John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes, the distraction of Iraq is the main reason for the Afghanistan failure (and a bunch of other stuff in the ME) but you must not leave out Pakistan which has greatly contributed to this failure along with Saudi money.
Afghanistan War
- Thread starter gree0232
- Start date
Yes but the country with the most ''influence'' with Pakistan [along with China] is the U.S. If the U.S. can't or is unable to exert enough influence on Pakistan to cease doing whatever it's doing in Afghanistan then who can? Despite warnings from various quarters it took a long time for the Bush administration to wake up to the fact that Pakistan was part of the problem and was playing a double game. Bush Jr. was convinced that his personal relationship with Musharaf would ensure that the Pakistanis would behave.
A major problem for the Pakistanis is that doing everything the American wanted them to do would benefit the U.S. but would be damaging to Pakistan. As far as the Pakistani go; they will always want a ''friendly'' Pashtun government in power and focused as they are on India; Afghanistan for the Pakistanis provides them with strategic depth. The fact that India has been very active in Afghanistan had added to the insecurities of the Pakistanis. There is also the matter of the Durand Line with Afghanistan still having a claim on parts of Pakistan.
Actually, even if the U.S. hadn't got distracted with Iraq they still might not have achieved the desired results in Afghanistan given lack of commitment to rebuilding the country, the various agencies competing with each other and the Americans not completely understanding the country and what they had gotten themselves into.
A major problem for the Pakistanis is that doing everything the American wanted them to do would benefit the U.S. but would be damaging to Pakistan. As far as the Pakistani go; they will always want a ''friendly'' Pashtun government in power and focused as they are on India; Afghanistan for the Pakistanis provides them with strategic depth. The fact that India has been very active in Afghanistan had added to the insecurities of the Pakistanis. There is also the matter of the Durand Line with Afghanistan still having a claim on parts of Pakistan.
Actually, even if the U.S. hadn't got distracted with Iraq they still might not have achieved the desired results in Afghanistan given lack of commitment to rebuilding the country, the various agencies competing with each other and the Americans not completely understanding the country and what they had gotten themselves into.
Various British people (politicians, diplomats, etc.) have publicly said that from the 1980s they, & British intelligence & military personnel, were warning the US people involved in Pakistan that they were being played by Pakistani military intelligence & its Pashtun friends from Afghanistan. They report that that message was unwelcome, & anyone who said it too insistently would find that the Americans would no longer co-operate with, or even talk to, them.
I'm sure there were Americans who understood perfectly well what was going on, but AFAIK it was decreed from on high that such talk was unacceptable, & was a way to get a black mark on your record & a transfer into a dead-end post.
I'm sure there were Americans who understood perfectly well what was going on, but AFAIK it was decreed from on high that such talk was unacceptable, & was a way to get a black mark on your record & a transfer into a dead-end post.
Given that Ahmad Shah Massoud hardly received anything from the Americans during the Soviet occupation [largely because aid was channeled via the Pakistanis and the Americans viewed him as too independent] it's ironic how the Northern Alliance later played such a vital role in assisting the Americans to defeat the Taliban. Without the Northern Alliance the Talibs would not have defeated in such a short span in 2001. Even during the decade prior to 11th September, the Americans were prohibited by law from supplying any Afghan group with lethal aid at a time when the Taliban was receiving lots of aid from not only from Pakistan but also from the Gulf.
A plan to supply Massoud's Northern Alliance with sniper rifles to enable Osama to be targeted was cancelled as the rifles were classified as ''lethal'' aid and would be used for an assassination. I also find it ironic how Russia has recently been accused of aiding the Taliban yet along with India was crucial in supplying the Northern Alliance in the 1990's when the Americans had lost interest in Afghanistan.
[Russia Denies Claim It Is Arming Taliban]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7o6IY3s6JY
[Is Afghanistan A New Battlefield For Two Traditional Rivals?]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDnKPRNS63M
A plan to supply Massoud's Northern Alliance with sniper rifles to enable Osama to be targeted was cancelled as the rifles were classified as ''lethal'' aid and would be used for an assassination. I also find it ironic how Russia has recently been accused of aiding the Taliban yet along with India was crucial in supplying the Northern Alliance in the 1990's when the Americans had lost interest in Afghanistan.
[Russia Denies Claim It Is Arming Taliban]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7o6IY3s6JY
[Is Afghanistan A New Battlefield For Two Traditional Rivals?]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDnKPRNS63M
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If fracking for oil was fully developed in the US back in the 1980s, the need to suck-hole up to the Saudis and Pakistanis back then would not have necessary. These two mutt nations are the cause for much of the grief in the world today but mis-steps by the US are a big factor too, US smart people in the know were ignored for oil security IMO.
