Afghanistan News and Discussions

[ajtr]

how about a little change in this observation Mr Dalrymple, I wish we are able to say say something like this in the near future, anyway here goes
The stage is now open for a deal where UK could agree to minimise its presence in Afghanistan - which it could accept as US/Indian sphere of influence - in return for US promising not fuelling any nationalistic sentiments in Scotland, which it would accept as UK's domain. To satisfy all parties, an undertaking by Pakistan to drive al-Qaida from the region would need to be included.

cant believe these guys still think they have an "empire" and "God Given" right to create problems in other parts of the world and then offer solutions.

btw the author is a respected historian and has been living in Delhi for quite a while. We would appreciate if he sticks to his core competence and not venture into the subfield of geostrategy

Dalrymple is right on point here.If you look as back as sept 2008 attack on Indian embassy in kabul and the 26/11 and immediately one month after 26/11 David milliband declaring right on indian soil that mumbai attacks were results of indian policies in kashmi.If you scrutinize the last 2 years of happenings in AfPAK their is well planned game played out to drag india directly/indirectly into afghan mess there by blaming the failure of west in afghan war on the so called non existence cold war between india pak and the kashmir issue.And the likewise indian govt/media is behaving it seems they have compromised on both these issues.You can call it trial balloon by Dalrymple.but he does have some knowledge of bargain by india on afghanistan and kashmir with india giving up its claim to valley POK and northern areas.And GOI is moving currently in that direction judiciously.

 

[Neil]

isn't it true that INDIA had during 2001 invasion by US of afghanistan had given a proposal to send her own troops to support the invasion...??

 

[samarsingh]

Dalrymple is right on point here.If you look as back as sept 2008 attack on Indian embassy in kabul and the 26/11 and immediately one month after 26/11 David milliband declaring right on indian soil that mumbai attacks were results of indian policies in kashmi.If you scrutinize the last 2 years of happenings in AfPAK their is well planned game played out to drag india directly/indirectly into afghan mess there by blaming the failure of west in afghan war on the so called non existence cold war between india pak and the kashmir issue.And the likewise indian govt/media is behaving it seems they have compromised on both these issues.You can call it trial balloon by Dalrymple.but he does have some knowledge of bargain by india on afghanistan and kashmir with india giving up its claim to valley POK and northern areas.And GOI is moving currently in that direction judiciously.

they wouldn't be able to sell that to the international community. what next blame Iran for the Iraq mess ( actually there could be some truth in it)
In fact Dalrymple also mentioned in the article that India has minimal presence in Afghanistan as of now, but enough to worry Pakistan. So this talk of our reducing presence is to either
appease Pakistan( which I doubt, the west doesn't care much about them either) or is a polite way of saying that India shouldn't be too ambitious as of now. Kashmir has and will be used to talk India down. We should expect that.
IM humble opinion I dont see India reducing its presence in Afghanistan.
don't know if NATO endorses Mr Dalrymple's view, if it does then it would be a major European/US conspiracy to restrict us from participating even in our neighbourhood..

 

[LETHALFORCE]

The Afghan war was marketed as a war to find Osama Bin Laden,how does the Kashmir issue have anything to do with this??India has already done troop reduction like Obama wanted. Obama has fired a General and now trying to shift the blame for a failing war seems to be another Obama policy..

 

[ajtr]

The Afghan war was marketed as a war to find Osama Bin Laden,how does the Kashmir issue have anything to do with this??India has already done troop reduction like Obama wanted. Obama has fired a General and now trying to shift the blame for a failing war seems to be another Obama policy..

Well Obama's Afghan war is suffering more due to his local politics.With only 2 years left for presidential election he need to show some progress on afghan war thus he is withdrawing in haste.

 

[ajtr]

they wouldn't be able to sell that to the international community. what next blame Iran for the Iraq mess ( actually there could be some truth in it)
In fact Dalrymple also mentioned in the article that India has minimal presence in Afghanistan as of now, but enough to worry Pakistan. So this talk of our reducing presence is to either
appease Pakistan( which I doubt, the west doesn't care much about them either) or is a polite way of saying that India shouldn't be too ambitious as of now. Kashmir has and will be used to talk India down. We should expect that.
IM humble opinion I dont see India reducing its presence in Afghanistan.
don't know if NATO endorses Mr Dalrymple's view, if it does then it would be a major European/US conspiracy to restrict us from participating even in our neighbourhood..

Even if india dont 've presence in afghanistan you can always expect india to be linked to the cause by pakistan and their western buddies.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Well Obama's Afghan war is suffering more due to his local politics.With only 2 years left for presidential election he need to show some progress on afghan war thus he is withdrawing in haste.

