Afghanistan War News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Sabre,

I think we agree on what happened (though ISI also had their hand in it). I just don't accept that the "Americans created Taliban", which some have implied.

ISI had their hands, legs, face, mouth, nose all in it.

Several former ISI officers have said a lot on this stuff. Few interesting things have been extracted.

1st they say they did not create the concept of Taliban but did get involve in its creation. But they do agree they had lot to do with it since they were the only direct party involved.

2nd; US interest was involved. Central Asia had just gotten its independence & there were natural resources to be exploited. However, the the sea rout was via Pakistan & to get these resources via Pakistan ports the resources had to pass through Afghanistan - & Afghanistan was in Civil War. They too were interested in a stable Afghanistan under stable regime. Hence US signaling a silent nod. That is why US did not criticize the Taliban much in the early years. Instead US invited Taliban officials to US in late 1990s.

When a deal was being planned between US, Central Asian States, Afghanistan [Taliban] & Pakistan to extract the natural resources US expected all work to be done by American companies. But the Taliban handed the contract over to an Argentinian company & refused to back off. This is where the ISI says the rift began to grow between US & Taliban. ---> Some see it one of the main reasons for Afghan war.

However, just to your statement: Agreed; Americans did not establish Taliban. They did not participate in its creation (even if they did they didn't do directly) nor were Taliban their idea. But somewhere in between they found it to be a good idea.


Having said all; when did I say US created Taliban? :unknown
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
The Taliban was given a choice to cut ties with al queda which they refuse to do. The Taliban had to be taken down since they were the govt. of Afghanistan which was hosting a terrorist group that attack the US. They weren't going to stay on the sidelines and let the US attack al Queda.
Right. & they called a Majlis-e-Shora (?) which concluded that Al-Qaida members should leave Afghanistan, though we will not use force against them. They were holding their 3rd or 4th meeting when US decided on war instead of pursuing diplomacy. The mistake of the Shora was that they should have used the word "MUST" instead of "SHOULD."

One thing will always remain true for Talibans. Regardless of them not agreeing with you making decisions prior to meetings they never backed off a diplomacy.


It was mistake not to give the Pashtuns a bigger role in governing the Afghanistan. Karzai is Pashtun however he is seen as an outsider to the Pashtuns.
Wont say an outsider but unacceptable. I forgot the name of this person who was supposed to be the caretaking President of Afghanistan after the war (killed by Taliban) who was very much acceptable to all the groups.


Agreed, Karzai has no credibility. Pakistan's interest has to be acknowledge and respected in order to bring some sort of stability to Afghnistan.
Its not just Pakistan who dislikes Karzai. Other neighbouring states (especially Iran) also want his exit. Hiqmat Yaar is gaining good reputation in Iran as well as Pakistan but his support for Taliban is costing him his political carier.

Having said that Pakistan, Iran, US & other Afghan neighbours have no right to interfere in Afghanistan's internal affair. This whole mess it because of interenational presence since the cold war.


This is more the responsiblity of the Pakistani govt. to use this as leverage.
Well leverge if there are good relations, threats if threatening relations. Its only a Real-Politik ain't it?:rolleyes:
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
There was a lot of similar terrorist groups in our world. How Al-Qaida is unique here?

Thats what i tried to tell - if America wouldnt PR Al-Qaida with all they media might, it would remain just another Arabs terrorist group - among others. If US somehow manage to destroy Al-Qaida and kill Bin Landen personally - it will not change anything. Another Arab group(s) will replace Al-Qaida in an instant.
Aaee! Than I misunderstood ya.

See? Al-Qaida wasnt unique here.
Well you can't be unique in every department.

Of course Al-Qaida didnt ruled Afghanistan. Al-Qaida used it as one of training camps and requiting centers. Probably also as source of income through narcotics.
I doubt they were using narcotics for their finance. 1) Taliban were against narcotics, 2) Shariya calls against narcotics - if Al-Qaida or Taliban either used narcotics for their finance it would undermine their ideological claims.


There is no "united" international mafia. Many local "mafias" are cooperate with each other. This is normal thing, just dont exaggerate they influence on grand scale decisions.
Well yes that is the problem; there is no unified organization of this Mafia. They are separate entities, hence make the crackdown very hard. They don't make any strategic decisions but their influence is harming strategic decisions of states involved in the War against Terror (WaT).
 