The USA wasn't sucking up to Pakistan because of Saudi oil, but because it was the only route to Afghanistan, & the USA wanted to help those who were fighting the Red Army there. It needed Pakistani co-operation for that.
If the accounts I've read are accurate, the problem was that those in charge on the US side knew little about Afghanistan so relied on the Pakistanis & became rather too dependent on them, to the point where (reasonable) distrust of the ISI's (Inter-Services Intelligence) agenda & suspicion that it was too friendly with Islamic extremists was treated as disloyalty. A long spoon was appropriate, but instead, the ISI was treated as best friends.So, Afghans who the ISI didn't like, such as the non-Pashtun Massoud, were sidelined, while bloodthirsty Islamic extremists who were on good terms with the ISI were flooded with aid.
If the accounts I've read are accurate, the problem was that those in charge on the US side knew little about Afghanistan so relied on the Pakistanis & became rather too dependent on them, to the point where (reasonable) distrust of the ISI's (Inter-Services Intelligence) agenda & suspicion that it was too friendly with Islamic extremists was treated as disloyalty. A long spoon was appropriate, but instead, the ISI was treated as best friends.So, Afghans who the ISI didn't like, such as the non-Pashtun Massoud, were sidelined, while bloodthirsty Islamic extremists who were on good terms with the ISI were flooded with aid.
That was exactly the case : the Pakistanis received carte blanche to distribute arms and supplies they way the saw fit and the short sighted and gullible Americans went along with this arrangement despite clear indications of what the Pakistanis were doing. The result is that groups that were not combat effective but were Pakistani complaint [such as Hetmeyter's group] received a lot but Ahmad Shah Massoud received little [e.g. he only received a handful of Stingers].
A problem for Massoud was that it was also hard foor outsiders to gain access to his territory unlike the Pakistani friendly Pashtun groups who were easier to get to from the border and he also never ventured to Peshawar throughout the years of the Soviet occupation. Massoud was distrusted by the Americans who saw him as too independent and also because he agreed to a number of cease fires with the Soviets.
Tsavo Lion
Banned Member
Trump Says U.S. ‘Losing’ Afghan War in Tense Meeting With Generals -He may eventually "pull the plug" there as there's nothing to be gained & a lot more to loose by staying! There's no future for any Western backed regime in Kabul. NATO & US made the same mistakes the USSR did. Chronologically speaking, empires go to die there. I said a while ago that the country should be divided up among its neighbors & stand by this statement.
The Mask Is Off: Trump Is Seeking War with Iran
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
After spending 700 billion, losing many lives, and considering the current status of Afghanistan, IMHO Trump is right for once.
Well the U.S. pulled the plug before and see what happened. Trump would also be wise to consider U.S. policy towards Syria and realise that the current policy is gaga land thinking that will not achieve anything.
That would a set precedent for other places be divided up. Also who gives outsiders the right to decide which countries can be allowed to be divided up and which countries can't? As it is, we have places that have endured decades of turmoil thanks to artificial borders created by outsiders for their own selfish interests without any regard for the people who actually live in those places.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Partition, separation, border realignment, or whatsoever you want to call it may be the only alternative to endless strife in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In the latter country that may impossible in which case let them fight themselves to extinction.
If ''partition, separation, border realignment'' happens it has to be agreed upon by the locals, not decided for or forced upon them by meddling outsiders. Also, ''partition, separation, border realignment'' may in the short term seem like the answer, in the longer term however it will create another set of problems. With regards to Afghanistan, if ''partition, separation, border realignment'' happens and the Pashtuns get their own territory, what happens to the Pashtuns on the Pakistani side of the border who might want to be part of this new territory and what happens to groups like the Hazaras? And who is to say that Tajikistan or Ubzekistan will want parts of what was formerly Afghanistan to be incorporated into their countries?
Tadjikistan is a secular oligarchy backed by Russia. Would they want the territory in question? I'm not so sure. Especially with the experience they've had with Taliban incursions in the 90s.
Tsavo Lion
Banned Member
The Pashtuns, all of them, should be allowed their own state, just like the Kurds in the ME; the rest may either join other counties or form their own "cantons" like in Switzerland. The West supported/allowed Yugoslavia, Iraq, Ethiopia & Sudan breakups, & would support the same in Iran, China, & Russia (it resists well by getting its perimeter in the Caucasus & Ukraine secured), if given a chance, to weaken them further; OTH India, Japan(Okinawa), Indonesia, Spain, UK, & Libya must not break up as it's against Western interests. The same with "reunification" of Taiwan with the Mainland China & SK with NK under Kim & PRC "supervision". This is a textbook example of double standards!
