The real problem in the Afghan war is India, Pakistan and Kashmir

[ajtr]

Ok,,,,,Mohsin Hamid Miyan having Verbal diarrhea in Lahore that he vomited all over Wahsington post.He got the inspiration of plagiarizing uncle's AFPAK term into AFPIND from Xerox Dr.Abdul Qadeer khan.:happy_2:

The real problem in the Afghan war is India, Pakistan and Kashmir​

By Mohsin Hamid
Sunday, August 8, 2010
LAHORE -- The United States is struggling to implement a strategy for Afghanistan that will improve the lives of the Afghan people and allow U.S. troops to go home. Part of what makes it so difficult is the way Washington views the conflict: through the lens of what officials have dubbed "AfPak," a war in the southern part of Afghanistan and the adjoining border areas of Pakistan. Though the acronym is falling out of official favor, the AfPak mind-set remains.A different shorthand for the war might help. "AfPInd" may be less catchy, but it is far more useful. Peace in AfPInd requires not U.S. troops on the ground, but a concerted effort to bring India and Pakistan to the negotiating table, where under the watchful eyes of the international community they can end their hydra-headed confrontation over Kashmir.

But that's not how the United States sees this conflict. Mutual mistrust has bedeviled the U.S.-Pakistani alliance since the Afghan war began in 2001. Certain suspicions surfaced again recently in military documents revealed by WikiLeaks alleging that members of the Pakistani intelligence agency collaborated with militant groups fighting the United States in Afghanistan. Both Pakistani and U.S. officials have said that the information is old, unreliable and not true to the situation on the ground. Yet the recriminations and controversy have a "here we go again" feel. After all, we've seen this pattern before.

In 1947, when Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan were partitioned into two countries, the status of the region of Kashmir, with a Muslim-majority population and a Hindu prince, was unresolved. The United Nations said Kashmiris should hold a referendum, but both India and Pakistan seized parts of the territory, and since then the two countries have been at each other's throats.Enter the United States -- not once, but three times.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Pakistan and the United States were allies. The United States gave Pakistan weapons and $2 billion in economic aid; it thought that the Pakistani military would be a bulwark against communism. The Pakistani military thought the United States would help it against a much larger and hostile India.

Then India and Pakistan went to war in 1965. American leaders castigated Pakistan for using U.S.-supplied weapons and terminated the alliance.

Fast forward to the 1980s, and Pakistan and the United States once again were allies. The United States gave Pakistan weapons and $3 billion in economic aid; it thought that the Pakistani military would be a bulwark against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The Pakistani military thought the United States would help it against a much larger and hostile India.

Then the Soviets were defeated. The United States castigated Pakistan for developing nuclear weapons (to counter India) and terminated the alliance.

Today, Pakistan and the United States are allies for a third time. Over the past decade, the United States has given Pakistan weapons and $4 billion (and counting) in economic aid; it hopes that the Pakistani military will be a bulwark against terrorist groups in the region. The Pakistani military hopes the United States will help it against a much larger and hostile India. Then . . .

By now, the recurring failure in the Pakistan-U.S. alliance should be obvious: The Pakistani military views it primarily as a means of reducing the threat from India, and the United States does not.

But perhaps the United States should.

The reason the Pakistani military continued to back jihadist groups, jointly set up with the CIA in the 1980s, after the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan was that it believed the same tactics could be used in Kashmir against India. And the reason the Pakistani military remains obsessed with shaping events in Afghanistan is because that country is the site of a power struggle between Pakistan and India -- what commentators in Pakistan go so far as to call a "proxy war." It is what Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistan army chief, means when he speaks of Pakistan's desire for "strategic depth" in Afghanistan.

Fighting terrorists or fighting the Taliban -- or indeed, fighting in Afghanistan at all -- addresses symptoms rather than the disease in South Asia: the horrific, wasteful, tragic and dangerous six-decade confrontation between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

This confrontation ravages Afghanistan, where the Northern Alliance, which was organized to fight the Taliban, is backed by money and weapons from India, and militant groups among the southern Pashtuns are backed by Pakistan. It is a big part of why peace eludes the country, even though the Soviets left a generation ago.