He is also withdrawing because many NATO allies are withdrawing and will not commit any more troops or money for the war,and there are no clear objectives to sell to the public.

 

[ajtr]

isn't it true that INDIA had during 2001 invasion by US of afghanistan had given a proposal to send her own troops to support the invasion...??

india didnt offered troops but the airbases and port refuelling facilities to NATO.you can say that may be one of the minor reason mushy did about turn by joining WOT.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

india didnt offered troops but the airbases and port refuelling facilities to NATO.you can say that may be one of the minor reason mushy did about turn by joining WOT.

India had offered upto 125,000 troops but USA rejected after Pakistani objections.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1636909.cms

 

[ajtr]

He is also withdrawing because many NATO allies are withdrawing and will not commit any more troops or money for the war,and there are no clear objectives to sell to the public.

What stops usa to treat AFPAK as balkans or iraq after 1st gulf war.For that they dont require boots on ground.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

What stops usa to treat AFPAK as balkans or iraq after 1st gulf war.For that they dont require boots on ground.

Without boots on the ground USA will have no control over the region since the puppet governments have proven they have no control or interest in looking out for US interests.

 

[ajtr]

India had offered upto 125,000 troops but USA rejected after Pakistani objections.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1636909.cms

thats 2006 news and those were all speculation as far as offering troops were concerned there was no such official offer from indian govt except for the strategic experst reports on this topic.Iwas mentioning about 2001 NDA govt offer for air base and refueling facilities to NATO.

 

[ajtr]

Without boots on the ground USA will have no control over the region since the puppet governments have proven they have no control or interest in looking out for US interests.

USA did force serbs to back off by using Air power alone in balkans.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

thats 2006 news and those were all speculation as far as offering troops were concerned there was no such official offer from indian govt except for the strategic experst reports on this topic.Iwas mentioning about 2001 NDA govt offer for air base and refueling facilities to NATO.

The fear was after the war was won, USA would leave and Indian troops would remain.

 

[ajtr]

The fear was after the war was won, USA would leave and Indian troops would remain.

That would ve been logistical nightmare for indian forces.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

That would ve been logistical nightmare for indian forces.

It would not have been so bad Iranians were going to possibly cooperate and let India use Charbhar port and Russia could have helped with they Ayni or Manas airbase??

 

[ajtr]

Holbrooke to lighten terror list of Taliban​

Posted By Colum Lynch Friday, July 2, 2010 - 6:49 PM Share

Richard C. Holbrooke, the White House's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, will travel to New York on Tuesday to help Afghanistan negotiate the removal of select Taliban members from a U.N. anti-terror blacklist, according to senior U.N.-based officials.

Holbrooke's decision to visit New York comes weeks after Afghan President Hamid Karzai appealed to the U.N. Security Council to drop Taliban from a list of individuals targeted with travel and financial sanctions, a first step in an effort to convince Taliban militants to end their insurgency and strike a peace deal with the government. The Afghan government's June 6 "peace jirga" on June 6 called for taking steps towards reconciliation with the Taliban, including the removal of former Taliban officials from the U.N. blacklist.

The Security Council is now reviewing the status of 15 former Taliban members on the watch list, including a former Taliban education minister, Mullah Arsala Rahmani, who is currently serving in the Afghan senate. According to council diplomats, President Karzai is expected to present the council's sanctions committee with a letter arguing that the 15 former Taliban have renounced terrorism and are no longer involved in the violent overthrow of his government.

The Afghan effort has been stalled by Russia, which has maintained that Karzai's government has provided insufficient evidence to remove the Afghans from the list. Russia made it clear that it takes a very hard line on the removal from the blacklist of Taliban who are still engaged in terrorist or military activities. On March 22, Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly I. Churkin, told the council "that dialogue is possible only with those who have laid down arms, recognized the government and constitution of Afghanistan, and broken their links with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups."

But U.S. and Afghan officials hope that Russia, which agreed to delist a smaller group of five former Taliban officials in January, will be willing to at least let a limited number off the list, sending a signal to other Taliban fighters that it is possible to achieve relief from the U.N. measures. Council diplomats say the names under consideration do not include the Taliban's leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, or other combatants currently participating in the insurgency.

In advance of the talks, the United States made an important concession to Moscow. Last month, the State Department designated a Chechen separatist commander, Doku Umarov, a terrorist. Umarov and his followers have claimed responsibility for a number of violent actions, including a suicide bombing in Moscow's subway system. The decision, which was announced on the eve of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's White House summit with President Barack Obama, marked a shift in standard U.S. protocol. The U.S. usually places an individual on the U.S. terror list before pressing for his or her inclusion on the U.N. blacklist, but in this instance that was not the case. But U.N.-based officials said it was unclear whether the United States received assurances that Russia would respond by yielding ground on the Taliban sanctions.