Chrom

New Member
Well yes that is the problem; there is no unified organization of this Mafia. They are separate entities, hence make the crackdown very hard. They don't make any strategic decisions but their influence is harming strategic decisions of states involved in the War against Terror (WaT).
The part of problem is as i said "good" terrorists vs "bad" terrorists. Both are involved in various contrabands and narcotic deals - yet some of them are supported by US/West/China/Russia/etc, and some not. This is also part of reason why it is so hard to combat them.

I
doubt they were using narcotics for their finance. 1) Taliban were against narcotics, 2) Shariya calls against narcotics - if Al-Qaida or Taliban either used narcotics for their finance it would undermine their ideological claims.
Yes, theoretically. But in such sorry state all means are good for them. Supporting narcotics trade (unofficially) will not harm they picture much, but will bring a lot of cash. Contrary, actively opposing narcotics trade now, when they need all local support they can get - will only alienate local population and warlords.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
I Yes, theoretically. But in such sorry state all means are good for them. Supporting narcotics trade (unofficially) will not harm they picture much, but will bring a lot of cash. Contrary, actively opposing narcotics trade now, when they need all local support they can get - will only alienate local population and warlords.
Well you also have to take in account that in Taliban years the narcotics trade was very very minimum. They destroyed almost all the poppy crops. However, some Taliban officials did confess to have used narcotics for financing.
 

eaf-f16

New Member
"US, Pakistani militaries devise strategy against growing militancy"

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Top US and Pakistani military officials have met to discuss strategies to contain the growing militant threat along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff Admiral Michael Mullen said Thursday.

Mullen, who led the US side to the talks this week, also said that Pakistan military chief General Ashfaq Kayani had stepped up operations to flush out Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants using the border area as a staging point for attacks in Afghanistan.

"We certainly talked about the complexity of the challenges that we have in the border area, the pressure that we believe needs to be applied there for lots of reasons, not the least of which is the effect it's having on the fight in Afghanistan," Mullen told a Pentagon briefing.

There was "a very clear need from a US standpoint and from the Pakistani standpoint that we have got to figure out a way to get at this problem," Mullen said, in an indication that fresh strategies could be drawn up to combat the rising militancy threat.

Kayani led the Pakistani team to the talks among the top military brass, which also included US General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq who is set to be the senior military officer in the Middle East.

The meeting was reportedly held on a US aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean on Tuesday.

Kayani "is undertaking operations that were not ongoing a few months ago," Mullen said, cautioning that it could take some time to bring the problem under control.


"I am encouraged that he's taking action and I also think it's going to take some time," he said. "Expectations for instantaneous results are probably a little bit too high."

The meeting came amid increasingly deadly attacks against Afghan and Western targets in Afghanistan following a series of bombings and threats by Taliban-led insurgents trying to drive out the Western-backed government and its allies.

Washington has also been concerned that the Pakistani military had not been doing enough to stem the flow of militants from the Pakistan side of the border used as a staging point for attacks on Afghanistan.

"The meeting was mainly to continue to discuss ongoing operations against extremists in the border region and to work together to find better ways to solve those problems," one US military official who was briefed on the talks was quoted saying by the New York Times.

Last week, at least 10 suicide bombers staged a cordinated attack on one of the largest American military bases in Afghanistan and about 100 insurgents ambushed and killed 10 elite French paratroopers in what was seen as the Taliban's most complex and audacious attacks of the war since 2001.

US-led forces invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 and ousted the Taliban regime for harbouring Al-Qaeda.

Nearly 70,000 international troops are helping the Afghanistan government fight the growing insurgent threat and rebuild its security forces. The Afghan army already takes the lead in some joint operations.
There we go. This is the beginning of the end of a major problem, hopefully. Cooperation and coordination with Pakistani military is vital to the success of Afghanistan. Now, if only the Afghan government starts participating in this type of dialogue with Pakistan instead of alienating it.

By the way, there were reports today that a PAF air strike had killed 22 militants. So, clearly Pakistan isn't just giving lip service (like Karzai tries to make it seem).
 

Stryker001

Banned Member
That matter of Pakistan is a lot more complex than just the militants. Once the general lost his uniform it was effectively a death sentence, recently when he call the President he refused to take his call, a spokesperson said a few words about Musharraf being a good ally.

Since late last year the ISI and other friends of the General have been very busy implementing a plan which has had the affect of destabilizing Pakistan, Kashmir and India the west sees the military operations in the badlands as a sign of success.

It was decided that this was the best way to create a situation in a coup and martial law can be imposed, with once again a military president.

The main reason Musharraf was ousted from power is because he is blamed for supplying the Ayatollah of Iran with nuclear technology.
 
Last edited:

eaf-f16

New Member
That matter of Pakistan is a lot more complex than just the militants. Once the general lost his uniform it was effectively a death sentence, recently when he call the President he refused to take his call, a spokesperson said a few words about Musharraf being a good ally.
Well, he plans on living in a luxurious villa inside Pakistan. So, I guess he doesn't feel the same way about his security as you do. It should be noted that the villa will be highly secured, though.

Since late last year the ISI and other friends of the General have been very busy implementing a plan which has had the affect of destabilizing Pakistan, Kashmir and India the west sees the military operations in the badlands as a sign of success.
Really? Even Kashmir and India? I thought he was often credited with moving forward peace initiatives with India and enhancing relations with them.

It was decided that this was the best way to create a situation in a coup and martial law can be imposed, with once again a military president.
I don't understand this part. So, if you care to clarify, that would be great.

The main reason Musharraf was ousted from power is because he is blamed for supplying the Ayatollah of Iran with nuclear technology.
Really?

So, it had nothing to do with interfering with judiciary, greatly increasing the president's powers and turning it into a dictatorial position, arresting opposition figures, not providing Bhutto with enough security (resulting in her death), etc.?
 

Stryker001

Banned Member
Well I would assume that the nuclear matter would have been the greatest issue of the US, not so much the judiciary (Gitmo) or we kill a lot of civilians every day in Afghanistan. The US VP have made his office very powerful over the last two terms, sometimes I wonder who is in charge of the Whitehouse.

India well people speak of the PRC military build while India gets away with it due to its ties with the US. India is not compliant to the wishes of Washington. As can be seen with the matter of India/Iranian relations. If the India/US nuclear deal goes through Pakistan wants the same agreement. Also the General is no longer in control of the ISI, so who really can say about India and Kashmir and the deterioration of stability of Pakistan.

He is safe until they take his security away, safe passage to a non commonwealth country has been arranged.

A coup look at the history of Pakistan the Pakistani Army will allow the dysfunctional Government to operate until it becomes a danger and then a coup.

Don't be surprised that Musharraf reenters politics and becomes the Prime Minister or President in the future, stranger things have happened.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
"US, Pakistani militaries devise strategy against growing militancy"

There we go. This is the beginning of the end of a major problem, hopefully. Cooperation and coordination with Pakistani military is vital to the success of Afghanistan. Now, if only the Afghan government starts participating in this type of dialogue with Pakistan instead of alienating it.

By the way, there were reports today that a PAF air strike had killed 22 militants. So, clearly Pakistan isn't just giving lip service (like Karzai tries to make it seem).
This is nothing new. Meetings are held regularly & same thing is said over & over again with US (from our point of view) not acting on it. I.e: They promise not to launch their attacks on Pakistan's tribal areas yet they continue to do so.

Pakistan & its Army has never given a lip-service on WoT. They are facing both internal & external pressure as well as threats yet they continue to fight. Most of the operations are carried out by Pakistan Army's Pashtoon Commanders & its very difficult to kill your own people. Regardless of that they have conducted themselves very well. In addition; Pakistan has lost more soldiers & civilians to terror attack then any state since 9/11. & when someone says we are doing to less then that just does it for the Pakistan Army & Pakistani people. Army can be brought back into control by its commanders but how you bring people to calmness - one major reason for the downfall of Musharaff.

As for the Karzai, well he is just a laughing matter. Can't control either Non-Pashtoon North which is relatively peaceful nor can't control rest of Afghanistan. He was a Mayer of Kabul & now has lost even that control. As one Pakistani scholar said; he is now just an information minister of Afghanistan, thats why he blubers a lot.



The Pakistan Army's strategy is bit slow but has started to show effects. The tribes don't take orders from anyone, they don't like outsiders meddling in their affairs & autonomy. Pashtoon Commanders of Pakistan Army knew that sooner or later the tribes will see their power diminishing under Taliban influence they themselves will turn against them & it has started to happen. Some of the main Taliban leaders have been killed by Tribesmen rather then Pakistan Army. These tribesmen were harassed by the Taliban militents. Several influencial tribes have gone far to call on united front against the Taliban. This is of course a slow process as Tribes have a code of dialogue 1st & shoot later (but if dialogue fails its a rain of blood). US however wants an "Action Packed Thriller" filled with brutality & violence from Pakistan Army - which the Pakistan Army refuses to do with its own people. We tried it & we got high civilian death toll, displaced people & more resentment amongst the people of Pakistan (including majority moderates). This can be dangerous for everyone.
 