Ignore Kashmir, as the United States does, and the conflict seems incomprehensible. Include Kashmir in the picture, and it all makes sense.

At the moment, the Pakistani military uses militant groups to put pressure on India to negotiate, and India uses terrorism as an excuse not to negotiate. By so doing, both sides harm themselves greatly. The vast majority of people in South Asia, who like myself desire peace built on compromise, find our hopes held hostage by security hawks.(Lahori logic never ceases to amaze.He wants "compromise"? You give Kashmir. We stop terror.Nowadays Kashmir beggars are Pak Army spokespersons. The Pak army stands to lose the most in the long term and is desperate to pull of a "Kashmir compromise".This is the time to deny them that joy):emot15:

The situation is not improving. India's stance toward Pakistan has hardened since attacks by Pakistan-based militants on Mumbai killed 173 people in 2008. And here in Pakistan, militants are killing even more civilians, police officers and soldiers every month -- more than 3,000 Pakistanis in 2009. Some of the preschools I'm considering for my daughter now have snipers on their roofs and steel barricades at their gates.

Meanwhile, the United States has placed 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, where they can do little to eliminate the single biggest problem that nation faces: being made into a battleground by its neighbors.

The United States still sets much of the global agenda. If it hopes to salvage any remotely positive outcome from its massive, nine-year-old war in Afghanistan, then it should move a resolution over Kashmir up on its list of priorities.

Peace in AfPak is failing because the term itself is a willful illusion. Peace in AfPInd will not be easy, but the term rings true, and that at least offers a start.

Mohsin Hamid is a writer based in Pakistan. His most recent novel is "The Reluctant Fundamentalist."

 

[gogbot]

The Real Problem is Pakistan full-stop.

They have destabilizized Kashmir.

They have destabilizized Afghanistan.

They have cooperated with and helped establish Fanatics and Militants in power.

And have constantly undermined Peace efforts in both regions.

And despite their bragged about and so called Islamic brotherhood , they don't give a rats ass what happens to the people in both these regions , as long as their political motives are satisfied.

Pak government has to change and ISI obliterated.
Then we will see resolution in both regions.

 

[SATISH]

But that guy's terminology sounds like Afghanistan-Rawalpindi to me. And it is normal to shift blame for most of the Pakistani Journos.

 

[civfanatic]

The only way to establish peace in AfPak is for Pakistan's power to be broken and for the region to be bifurcated so each major ethnic group is better represented.

The Pashtuns need their own state of "Pakhtunistan" using territory from Northwest Pakistan and East Afghanistan.

Baluchis need their own state of "Baluchistan".

Entire Kashmir region, including Northern Areas, should be reunified with India.

Afghan Central Gov needs to be strengthened, along with Afghan Security Forces, and Pakistan needs to be reduced to just Punjab.

Only then we can see PEACE.

 

[arya]

Pakistan is the source of terror and at last India to do the last step

 

[hit&run]

only problem in WOT is Pakistan's strategic depth aspiration in AF and they are very vocal about it. I think the author is either deaf or don't want to say it because sword is mightier than Pen in Pakistan. Pakistan's mentality to treat AF as its backyard. Pakistan's double play etc are other reasons, otherwise war was supposed to end way before.

 

[Known_Unknown]

You guys should have a look at the comments on that article. Not just by Indians but also by Americans......they all say the same thing.....this is an extremely biased and one-sided article that leaves out crucial facts and lies about others in an effort to provide the Pakistani 'logic' of their claim to Kashmir.

 

[Rage]

You've all got it wrong.

The real problem is idiots like "Motions" Hamid, who fart brain shit out of their a$$es all day and invent new bullshine to blame India for all their problems.

A true bullshit buccaneer if ever there was one!

 

[Ray]

Apropos Mohsin Hamid , the reluctant terrorist's article.

It may not be politically correct to state, but there appears to be reasons to surmise that the hydra headed confrontation over Kashmir, unfortunately is the creation of India, albeit unwittingly.

At the time of the Partition, Indian leaders were charged up with the Gandhian philosophy based on high thinking and high morality. Pakistan, on the other hand, was pragmatic and very sore about been given a 'moth eaten' Pakistan.

Even though Kashmir acceded to India on a perfect internationally legal manner i.e. the Instrument of Accession, Pakistan remain livid that a Muslim majority state i.e. Kashmir under a Hindu ruler acceded to India. It might be recalled that Pakistan was also not overtly pleased that inspite of the Nizam and his razaakars, Hyderabad became a part of India or Junagad handed over to India by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's father who could not control the Hindu majority in that State. Thus, Pakistan was seething with the agony with a feeling that they had been 'short-changed'.

Pakistan, thus, took matters in their own hands and under the command of Pakistan Army regular officers unleashed tribals, hoping that these hordes would be able to occupy Kashmir, History has another tale of sorrow for Pakistan.

The Indian Army routed the tribals and the Pakistan Army elements in disguise and were in the process of linking Uri with Punch and thence moving towards Muzzafarabad, when the high thinking, high moralistic Indian leaders called a halt, recalled the troops and went to the UN hoping that justice would be done and the Instrument of Accession, a perfectly legal document, given its due recognition.

However, geopolitics is not mapped out on high thinking and high morals. Instead, it is mired in subterfuge and legerdemain. The Western powers wanting a finger in the pie, left the issue hanging at the UN, giving an impression that Kashmir is disputed. It served their purpose wherein leaving a problem in an area, allows them to 'influence' issues in that region. If one observes it will be seen that wherever Britain has a colony or a UN mandate for administration, whenever she left, she ensured that there were issues of discontent and rivalry.

In Kashmir, the Indian Army was called back in 1947 while they were about to link Uri with Punch and thereafter surge towards Muzzafarabad. One can't blame the Indian politicians of that time too. History and culture of India has laid too much of emphasis on morality and high flaunting ideas, honed to a quick by the Gandhian philosophy. Thus, India wanted to show it was uber alles in fair play! India went to the UN hoping for justice, which should have been given, given the fact that the Instrument of Accession was a legal and international law justified document. However, international geopolitics is not based on high morals and instead is quite murky and mired with legerdemain. If one notices carefully, it will be observed that wherever and whenever Britain left a colony of her, she has left problems of identity so as to bequeath them a future of problems and thereby have a hold on them playing the Honest Broker! Only thing that they were not Honest about her brokering. That is why the UK along with the US left the Kashmir hanging around India's neck as an albatross.

There is thus no connection with Afghanistan and India, except for the fact that India has had long and time tested ties with Afghanistan .

The idea of Afghanistan being Pakistan's 'strategic depth' is bogus since strategic depth means:

Strategic depth is a term in military literature that refers, broadly speaking, to the distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants' industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centres of population or military production.

Therefore, under no circumstances can Afghanistan be Pakistan's 'strategic depth' being an sovereign independent nation, having no Pakistani assets, be it industrial, population centres or otherwise within its boundaries!

That there will be mutual mistrust between the West and particularly the US and Pakistan requires no Merlin's wand to understand. Pakistan is allowing US drone strikes and the CIA to operate within Pakistan and at the same time allowing the ISI to reinforce, equip and coordinate Taliban strikes in Afghanistan against the US and western troops. Now, if one wants to hunt with the hounds and run with the hares, there is hardly any space for trust.

Pakistan, notwithstanding its macho brouhaha, cannot stand on its own two feet. It is a conundrum of confusion, duplicity and deceit. Pakistan was created for the Indian Muslim (at least those who felt that they would not survive under a Hindu majority India). Instead of a Muslim homeland, it has become a battlefield between the Sunnis and Shias and the Mohajirs (Indian emigrants who are second class). And now, they have the Taliban masquerading as a detergent to clean the dirt!

India did not go to war in 1965. Pakistan, through Britain and the high moralistic Indian leaders acquiescing annexed part of the Rann of Kutch. Not satisfied, Ayub Khan launched Op Gibralter on India and infiltrated guerrillas along with Pakistani regulars to 'capture' Kashmir, expecting that the Kashmiris would revolt against India. The fact that the Kashmiris reported the infiltration to the Indian Army as also did not revolt put paid to the idea that the Kashmiris are raring to join Muslim Pakistan! Thereafter, India retaliated and the remainder is history.

Pakistan apparently cannot do anything without foreign support. They are that moribund! And it is evident in the author's statement, "The Pakistani military thought the United States would help it against a much larger and hostile India" and " The Pakistani military hopes the United States will help it against a much larger and hostile India".

Pakistan may consider it is in a 'power struggle' with India over Afghanistan, India and Afghanistan does not think so. The subtle difference that Pakistani leaders, their population and the writers of these type of dreaming articles should realise is that India 'builds' while Pakistan 'destroys'. Now, who should be liked? The builder or the destroyer?

It is foolish of Pakistan to link all her woes to Kashmir. Kashmir is India's. Too bad. Accept reality or perish! In fact, India does not have to lift even a finger. Pakistan is on a self destruct mission. Sunnis are killing Shias, Ahmediyas, Sufis and the works. The Taliban is kicking Pakistan's living hell. Ill treatment of the Mohajirs has given rise to MQM, Northern Areas are in a turmoil as with the Balochis and so the witches' cauldron stirs!

Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

The Northern Alliance is not only stated to be backed by India, but also by Iran, the US and a whole lot of nations. Shia Northern Alliance also demands and equal driving seat space!

"Ignore Kashmir, as the United States does, and the conflict seems incomprehensible. Include Kashmir in the picture, and it all makes sense". Really? Now, Zardari is in Europe with Pakistan reeling with flood waters. Is Kashmir and India responsible for that too? What logic!

If the Taliban is killing Pakistan like flies, who is responsible? India? Who created the Taliban and why is the ISI still backing them? Surely ISI is not an Indian organisation. These Pakistanis can go to any length to be ridiculous and ludicrous to whine their otherwise unjustified stand!

 

[nrj]

The real problem in the Afghan war is India, Pakistan and Kashmir​

I am waiting to hear this from Obama's mouth this November.... :happy_2:

We are officially leading to the Zingaland then... :emot15:

 

[ajtr]

I am waiting to hear this from Obama's mouth this November.... :happy_2:

We are officially leading to the Zingaland then... :emot15:

Obama miyan before getting re-elected called kashimir pit of Tar and wanted to leave his legacy.but either he overestimated himself or underestimated india.The result is in front of all he got drowned in tar pit and only bubbles left which are emanating from seething pakistani military establishment and in articles supported by its jurno like Lahori logic hamid miyan puking all over world papers.Obama and his AFPAK->PAKAF->FAKAP envoy Richard Holbrook and their cheerleaders like Christine Fair,Cohen, Alright and Brzezinski got the taste of india very first day when they try to drag india in FAKAP scheme since jan 2009 on various occasions.This is another shot in arm for india after Nixon/Kissinger team was out maneuvered by Indira. So thats the reason we are seeing these seething articles and the seething Brzezinski's interview after wikileaks on MSNBC........:happy_2::happy_2:

 

[anoop_mig25]

I am waiting to hear this from Obama's mouth this November.... :happy_2:

We are officially leading to the Zingaland then... :emot15:

thata not gona happen . obama would comw we will have some sweet stuff. obamam might say something about terrorism form pakistan as did PM of uk.obama would have some deal(may be MMRCA) WOULD THEN LEAVE

 

[nrj]

thata not gona happen . obama would comw we will have some sweet stuff. obamam might say something about terrorism form pakistan as did PM of uk.obama would have some deal(may be MMRCA) WOULD THEN LEAVE

MRCA won't benefit any to Obama. It ain't FMS; LM will eat the money if winner.

Yeah he will say something about terrorism from Pak in Delhi then will take his Air One to Islamabad, give speech on WORLD PEACE, ask India and Pak to work together, hold hands in hands & will announce some aid to Flood hit area & $$$/toys for PA/PAF/PN... :angry_1:

 

[ajtr]

'US needs to differentiate between India and Pakistan'​

Many parallels now exist between how America descended into the Vietnam quagmire and certain trends that are becoming increasingly evident as America commits ever more resources to its endeavor to quell the Taliban-Al Qaida insurgency in Afghanistan.

Losses of life among American forces are dramatically on the rise, and evidence abounds that the jihadi quasi-state which now embraces a significant portion of the tribal-infested mountain region situated between the Afghani and Pakistani heartlands has jelled into a formidable socio-political entity with formidable military capabilities. This quasi-state formation is the reason why no matter how many Taliban leaders are killed by drone attacks and direct military action, insurgent attacks have persisted unabated, and indeed if anything have escalated in number and intensity. The Taliban/Al Qaeda now possess enough institutionally replicable resources to sustain military operations that are viable enough to prevent American and NATO forces from overcoming them.

Like Vietnam, public opposition to the war is trending toward critical mass. As in the Vietnam case, political defections and public disclosures of hitherto secret documentation which cast doubt on how effectively the war has really been going have surfaced. Dr. Richard Haas, a highly regarded public policy specialist who was director of policy planning in the State Department under Gen. Colin Powell, before becoming president of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, has published a cover article in Newsweek which in effect declares that America's Afghan War has failed and must be completely re-thought.

Wikileaks has published more than 91,000 heretofore secret documents about the war in Afghanistan. There is one category of these documents that stands out from a policy standpoint: this pertains to the nefarious role that elements in Pakistan have from the outset played in the conflict, viz, working both sides of the street. Pakistan, says the New York Times, has been playing something of a 'double game,'" allowing "representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders."

The documents charge, among other significant revelations, "that the Pakistanis are providing both supplies and sanctuary to Taliban fighters while objecting to American forces entering Pakistan to clean out the sanctuaries". Also, that "the ISI has continued to maintain liaison and support for the Taliban in spite of claims by the Pakistani government that pro-Taliban officers had been cleaned out of the ISI years ago"; and finally, that Lt. Gen. Hamid. Gul, "director-general of the ISI from 1987 to 1989, still operates in Pakistan, informally serving the ISI and helping to give the ISI plausible deniability."

One of the most crucial things that these revelations show is not so much that Pakistan at the official level is playing an ambivalent game in Afghanistan (this is obvious), as that the country's political society is so structurally fractionalized that in many crucial respects there are actually two 'governments' simultaneously in play in the country that are operating at cross-purposes with each other, and that this prevents the official government to live up to expectations which the United States has set for it. The two governments are:

(1) The constitutionally based civilian regime, headed by President Asif Ali Zardari.

(2) The ex-officio or de facto shadow government, ensconced and nurtured within the corpus of the military, which through ISI networks surreptitiously maintains links to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The Wikileaks data make it clear that to whatever degree this shadow government remains viable and effective, the de jure, secular, constitutional government of Pakistan with its roots in the modern middle-class can neither effectively cope with the Taliban quasi-state which is embedded in the AfPak tribal region, nor successfully carry out its recently negotiated political and economic agreements with the United States. The legitimate, constitutional government of Pakistan is paralyzed by the consequences of political schizophrenia.

What are the implications of this fact of life for the Obama Administration? I think it implies a need to take the Richard Haas critique seriously, and profit from the wealth of insights emanating from the Wikileaks documents.

The time has come to cut Pakistan loose from the decades long policy of treating her as a "rental state", to use Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani's well-worn phrase; this means seriously limiting our military assistance only to that which directly affects Pakistan's ability to effectively do battle with the jihadi quasi-state in the Hindu Kush if they are so inclined. If they are not so inclined then military assistance should be suspended. On the Afghan side, to quote Haas, "The time has come to scale back US objectives and sharply reduce US involvement on the ground." The timing of this critique compares remarkably well with its Vietnam counterpart 25 years ago as it reflects the same public war-weariness.
Where, then, should the US turn if it leaves Pakistan and Afghanistan more to their own devices than heretofore? The answer, in my opinion, is towards India. The U.S. should materially increase its military collaboration with India, the only genuinely politically stable state in the region, so that together they can form a strategic nexus of stable states confronting a Pakistan that seems poised to descend into socio-political oblivion unless it finds ways to get its political house in order. And above all it must be allowed to solve its own political problems free of American paternalism and overindulgence of its military,

This implies a radical reworkng of the U.S strategic orientation to South Asia. In a sense it implies taking the next step toward differentiating India from Pakistan in the American strategic architecture.and crafting what comes down to a virtual alliance designed to preserve as much peace, secularism and political stability as the considerable resources of the two states working in concert can achieve.

