Is the US's position in Afghanistan precarious?

[Sampanviking]

Fear most definitely is a dangerous tool, but to abuse a famous song for purely gratuitous reasons

"You say translator ~~~ I say collaborator~~~~ lets call the whole thing off!!"

Tarring and Feathering (or indeed as you state; far worse) those that stray too close to an occupier is not new and I would urge caution to the attribution of free will when dealing with a closed insular and tribal society.

Now, I have absolutely no idea what the average Pashtun farmer really wants, feels or thinks about the situation. I do however think it can be fatally dangerous to convince yourself that a people that instinctively coalesce around family, clan and tribe are only stopped from joining with you simply because of fear of consequences.

A good soldier follows orders irrespective of whether they agree with them or not and I have no doubt that a tribal structure operates in exactly the same way.

 

[STURM]

Yes Taliban forces have been crushed to a near defeat.

If theTaliban were close to being defeated, the Karzai government, and the U.S. before that, won't be engaging the Taliban in talks to see how the Taliban can be part of a future government. The Taliban has suffered tremendous losses but they are far from defeated. The Taliban is close to achieving its goals, can the same be said of the U.S?

.But could it effective be defeated?

Read Ahmad Rashihost d's ''Descent Into Darkness'', Steve Coll's ''Ghost Wars''. you might also find these videos interesting.


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--4QyWne7Bc"]Q&A: Ahmed Rashid - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyvGxuHSoPg"]NATO Review - Where now for Afghanistan? Interview with Ahmed Rashid - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXRLP3USMrA"]Kashmir problem & its impact on Afghanistan-Robert Fisk - YouTube[/nomedia]


Ahmed Rashid: Terrorist Sanctuaries in Pakistan - YouTube

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5VhkkYe8Ck"]Ahmed Rashid: The West Needs a Regional Strategy for ... - YouTube[/nomedia]


Margolis on how to resolve Afghan conflict - YouTube

That the Taliban were able to make a comeback in 2004 and things got worse on the ground despite all the cash spent and fire power expended were due to major mistakes that were made. Things could have been different....

However the Taliban was fighting by FEAR, Terror and Violence and that is a really serious tool to convince the people there to take the side of the Taliban (Willing or unwilling)

We would be fooling ourselves if we thought that all the people who support the Taliban do so only out of sheer fear. There are those who support the Taliban because they have lost faith in the central government. Some support them simply because half their families were killed in an air strike for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Some just hate the sight of foreign occupying troops on their their soil.

The Taliban tied up a young son to a tree and left him there to rot, because his daddy did accept coaltion forces into his compound.

Similar atrocities were done by various warlords who were supported by the U.S. One reason why people in rural areas had so little faith in Karzai was because of the power and influence the warlords have. Due to U.S. backing of the warlords, Karzai was unable to curb their power or even ensure that they handed over their heavy weapons. The warlords even became more powerful as they received contract to supply U.S. bases with sand, building materials, etc, they made millions! And if I recall correctly, there have even been well documented incidents/cases of atrocities being done by coalition troops.

I A Coalition soldier offers you Food, Education and a possible brighter future ok?But you know that your sister, brother and son is being held by the Taliban and by accepting the help from a western soldier you condemn your family to death.

Which side would you pick?

And which side would you pick if you were a farmer and during a night search of your house, you were accused of being a ''terrorist'' and were detained for several months, without your family being informed of where you were. And you were later released with only an apology.

Which side would you pick if you were against the Taliban but your kids got killed in an airstrike due to someone else's mistake. And all you got was an apology and a few hundred dollars in compensation.

 

[Beatmaster]

If theTaliban were close to being defeated, the Karzai government, and the U.S. before that, won't be engaging the Taliban in talks to see how the Taliban can be part of a future government. The Taliban has suffered tremendous losses but they are far from defeated. The Taliban is close to achieving its goals, can the same be said of the U.S?



Read Ahmad Rashihost d's ''Descent Into Darkness'', Steve Coll's ''Ghost Wars''. you might also find these videos interesting.


Q&A: Ahmed Rashid - YouTube


NATO Review - Where now for Afghanistan? Interview with Ahmed Rashid - YouTube


Kashmir problem & its impact on Afghanistan-Robert Fisk - YouTube


Ahmed Rashid: Terrorist Sanctuaries in Pakistan - YouTube

Ahmed Rashid: The West Needs a Regional Strategy for ... - YouTube


Margolis on how to resolve Afghan conflict - YouTube

That the Taliban were able to make a comeback in 2004 and things got worse on the ground despite all the cash spent and fire power expended were due to major mistakes that were made. Things could have been different....