Stryker001

Banned Member
Any proof or sources? [Credible one]
I don’t know how credible, the links are or the confession or who is telling the truth about the nuclear deal. Of course it was not just Musharraf but the people who also supported him and still do the Pakistani military. The concern is that the next person who becomes Washington's man in Pakistan may receive the same fate as Musharraf. It means that the Ayatollah owes Musharraf a favor, if he calls it in.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4964884
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4967504

Long term targeted killings Phoenix program are the way to control the tribal regions, because that way only the key players are liquidated not civilians or at least a smaller percentage via false HUMINT, grudges etc. The insurgents continue their campaign of terror on the military and civilians regardless.

But it means that civilians are less likely to take up arms against the Pakistani military, due to their family members being killed during large scale campaigns as the current ones.
 
Last edited:

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
I don’t know how credible, the links are or the confession or who is telling the truth about the nuclear deal. Of course it was not just Musharraf but the people who also supported him and still do the Pakistani military. The concern is that the next person who becomes Washington's man in Pakistan may receive the same fate as Musharraf. It means that the Ayatollah owes Musharraf a favor, if he calls it in.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4964884
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4967504
Ayatollah owes Musharaf nothing. Its all exaggerated, especially your notion of 'Proliferation bringing the downfall of Musharaf." If it was the case he would have gone lot earlier then this, a lot earlier. As for the Americans they would have preferred to keep him for as long as he lived if they could.

Its the people that brought his downfall. His Kings party was gone, media cut loose from him, religious hardliners, religious-moderates, seculars & majority-moderates all turned against him. His powers had become worthless infront of the high number of parliament members who were against him. & when they pushed him he resigned & US too was left with little option but to let him go. Nuke Tech has nothing to do with his fall.
 

2S1

Banned Member
Ayatollah owes Musharaf nothing. Its all exaggerated, especially your notion of 'Proliferation bringing the downfall of Musharaf." If it was the case he would have gone lot earlier then this, a lot earlier. As for the Americans they would have preferred to keep him for as long as he lived if they could.

Its the people that brought his downfall. His Kings party was gone, media cut loose from him, religious hardliners, religious-moderates, seculars & majority-moderates all turned against him. His powers had become worthless infront of the high number of parliament members who were against him. & when they pushed him he resigned & US too was left with little option but to let him go. Nuke Tech has nothing to do with his fall.
Sabre, just out out interest, how much Saudi influence do you think is playing in this?
 

Stryker001

Banned Member
Ayatollah owes Musharaf nothing. Its all exaggerated, especially your notion of 'Proliferation bringing the downfall of Musharaf." If it was the case he would have gone lot earlier then this, a lot earlier. As for the Americans they would have preferred to keep him for as long as he lived if they could.

Its the people that brought his downfall. His Kings party was gone, media cut loose from him, religious hardliners, religious-moderates, seculars & majority-moderates all turned against him. His powers had become worthless infront of the high number of parliament members who were against him. & when they pushed him he resigned & US too was left with little option but to let him go. Nuke Tech has nothing to do with his fall.
Who made him give up command of the Army and hold elections the US,UK etc in full knowledge that he would fall, it was only a matter of time.

Perhaps the Ayatollah owes him nothing, for the troops in the Afghan AO I hope you are right. When the US found out that Shiites had been given the technology by Pakistan they were surprised, so I would not doubt that favors can be called in between the two nuclear powers.

Meanwhile Pakistan says they will start demolishing the houses of terrorists using the Israeli tactic. It is actual an SS tactic and the only true reason terror acts have decrease in Israel is due to the security fence and the partitioning of the Israeli’s and Palestinians. Therefore, the affects in Pakistan will be minimal, although to westerns it sounds good.


If the Kingdom of Saud cancel the oil subsidy Pakistan's new Government will fall, so a fair bit of influence. That could result in a coup and martial law.
 
Last edited:

shrike

New Member
Winter Offensive

This winter in Afghanistan is going to be very "hot" according to these articles:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090302005.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/bal-afghan0905,0,7318056.story

The US is preparing a major winter offensive to deny the insurgents (Taliban) a stay in Afghanistan during the winter months. The major surge in attacks this year by the Taliban is linked to a growing number of Taliban who stay in the country during winter and don`t have to cross the border from their staging areas in Pakistan.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
These self appointed think tanks are ruining the American government as well.
Is that meant to mean anything?

I note that you haven't answered the questions. I must assume that's because you don't know the answers to the second one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top