Easier said then done. Tell me, what happens when the Pashtuns in Pakistan demand to be united with fellow Pashtuns in Afghanistan? As it is Afghanistan has a claim on certain parts of Pakistan along the Durand Line. Also, if the Pashtuns are allowed their own state, what happens to the Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks and Turkmens? After the Pashtuns get their own state what if the Kurds in Iraq,Turkey and Syria demand the same?
Tsavo Lion
Banned Member
That's what I mean, a state comprising areas inhabited mostly by Pashtuns on both sides of the border. Small nationalities can have an autonomy in a "confederation" or the like. India isn't that different from Afghanistan as she holds Kashmir that Pakistan wants for itself, not to mention her border disputes with the PRC. All that is a legacy of the British Empire. The Kurds won't stop fighting the Turks- they know what happened to Armenians. In Iraq they are already pretty much what they want to be; in Syria, fighting isn't over yet but it's clear they won't be subservient to anyone. But before they ever get their own state that may grow in time, I'm afraid some internal fighting will need to happen as well as they have many armed factions at ods with each other, & at least some of them are supported by the outsiders. BTW, Iran also has Kurds, etc- here too some outside powers may seek to exploit them to weaken & destabilize Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran#Languages_and_ethnic_groups
On Afghanistan, Trump Is Right To Be Skeptical
On Afghanistan, Trump Is Right To Be Skeptical
Last edited:
The point I was trying to makes is that Pakistan is not likely to agree to such a move is it? Agreeing to cede parts of Pakistani territory to a future ''Pashtunstan'' is something they would never agree to. And what happens to the Pashtuns who might not agree to such a move and the Baluchs of Pakistan demand the same?
Like I said : easy to do on paper but it creates its own sets of problems and sets precedents.
Ironic isn't it, given that a lot of the killings or slaughter of Armenians was performed by Kurds troops/auxiliaries serving the Turks.
In the 1960's small teams of Israelis - including future IDF Chief of Staff Raful Eitan - were in Iraq aiding the Kurds.
For those who haven't heard of him; Ahmad Rashid is an Afghanistan and Central Asia expert. He's written ''Taliban, ''Jihad'' and ''Descent Into Chaos''. He's been a sharp critic of U.S. policy in Afghanistan as well as the meddling done by Pakistan.
[Why We All Need To Watch Brad Pitt's Film War Machine]
Viewpoint: Why we all need to watch Brad Pitt's film War Machine - BBC News
''As with the wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan highlights the difficult political choices and counter-insurgency strategies the US has been pursuing fruitlessly since 9/11. Today six Muslim countries (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Afghanistan) are in a state of meltdown - partly as a result of US policies.''
''Should the US invade or interfere in countries it knows little about, how do US troops win over local support, is nation building and promotion of democracy feasible by one part of the US government while another part pursues a war strategy? Can the US ever understand tribal societies through the barrel of a gun?''
''It helps us understand why counter-insurgency is failing, terrorism expanding and why wars have destroyed so many countries. It helps explain why after 16 years Washington is still debating troop numbers''
[Security And Stability In Afghanistan, A Conversation With Ahmed Rashid]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhkSqEd8pV4
[Ahmed Rashid On Daesh In Afghanistan]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iGsdKdbe5Y
[Descent into Chaos | A Discussion With Ahmed Rashid]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFneoJBMXvE
[Why We All Need To Watch Brad Pitt's Film War Machine]
Viewpoint: Why we all need to watch Brad Pitt's film War Machine - BBC News
''As with the wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan highlights the difficult political choices and counter-insurgency strategies the US has been pursuing fruitlessly since 9/11. Today six Muslim countries (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Afghanistan) are in a state of meltdown - partly as a result of US policies.''
''Should the US invade or interfere in countries it knows little about, how do US troops win over local support, is nation building and promotion of democracy feasible by one part of the US government while another part pursues a war strategy? Can the US ever understand tribal societies through the barrel of a gun?''
''It helps us understand why counter-insurgency is failing, terrorism expanding and why wars have destroyed so many countries. It helps explain why after 16 years Washington is still debating troop numbers''
[Security And Stability In Afghanistan, A Conversation With Ahmed Rashid]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhkSqEd8pV4
[Ahmed Rashid On Daesh In Afghanistan]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iGsdKdbe5Y
[Descent into Chaos | A Discussion With Ahmed Rashid]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFneoJBMXvE