate.

    Enter China. Ghani’s counts on China not only to influence Pakistan to moderate its policies but also to invest in the Afghan economy. China has become an irreplaceable partner for Ghani.

    Against the backdrop of these profound contradictions playing out in Ghani’s calculus, it should come as no surprise that he got an important visitor from Washington last Sunday – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

    The doughty general brought with him a master plan outlining a joint US-Afghan strategy to counter the Islamic State’s rise in Afghanistan. The Pentagon readout said Dempsey and Ghani discussed “the possibility of forming a network to oppose the trans-regional threat posed by the Islamic State.”

    Succinctly put, Dempsey has told Ghani that Afghanistan should be transformed as a regional hub to potentially allow for the forward deployment of US counter-terrorism forces in the region and also provide a base to strengthen regional partners who may be in the lead fighting terrorism.

    In Dempsey’s words, “They (Afghans) are a credible and willing partner in (counter-terrorism) and could be one of the keys to addressing the IS in all of South Asia”.

    Of course, Dempsey has also let it be known that the fight against terrorism will be a lengthy struggle that could last a generation.

    Dempsey told the media later that the IS poses “a persistent threat that has to be addressed at a sustainable level of effort over a period of time”. Indeed, he was in a jolly mood after meeting Ghani. This is how Dempsey summarized Ghani’s response: “His (Ghani’s) view is, ‘Hey, look, I’m (Ghani) a willing partner in an area where you may not have willing partners’”.

    Meanwhile, on Sunday again, General John Campbell, the top US commander in Afghanistan, explained to the media that from being “nascent” in Afghanistan, the IS has become “operationally emergent.”

    Unsurprisingly, Obama lost no time to personally follow up Dempsey’s successful mission to Kabul. Obama held a rare video conference with Ghani on Wednesday to discuss the fight against IS.

    The US is thrilled that the long-term American military presence in Afghanistan is not in jeopardy so long as Ghani remains in power in Kabul. On his part, Ghani can draw comfort from the knowledge that he can count on the US to back him to the hilt even if half a dozen Karzais were to gang up against him in the Kabul bazaar.

    The “known unknown,” however, remains. How will the Taliban take the Dempsey mission?

    The US may have effectively put a spoke in the wheel of the nascent peace talks that Pakistan and China have been desperately fostering. Dempsey who never bothered to hide his contempt toward the Pakistani military and the ISI for their doublespeak during the Afghan war, is walking away laughing, just weeks ahead of his retirement.

    He left Ghani in no doubt whatsoever that the vacation of the US occupation is a non-negotiable issue. Ghani got the point alright – thanks to Karzai.

    (Copyright 2015 Asia Times Holdings Limited, a duly registered Hong Kong company. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
    http://atimes.com/2015/07/afghan-power-play-it-was-never-really-about-karzai-its-about-ghani/
     

Share This Page