Harold Gould is a Visiting Scholar in the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Virginia

 

[Agantrope]

I am waiting to hear this from Obama's mouth this November.... :happy_2:

We are officially leading to the Zingaland then... :emot15:

This is reason for the selective leakage of the selection in MRCA. Unkil will be really pissed if he ever tries his hand in kashmir.

I wish to remind that Kashmir is India's internal problem, whats happening is the Pakistan sorry bakistan's internal broblem. If he ever tried to poke his nose then i can !@#$!$%!#$% ROTFL

 

[Singh]

"AfPInd" sounds like it could be Pindi's brainchild.​

Mohsin Hamid, writing in today's Washington Post, resuscitates that age-old view that Afghanistan requires a "concerted effort to bring India and Pakistan to the negotiating table" so that they can "end their hydra-headed confrontation over Kashmir." Why exactly? His argument is frustratingly hard to follow. He brings up scattered bits of data that are somehow supposed to lead his readers to a logical conclusion.

According to Hamid, the WikiLeaks revelations demonstrate the extent of "mutual distrust" between Pakistan and the United States. He quickly jumps to a historical overview of the region. Since 1947, India and Pakistan have "been at each other's throats" while the U.S. has done nothing but castigate Pakistan for its use of U.S.-supplied weaponry and it nuclear program. "By now, the recurring failure in the Pakistan-U.S. alliance should be obvious: The Pakistani military views it primarily as a means of reducing the threat from India, and the United States does not. But perhaps the United States should."

Hamid goes on to note that the Pakistani military continued to use "the same tactics" against India in Kashmir as it did against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and that it remains "obsessed with shaping events" in Afghanistan to ensure strategic depth against India. Kashmir, he argues, is the disease, and terrorism is but the symptom. "[T]he Pakistani military uses militant groups to put pressure on India to negotiate, and India uses terrorism as an excuse not to negotiate." He concludes: "Ignore Kashmir, as the United States does, and the conflict seems incomprehensible. Include Kashmir in the picture, and it all makes sense."

The problems with this line of reasoning—insofar as there is one—are numerous. Can we say with any sense of certainty that successful Kashmir negotiations will lead to the destruction of terrorist infrastructure within Pakistan? Second, if this really was the solution to all of the region's problems, why over the past two years has Pakistan gone back on every commitment that it made previously in back-channel talks with India? Third, would not such negotiations on Kashmir under the watchful eyes of the international community amount to siding with Pakistan against India, effectively justifying the use of terrorism to achieve political goals?

Elsewhere, Hamid is guilty of convenient side-stepping. There is absolutely no mention of the illicit nature of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program or the history of Pakistani aggression against India, particularly in 1965. Hamid thus promotes the myth of perpetual Pakistani victimhood. The WikiLeaks documents highlight "mutual distrust" in his view, when in fact what they reveal is Pakistani double-dealing. The same moral equivalence made with India is also conveniently applied towards the United States. The question of Pakistani responsibility for the 26/11 attacks is effortlessly swept under the table. Terrorism for India is but an "excuse" to remain hostile towards Pakistan (there's no discussion of why this might be in India's interests). And other episodes of international terrorism linked to entities in Pakistan, from 9/11 to the attempted Times Square bombing to Chechnya, are all conveniently left out, since they do not conform to his argument of Kashmir being the root cause of all the region's ills.

Many of us would like to see Pakistani liberal internationalists desirous of regional peace and stability, such as Hamid, empowered. Unfortunately, arguments such as this make it all the more difficult for us. Hamid may not be shrewd enough to appreciate it, but "AfPInd"—the clunky portmanteau he employs to capture his line of reasoning—sounds as if it could be Rawalpindi's brainchild. In fact, it is exactly the kind of argument that strengthens those elements within the Pakistani establishment who thrive on perpetual crisis with India.

http://polaris.nationalinterest.in/2010/08/08/the-unrepentant-fundamentalist/