We would be fooling ourselves if we thought that all the people who support the Taliban do so only out of sheer fear. There are those who support the Taliban because they have lost faith in the central government. Some support them simply because half their families were killed in an air strike for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Some just hate the sight of foreign occupying troops on their their soil.



Similar atrocities were done by various warlords who were supported by the U.S. One reason why people in rural areas had so little faith in Karzai was because of the power and influence the warlords have. Due to U.S. backing of the warlords, Karzai was unable to curb their power or even ensure that they handed over their heavy weapons. The warlords even became more powerful as they received contract to supply U.S. bases with sand, building materials, etc, they made millions! And if I recall correctly, there have even been well documented incidents/cases of atrocities being done by coalition troops.



And which side would you pick if you were a farmer and during a night search of your house, you were accused of being a ''terrorist'' and were detained for several months, without your family being informed of where you were. And you were later released with only an apology.

Which side would you pick if you were against the Taliban but your kids got killed in an airstrike due to someone else's mistake. And all you got was an apology and a few hundred dollars in compensation.

Yes yes yes you are right i will not deny that, however i was pointing this in a more general way.
I do know its not just fear but i mean fear in a general tool.
Moral values get twisted as you pointed out and there is ALOT to talk about in that matter.

In regards to your airstrike scenario thats pain full but thats a mistake ok?
How shitty that might be but in the end of the day it was not the pilot who killed my kids but it was those who made that pilot come here to fight them...

 

[STURM]

How shitty that might be but in the end of the day it was not the pilot who killed my kids but it was those who made that pilot come here to fight them...

Whether it's a mistake or whether it was made by those who came to fight AQ and the Taliban is no consolation for those who have lost loved ones. When analysing conflicts in foreign lands the vast majority of us tend to underestimate or forget the cost in human lives and suffering paid by the locals.

We know the name of every single foreign soldier killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, can anyone of us here name a single Afghan or Iraqi, out of the thousands, who were killed?

 

[Beatmaster]

Whether it's a mistake or whether it was made by those who came to fight AQ and the Taliban is no consolation for those who have lost loved ones. When analysing conflicts in foreign lands the vast majority of us tend to underestimate or forget the cost in human lives and suffering paid by the locals.

We know the name of every single foreign soldier killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, can anyone of us here name a single Afghan or Iraqi, out of the thousands, who were killed?

So what you are saying? Pull the goalies and get the hell out of there?
It does not work that way.
What you start you must finish...because one of the main reasons why those nations got into anarchy in the first place is because everyone steps in but none finishes it.
Thats the big issue here.
I am not saying that a human live is less worth but i will say this.
I am 100% against killing period however if there is a meaning to those who gave their live then it might be accepted in time lets call it for the greater good.
But there is not greater good here as things are worse after the intervention then before.
So their dead is not only tragic and sad its also meaningless.
And by finishing the job in a proper way and stick to it till you accomplished what you set out to do then you at least honor all those dead people by giving them a meaning to their great sacrifice.
In regards to your question if people could name civilians who died there i can say this.
My friend can name multiple people who died during that war because he was there.
He worked with those people before they got killed.
That the news does not show the names of those people does not mean they are forgotten, nearly every soldier who served in both nations can name multiple persons who got killed, because the worked and fought side by side on the same piece of ground for the same cause.
And by not finishing the job their dead is meaningless how wrong that might sound.

 

[STURM]

So what you are saying? Pull the goalies and get the hell out of there?

I did NOT say that, nor did any of my previous posts suggest that I have this opinion.

In my previous posts, I offered the opinion that if several key mistakes had not been made in the 2003-2004 period, perhaps things would not be the way they are now. And that we often forget the ultimate price paid by many of the locals. I never mentioned anything about it being a lost cause, that there should be an immediate withdrawal or that all the sacrifices that have been made by foreign troops, as well the locals, have been in vain.

What you start you must finish...because one of the main reasons why those nations got into anarchy in the first place is because everyone steps in but none finishes it.

Well that, as you know, works well in theory, but not always in practice.

He worked with those people before they got killed. That the news does not show the names of those people does not mean they are forgotten, nearly every soldier who served in both nations can name multiple persons who got killed, because the worked and fought side by side on the same piece of ground for the same cause.

I was referring to the vast majority of the general public.

 

[STURM]

An article on the recent massacre of Afghans and the use of semantics to describe the killer. The writer has a point when he mentions how different words are very often used to describe different killers.

Robert Fisk: Madness is not the reason for this massacre - Robert Fisk - Commentators - The Independent

 

[Beatmaster]

An article on the recent massacre of Afghans and the use of semantics to describe the killer. The writer has a point when he mentions how different words are very often used to describe different killers.

Robert Fisk: Madness is not the reason for this massacre - Robert Fisk - Commentators - The Independent

Sorry for the late reaction as i honestly forgot that i did reply in this topic.
Also after re-reading it i want to say sorry if i sounded harsh.
Having that said:

One can say that the mission was a success, One might say that objectives have been met and One might say that there is a future for those nations.
But if we look at the whole thing in a general way then its pretty save to say, that the overall cost in terms of Human lifes, Collateral damage, Economic Costs, and Physical / Practical cost of the whole war in both Iraq and Afghanistan is many times higher then at first was calculated.
If you look at the total prize tag of the aftermath (Which is still ungoing) then this was by far the most expensive war that has been fought since WOII.
Also a very BIG issue is the physical strain upon those who served tour after tour in the sandbox (As its called) is HUGE.

Because when the war started it became clear that the capabilities of both Taliban and A-Q where a lot more flexible, resilient and very dynamic.
The first year rebels have been hunted down like doggs and there was nothing much the could do about it, however after the first year they started to adopt different tactics
and to be honest they where able to give guerrilla warfare tactics a new meaning.
Some analysts say they re-wrote the guerrilla handbook and confronted the Coalition forces with a way of fighting we are not custom to.

And if you see what the total result is of the whole campaign at this very point, then every bit of victory and every achievement so far has been undone and it seems like the clock is ticking backwards in time.

So having that said, one might say that Taliban / A-Q managed to do what they said they would do: Killing as much western people as they can, Undo every bit of what the west achieved and eventually make the US lose its taste for war.

And my question (with all respect) is back then after 9/11 everyone said: Now its war here we come lets do this, payback time (Which i totally understand)
But with all do respect i wonder if the same people would want this war if they knew where it would lead today and what the final prize tag would be.
Would it not have been better to avoid ground operations (Except for special forces) and search and destroy those who did matter at that point?

Cheers

 

[peterAustralia]

As to Aghanistan, I started an a thread on that, not realising that this was here (my mistake), am happy to have the thread I started stopped.

Continuing on with that, my guess is that the Taliban are going to be successful once the Nato forces leave. This is not what I want, it is however my best guess (others are free to disagree)

In retrospect, if Nato had deployed a lot more troops in the first 2 or 3 years after the invasion, and had backed that up with thousands and thousands of small nation building programs, supporting villages and households instead of warlords, then the overall outcome may have been successful.

I dont think there is time left in the Nato deployment to turn things around enough, not enough time to train the Afghan army to a the required degree of effectiveness and not enough time to develop a government that is relatively free of corruption and seeks to serve the interests of everyday Aghans.

I have just finished reading 'a million bullets' by James Ferguson. It is a little dated in that it in concentrates on British forces in Helmand province in 2006. It can easily be seen that the British forces were too far stretched, despite how good they were for the size of their force. It was also commented that a force of 650 actual combat forces needed over 3000 support troops. It could be argued that the support component which is essential and needs to be substantial, was too large compared to the forces they were supporting.

It was also noted that the Scimitar tracked reconnaisance vehichles which are pretty good piece of kit, were very much starting to show their age and had relaibility issues, they also did not have air conditioning, which made those that had to use them pretty uncomftable (to put it midly). I personally like the Alvis Stormer 30 which is an upgraded Scimitar at around 14 tonnes, a nice relatively simple development of the orginal scorpion family of vehichles, (still air transportable at 14t), not overly complicated and light enough to use the poor roads and bridges, enough armour to withstnand 14.5mm machine gun fire.

Yes there are ideally better light infantry vehicles, to me it seems like a good compromise between capability and simplicity. I think the CRV(T) family of vehicles has been going now for 40 years, which to me indicates that there is a role for a 'low tier' armoured vehichle. I know it is meant to be replaced by the FRES thing, but didnt that get overly complicated, put off and overly heavy (28t ASCOD)? They are saying they want to keep it going to 2017, that is getting on 50 years! (time for something a little better?)

To sum up, I am not keen on having the Taliban come back to power, and despite the excellent work of many Nato troops, once they leave, my guess is that they will be stronger than the Afghan army which will be left.

 

[STURM]

Continuing on with that, my guess is that the Taliban are going to be successful once the Nato forces leave. This is not what I want, it is however my best guess (others are free to disagree)

I'm sure most of us feel the same way but the truth is that the Taliban enjoy a lot of support from the local population. Also bear in mind, unlike AQ, the Taliban are not interested in spreading the faith beyond their borders or in launching a global jihad. Their ultimate goal was and remains fighting until all foreign troops left their country. there have been reports of the wanting to 'reinvent' itself to avoid past mistakes - to expel all AQ cadres and to adopt a more moderate policy towards, education, women, etc.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyMMVI7lofs"]Ahmed Rashid: What Peace with the Taliban Might Look Like - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--4QyWne7Bc"]Q&A: Ahmed Rashid - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZoZ0XM2phQ&feature=related"]Dispatches - Meeting the taliban - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpAwqGd6g8"]Dispatches Afghanistan: Behind Enemy Lines (Full Documentary) - YouTube[/nomedia]


http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012418103051891506.html

In retrospect, if Nato had deployed a lot more troops in the first 2 or 3 years after the invasion, and had backed that up with thousands and thousands of small nation building programs, supporting villages and households instead of warlords, then the overall outcome may have been successful.

Not NATO but the U.S. It was the U.S. who placed to little emphasis on redevelopment and who only reluctantly agreed to the Europeans and the UN playing a greater role in the country after things started to go wrong. As for more troops, it matters little when the overall strategy was flawed. Time and time again it has been proven that an attritional based strategy with heavy reliance of firepower and technology is not the answer against insurgents.

To sum up, I am not keen on having the Taliban come back to power, and despite the excellent work of many Nato troops, once they leave, my guess is that they will be stronger than the Afghan army which will be left.

It really depends on what happens next. Karzai, with U.S. backing is keen on having the Taliban play some part in a future government, due to the realisation that the Taliban [despite all that has been thrown at them] are far from defeated and are not going to just go away. The Pakistanis of course are more than happy for the Taliban to play a part in a future government as they had never stopped supporting the Taliban - for their own ends - and are worried about the mess, that is now Afghanistan, further effecting Pakistan. Whether warlords, like Dostum and Ismail Khan agree on a deal with the Taliban is an entirely different matter. How ironic isn't it? For years the Taliban were the 'bad guys' and we were told that they would have no place in a future modern, democratic Afghanistan and that talks would never be held with them. Then came revelations that the U.S. was holding secret holding talks with the Taliban and had agreed to Karzai offering the Taliban a place in a future government.

An article written by the former Afghan intel chief.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/201241885843540832.html

 

[Sampanviking]

As NATO has conspicuously asked China to contribute to the cost of training and maintaining the Afghan Armed forces, I thought you may be interested to gain an insight on how China views the Afghan situation.

The following is a discussion on Global Times with Li Wei who is director of the Institute of Security and Strategic Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, which is essentially a leading think tank which is a primary source of analysis for the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

Attacks possible obstacle to Afghan withdrawal > Global Times

Editor's Note:

Insurgents launched a series of coordinated attacks in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, and three other cities on Sunday. The Afghan president's palace compound and Western embassies came under heavy fire. The Taliban later claimed responsibility for the coordinated assault and said this is just the start of their "spring offensive." The Global Times (GT) talked to Li Wei (Li), director of the Institute of Security and Strategic Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, on the implications of this new round of attacks.


GT: Do you think the attack is a direct consequence of the burning of the Koran and the shooting of Afghan civilians by US soldiers?

Li: The Taliban did link the attack to the burning of the Koran and civilian killings, but it is just another round of their annual spring offensive. Since the US troops' actions have caused public outrage in Afghanistan, the annual attack was inevitably related to those atrocities.

GT: Why were the Taliban forces able to penetrate so deeply into the city?

Li: The Taliban has long been welcomed by some of the Afghan people, which is mainly demonstrated in the influence they can wield on the rural areas of Afghanistan.

Besides, attacks by Afghan police and soldiers against US troops have deepened the rifts between local Afghan forces and the NATO troops over these years. About 80 NATO soldiers have been killed by Afghan security forces since 2007.

We estimate that the Taliban have infiltrators inside the local security forces and the Afghan government. With help from the "insiders," it is not surprising to see the Taliban militants penetrate the security system.

The successful attack has a lot to do with the Taliban's control over the rural regions and its infiltration into the Afghan forces.

GT: Intelligence officials have previously told journalists that the Taliban had lost the power to re-launch large-scale attacks. Can this attack be seen as an intelligence failure by NATO and the Afghan government?

Li: What intelligence officials say in news briefing is more for propaganda purposes. Intelligence officials are often reluctant to disclose genuine information. So we should not take what they say too seriously.

But I'm not saying that the US and NATO intelligence are incompetent in grasping crucial information about the Taliban.

They are most likely aware of the possibilities of Taliban attacks and how strong the Taliban forces are.

The problem is that there is pretty much nothing they can do to prevent such attacks from happening, since it is too difficult for them to know precisely when and where each insurgent attack is going to occur.

GT: NATO has commended Afghan security forces for effectively defending the city and ultimately quelling the attack. Did NATO attempt to exaggerate the military power of Afghan security forces so that they have more solid ground to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan?

Li: NATO commended the Afghan forces probably for similar reasons to why intelligence units told the press the Taliban has become a spent power. They have political concerns in making such comments, such as to raise the morale of the NATO troops and Afghan security forces. What they said could well be far from reality.

The Afghan government has yet to gain enough power to fight the Taliban on its own. Should NATO troops withdraw from Afghanistan, the situation will get much more complex. So it is hard to predict what changes NATO will make to its withdrawal timetable based on this attack.

GT: Since the war in Afghanistan has been underway for more than 10 years, considering the Taliban remains strong, can we conclude that NATO's military actions in Afghanistan have been a failure?

Li: This issue is much more complicated than it may seem. First of all, we can say that the war in Afghanistan did not really solve the country's biggest problems.

The Afghan government is too weak to maintain stability and still largely depends on NATO to fight the insurgents. But it would be unfair to say the war has been completely a failure. At least the Taliban regime was overthrown.

GT: What are the geopolitical implications of this attack? Will it bring the US and Pakistan closer together?

Li: Pakistan is not a negligible factor in the Afghanistan issue. But it is too soon to say whether the US and Pakistan will develop closer ties over the Taliban issue. All these countries will act in their own national interests.

GT: In this year's presidential campaign in the US, candidates from both parties are reluctant to talk about the Afghanistan issue, despite the fact that the war has been dragged on for more than a decade. They are more interested in issues such as Israel or Iran. Why?

Li: The Iran issue is far from being resolved compared to the Afghanistan issue, while the US policy on South Asia, particularly on Afghanistan, is basically fixed.

Presidential candidates are usually pragmatic politicians. With Osama bin Laden dead, the Americans are not as concerned with Afghanistan as other issues such as Iran's nuclear agenda.

Afghanistan has not been a hot topic in the campaign because there is only so much they can do about Afghanistan.

For what its worth I do not see China accepting the invitation to be associated with the NATO occupation.

 

[outcast]

Isn't it kind of shortsighted for China to turn away from Afghanistan's stability problems? Not only do they have an (admittedly small) land border, they also have an openly hostile islamic terrorist organization (the East Turkestan Islamic Movement) that is known to operate in Pakistan. When the coalition withdraws from Afghanistan, would this group be able or willing to exploit the vacuum and move in?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Isn't it kind of shortsighted for China to turn away from Afghanistan's stability problems? Not only do they have an (admittedly small) land border, they also have an openly hostile islamic terrorist organization (the East Turkestan Islamic Movement) that is known to operate in Pakistan. When the coalition withdraws from Afghanistan, would this group be able or willing to exploit the vacuum and move in?

china isn't interested in doing anything that would provide ETIM or 20-60m Uyghurs/XinJiang the opportunity to develop proxy allies

btw, I think you'll find that under its re-org it no longer uses "east" as it's now a generic movement that remorphed in the late 90's. they still use the acronym for consistency, but in actual fact its a broader movement.

 

[outcast]

china isn't interested in doing anything that would provide ETIM or 20-60m Uyghurs/XinJiang the opportunity to develop proxy allies

But wouldn't an unstable Afghanistan provide ETIM with just that? If China doesn't help stabalize the country after the coalition withdraw it would present ETIM with a golden opportunity.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But wouldn't an unstable Afghanistan provide ETIM with just that? If China doesn't help stabalize the country after the coalition withdraw it would present ETIM with a golden opportunity.

china has a different relationship with both ISI and the Pakistani Govt than the "west"

eg china also has in excess of 5000 major civil/social disturbances a year - how many become visible to the western media in a meaningful manner?

atm china is able to contain most of her internal issues from being visible, she can do this if she doesn't have to deal with multiple fronts - a warfighting policy she subscribes to in conventional warfare and just as applicable to CT/green warfare

and yes I am deliberately dancing here

 

[Sampanviking]

china isn't interested in doing anything that would provide ETIM or 20-60m Uyghurs/XinJiang the opportunity to develop proxy allies

btw, I think you'll find that under its re-org it no longer uses "east" as it's now a generic movement that remorphed in the late 90's. they still use the acronym for consistency, but in actual fact its a broader movement.

Just for clarity, there are little more than 10 million Uyghurs worldwide, most of which still live in Xinjiang. Total population of all Chinese in Xinjiang is about 22 million.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just for clarity, there are little more than 10 million Uyghurs worldwide, most of which still live in Xinjiang. Total population of all Chinese in Xinjiang is about 22 million.

popn is estimated at and including the diaspora is estimated at more than 20m - ie xinjiang forcibly/encouraged to be in other provinces

those numbers come from chinese interviewedby various friendlies in the past and is consistent with our estimates.

in fact 20m is considered left of the estimates

 

[Sampanviking]

With respect, that figure sounds wildly exaggerated and comes across as "friendlies" as you call them just telling you what they think you want to hear.

If you added all the Muslim minorities in China together you may be in the 20 million range, but to regard Muslim and Uigher as interchangeable terms would be a serious mistake.

Based on Official census information from China and other Central Asian countries you will arrive at the following, if you are generous with your upward rounding.

China Xinjiang up to 11 million
Kazakhstan has about quarter of a million
Kyrgyzstan has about fifty thousand

You can find much smaller communities in most South Asian and Turkic countries.

Inside China you have a diaspora of some settled communities, that are highly integrated into mainstream Chinese culture, but these tend to be little more than a few thousand individuals.

As for migrant workers in the main cities and industrial areas, I would be surprised if you could scratch together more than 100,000 at any one time.

In short I doubt if the identifiable Global Uigher population is any more than 12 million. (unidentifiable means so integrated and intermarried into local culture that they no longer regard or identify themselves as Uigher).

Sorry to be a pedant and for heading Off Topic

 

[gf0012-aust]

With respect, that figure sounds wildly exaggerated and comes across as "friendlies" as you call them just telling you what they think you want to hear.

If you added all the Muslim minorities in China together you may be in the 20 million range, but to regard Muslim and Uigher as interchangeable terms would be a serious mistake.

Based on Official census information from China and other Central Asian countries you will arrive at the following, if you are generous with your upward rounding.

China Xinjiang up to 11 million
Kazakhstan has about quarter of a million
Kyrgyzstan has about fifty thousand

You can find much smaller communities in most South Asian and Turkic countries.

Inside China you have a diaspora of some settled communities, that are highly integrated into mainstream Chinese culture, but these tend to be little more than a few thousand individuals.

As for migrant workers in the main cities and industrial areas, I would be surprised if you could scratch together more than 100,000 at any one time.

In short I doubt if the identifiable Global Uigher population is any more than 12 million. (unidentifiable means so integrated and intermarried into local culture that they no longer regard or identify themselves as Uigher).

Sorry to be a pedant and for heading Off Topic

you do realise that its not just Uyghurs?

The XinJiang includes all those groups who identify with a Turkic heritage

Friendlies is an interview term used to describe people from a region with ethnic roots in that region

the're no point in them telling us what they thought what we wanted to hear as it had no bearing on the outcome. local interpreters aren't that gullible either.

I'm more than happy to stick with the facts as I know it from prev work.

 

[outcast]

china has a different relationship with both ISI and the Pakistani Govt than the "west"

True. Though given how unstable Pakistan is (an imploding economy, frequent terror attacks, at least one active insurgency) when it finally comes crashing down Somalia style, I don't see that relationship lasting.

eg china also has in excess of 5000 major civil/social disturbances a year - how many become visible to the western media in a meaningful manner?

atm china is able to contain most of her internal issues from being visible, she can do this if she doesn't have to deal with multiple fronts - a warfighting policy she subscribes to in conventional warfare and just as applicable to CT/green warfare

and yes I am deliberately dancing here

A massive government censorship apparatus and very tight media controls. Throw in a feudal, top down culture to the mix and voila, not many will breach the surface for the world to see. And in cases where that does happen like the Tibet riots they can just shut it off from the world. I would say those are the biggest reasons.