The U.N. Security Council first imposed sanctions on the Taliban government in October 1999 for harboring Osama bin Laden, and refusing to surrender him to U.S. authorities for his alleged role in masterminding the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. More than 100 Taliban leaders were added to the list in January 2001.

After the September 11 terror attacks, the United States ushered through resolutions that added al Qaeda members and their supporters to the sanctions list. The measures included a travel ban, an arms embargo, and a prohibition on the direct or indirect provision of funds or economic resources. To authorize the removal of someone from the list, the resolution requires evidence that Taliban members have renounced violence, expressed support for the Afghan government and its constitution, and severed their links to al Qaeda. But efforts to reward individuals who break ranks with the Taliban and rally behind Karzai's government have run up against resistance from Russia.

"The Russian position is perfectly reasonable," said Richard Barrett, who oversees a committee responsible for monitoring implementation of the sanctions against the Taliban and al Qaeda. "People should not come off the list just because there is a political process. Mullah Omar and others aren't prevented from participating in the political process even though they are on the list."

But Afghanistan has increased pressure on Russia and other council members to reverse course, arguing that the sanctions list is an impediment to prospects for a peace settlement with the Taliban. Karzai met with a visiting delegation of Security Council members last month and appealed to them to remove names from the list. Some officials indicated that Karzai and his advisors had requested that the entire list of 137 Taliban be eliminated. But others challenged that account, saying that Karzai only asked that some Taliban officials be delisted.

In January, Russian government lifted its objection to delisting Wakil Ahmad Mutawakkil, a minister of foreign affairs in the former Taliban government, and Abdul Hakim Monib Muhammad Nazar, another former Taliban official who broke ranks with the movement and served as Karzai's governor in Uruzgan. Russia has also agreed to delist Fazl Muhammad Faizan Qamaruddin, Shams-us-Safa Aminzai, and Muhammad Musa Hotak Abdul Mehdi.

The Afghan leader is seeking to make progress on reconciling with the Taliban in advance of a major international conference in Kabul on July 20 aimed at supporting the stability of Afghanistan. Among the strongest advocates are Afghan politicians, like Mullah Rahmani, who stand to benefit directly from the delisting. Rahmani claims to have links to the Taliban and to have established indirect communications to Mullah Omar.

"The blacklist will be a start," he told the New York Times. "It is symbolically very important. Even if they only move 60 or 70 names, that would be enough. The next stop could be talks between government and Taliban representatives in some neutral country."

 

[ajtr]

It would not have been so bad Iranians were going to possibly cooperate and let India use Charbhar port and Russia could have helped with they Ayni or Manas airbase??

Iran is now more chumy with pakistan since pakistan gave up most wanted man Rigi to iran.Past 10 years iran has also seen pakistan showing more spine to usa than india.India on other hand double crossed iran under usa pressure.Pakistan has been more successful in pulling out Karzai and iran from indian influence.Its a kind of coup pak did successfully on india.

 

[samarsingh]

Iran is now more chumy with pakistan since pakistan gave up most wanted man Rigi to iran.Past 10 years iran has also seen pakistan showing more spine to usa than india.India on other hand double crossed iran under usa pressure.Pakistan has been more successful in pulling out Karzai and iran from indian influence.Its a kind of coup pak did successfully on india.

I think we are doing the right thing now. Iran has never supported India on the Kashmir issue. In fact Iraq always supported India's position in the UN on Kashmir issue. Also our former Prime Minister Chandrashekhar allowed US planes to refuel during the first gulf war, even after that Iraq continued to support us. If anything we have betrayed Iraqi's..
Iran on the other hand is a very shrewd player. IMO there is nothing to be gained by being on the side of Iranians. I think its a matter of time, they could be next on the list of global war on terror, and we need not make any sentimental decisions here in choosing sides.

 

[ajtr]

I think we are doing the right thing now. Iran has never supported India on the Kashmir issue. In fact Iraq always supported India's position in the UN on Kashmir issue. Also our former Prime Minister Chandrashekhar allowed US planes to refuel during the first gulf war, even after that Iraq continued to support us. If anything we have betrayed Iraqi's..
Iran on the other hand is a very shrewd player. IMO there is nothing to be gained by being on the side of Iranians. I think its a matter of time, they could be next on the list of global war on terror, and we need not make any sentimental decisions here in choosing sides.

It were always iran and afghanistan(before taliban) who vetoed pakistan sponsored resolutions in in OIC.