PKPolitics Discuss » Topic: Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now

PKPolitics Discuss » Topic: Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Pakistan Politics Discuss Forum en Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:55:54 +0000 bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/3#post-331227 Tue, 01 May 2012 21:57:49 +0000 bsobaid 331227@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ So Obama visits to sign a strategic agreement with Karzai for post-2014 arrangements. Only little details are available about the agreement in news reports so far "Even with the withdrawal of troops by the end of 2014, the United States is likely to spend more than $2 billion a year to help Afghanistan with its security. Any civilian aid would come on top of that." <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/obama-lands-in-kabul-on-unannounced-visit.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/obama-lands-in-kabul-on-unannounced-visit.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp</a> gulraiz55 on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/3#post-329491 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:21:19 +0000 gulraiz55 329491@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ same as now---prehistoric-----uncivilized with dinosaur era bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/3#post-329489 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:57:57 +0000 bsobaid 329489@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ @bo, Your comment from yesterday has a striking resemblence with the comment posted by sweettruth in the same thead ten months ago. Are you two the same person? azizi on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/3#post-329488 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:53:50 +0000 azizi 329488@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ <blockquote>Barackosama (the parody of Barkat Hussain Obama) said “It is probably the only place on earth that has experienced a little change since the Big Bang”. </blockquote> Surely Afghanistan changed or not, it changed the whole world, especially the land of the freedom, civil liberty and “HUMAN RIGHTS”. See the following <img src="http://reynolds22.edublogs.org/files/2011/04/AirportSecurity-27h30c2.jpg" /> - Came from a legacy conflict <img src="http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/110502-tsa.grid-7x2.jpg" /> <img src="http://www.sheknows.com/graphics/2005/new/2007/airport-security-line.jpg" /> <img src="http://ntwrong.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/airport-security.jpg" /> <img src="http://markosun.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/groping.jpg" /> - Presents from Afghanistan Click this link also: <a href="http://treehuggerbarbie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/xray.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://treehuggerbarbie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/xray.jpg</a> - And what next? A free Rectal exam and a computed tomograph of Gastro tashfin28 on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/3#post-329427 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:57:47 +0000 tashfin28 329427@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ افغانستان - اورامریکی حکمت عملی ميں فورم پر کچھ مبصرین کيطرف سے افغانستان میں امریکی جاری کوششوں کے متعلق پيش کی ہوئی غلط اور مسخ شدہ تصویر کو درست کرنا چاہتا ہوں۔ صدر براک اوبامہ اور وزيرخارجہ سمیت کئی امریکی سینئر حکام نے بارہا سیاسی طور پرايک قابل عمل اور مضبوط افغانستان کی حکومت کی ہميشہ حمایت کيں ہيں اور اس بات پر يقين رکھتے ہے کہ ايسی حکومت ہی افغانستان میں ايک پائیدار امن کو یقینی بنا سکتا ہے۔ ميں يہ واضح کرنا چاہتا ہوں کہ افغانستان ميں میں بین الاقوامی فوجی کارروائی اور خطے میں اس کے بعد افواج کا قیام اورموجود ہونا کسی بھی انتقام کا نتيجہ نہيں ہے جس کا بعض ناقدین کی طرف سے جھوٹا دعوی کيا گيا ہيں۔ ہمارا بنیادی مقصد اور خواہش قيمتی انسانی جانوں کو بچانے کے لئے ہے جس کے ليۓ ہم نے بڑی اقتصادی قیمت پر ہزاروں کی تعداد میں اپنے افوج کو دنيا کے دوسرے کنارے ميں بھيجا ہيں۔ ہميں صرف امریکی زندگياں ہی عزیز نہيں بلکہ افغان زندگيوں کے ساتھ ساتھ ان تمام معصوم لوگوں کی زندگیاں نہايت قيمتی اور عزیز ہيں جو روزانہ کی بنیاد پر ہماری مشترکہ دشمن کے ہاتھوں تکليف میں مبتلا ہیں۔ يہ واضح کرنا بہت ضروری ہے کہ 11 ستمبر، 2001 کو امریکہ کے وطن پر حملہ ايک بنیادی وجہ تھی جس کے بنا پر بین الاقوامی برادری کو افغانستان میں جانا پڑا تھا۔ یہ عالمی سطح پر ثابت ہوا تھا کہ اسامہ بن لادن 9/11 کو امریکہ پر حملوں کے ليۓ ذمہ دار تھا اور یہ کہ طالبان کی طرف سے اسے افغانستان میں چھپايا جا رہا تھا۔اسامہ کو امريکہ کے حوالے کرنے کے متعلق کئی ناکام کوششوں کے بعد آخر میں امریکہ اور دوسرے بین الاقوامی شراکت داروں نے افغانستان میں فوجی کارروائی کا آغاز کيا۔ میں آپ کو یاد دلانا چاہتا ہوں کہ اقوام متحدہ نے سال 1999 ميں پہلے دہشت گرد حملوں ميں ملوث ہونے کے لئے اسامہ بن لادن کو طالبان حکومت سے حوالے کرنے کا مطالبہ کيا تھا۔ امریکی انتظامیہ پوری طرح مختلف چیلنجوں کو اور آگے آنے والی قربانیوں کو بخوبی سمجھتی اور تسلیم کرتی ہيں۔ تاہم، ان غیرانسانی دہشت گردوں کے خلاف جاری کوششوں کو ترک کرنا صرف ایک ہی آپشن نہیں ہے۔ اور يہ قدم ان متاثرین کے ہزاروں خاندانوں کے ساتھ انصاف نہ ہوگا جنہوں عسکریت پسندی کے خلاف عالمی کوششوں میں اپنے قیمتی جانوں کا نظرانہ پيش کيا ہيں۔ میں صدر اوباما کا يہ بیان گوش گزار کرنا چاہتا ہوں جو واضح طور پر جاری بین الاقوامی اقدامات میں ہمارے واضح مقاصد بیان کرتی ہيں: " ہم افغانستان کو ایک بہترین جگہ بنانے کی کوشش نہیں کررہے،ہمارا مقصد جو ہم چاہتے ہیں ممکن اوربہت واضح ہے کہ کوئی محفوظ پناہ گاہ نہ ہو جس سے القاعدہ یا اس کے ملحقہ گروہ ہمارے وطن یا ہمارے اتحادیوں کے خلاف حملے عمل ميں لا سکتے ہو". آخر میں، مجھے اعادہ کہ امریکہ افغانستان کے ساتھ ایک طویل المدتی اسٹریٹجک پارٹنرشپ کے لئے پختہ عزم پر کارفرما ہے ، جو 2014 میں ختم نہیں ہوگی – اس کے علاوہ ميں بلاترديد کہنا چاہتا ہوں کہ امریکہ اور دوسرے بین الاقوامی ممالک افغانستان میں انتہا پسندوں کے خلاف جاری جنگ ہار نہیں رہے ہيں ۔ بلاشبہ آنے والے سالوں میں امریکی کردار ميں نمایاں طور پر تبدیل آئی گی، لیکن افغانستان کے ساتھ امریکی عوام کی حمايت کا عزم ھمیشہ قائم رہيگا۔ تاہم، آخر میں تمام نسلی گروپوں سے تعلق رکھنے والے افراد اور افغانستان کی قیادت کوہی اپنے مستقبل کے متعلق فیصلہ کرنا ہوگا ۔ امریکی عوام اور امریکی حکومت افغانستان ميں امن، خوشحالی، اور استحکام کے مستقبل کے لئے ہر قسم کی ضروری حمایت فراہم کرنے کے لئے مصروف عمل رہيگا. تاشفين – ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم – يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹdigitaloutreach@state.gov barackosama on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/3#post-329377 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:39:53 +0000 barackosama 329377@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Two years or five years is a darn short time when talk about Afghanistan. Now things may rise to noticeable levels if we discuss two or five millennium. It is prolly the only place on earth that has experienced little change since the Big Bang or bear resembles our neighbor Mars. bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/3#post-329362 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:45:26 +0000 bsobaid 329362@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ In my original post of this thread I have been mostly proven wrong except the troop pull out date and Northern Afghanistan. Pretty accurate there. bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/3#post-329361 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:43:03 +0000 bsobaid 329361@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ My id was always bsobaid and I deleted it myself for some time. My old posts, before I deleted my account, show up as anonymous just like the original post of this thread. If I remember correctly, the plan for troop pull out mostly include combat forces on ground. This is what I heard on cnn. I am pretty sure they will keep the airbases. azizi on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/3#post-329360 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:37:55 +0000 azizi 329360@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ @bsobaid, What is your take on the prevailing fear/ conspiracy theory in Pakistan that U.S. will be able to keep its major air-bases in southern part of Afghanistan beyond 2014. By the way, what was your original ID on this forum? Do you remember why was it deleted? bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/3#post-329345 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:14:22 +0000 bsobaid 329345@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Helmand post 2014. <a href="http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/24/the-post-2014-view-from-helmand/?hpt=wo_t4" rel="nofollow">http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/24/the-post-2014-view-from-helmand/?hpt=wo_t4</a> I sincerely hope there is peace in Afghanistan so Pakistan has one less distraction to deal with its own problems. aftab on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/3#post-299091 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:56:54 +0000 aftab 299091@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Iraq was just one of our invasions-turned-counter-insurgencies-turned-disasters. The other, which started first and is still ongoing, may prove the greater debacle. Though less costly so far in both American lives and national treasure, it threatens to become the more decisive of the two defeats, even though the forces opposing the US military in Afghanistan remain an ill-armed, relatively weak set of minority insurgencies. As great as was the feat of building the infrastructure for a military occupation and war in Iraq, and then equipping and supplying a massive military force there year after year, it was nothing compared to what the US had to do in Afghanistan. Someday, the decision to invade that country, occupy it, build more than 400 bases there, surge in an extra 60,000 or more troops, masses of contractors, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agents, diplomats, and other civilian officials, and then push a weak local government to grant Washington the right to remain more or less in perpetuity will be seen as the delusional actions of a Washington incapable of gauging the limits of its power in the world. Talk about learning curves: having watched their country fail disastrously in a major war on the Asian mainland three decades earlier, America's leaders somehow convinced themselves that nothing was beyond the military prowess of the "sole superpower". So they sent more than 250,000 American troops (along with all those Burger Kings, Subways and Cinnabons) into two land wars in Eurasia. The result has been another chapter in a history of American defeat - this time of a power that, despite its pretensions, was not only weaker than in the Vietnam era, but also far weaker than its leaders were capable of imagining. In mid-December, Panetta actually told frontline American troops there that they were "winning" the war. Our commanders there similarly continue to tout "progress" and "gains", as well as a weakening of the Taliban grip on the Pashtun heartland of southern Afghanistan, thanks to the flooding of the region with US surge troops and continual, devastating night raids by US special operations forces. Nonetheless, the real story in Afghanistan remains grim for a squirming former superpower - as it has been ever since its occupation resuscitated the Taliban, the least popular popular movement imaginable. Typically, the United Nations has recently calculated that "security-related events" in the first 11 months of 2011 rose 21% over the same period in 2010 (something denied by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Similarly, yet more resources are being poured into an endless effort to build and train Afghan security forces. Almost $12 billion went into the project in 2011 and a similar sum is slated for 2012, and yet those forces still can't operate on their own, nor do they fight particularly effectively (though their Taliban opposites have few such problems). Afghan police and soldiers continue to desert in droves and the US general in charge of the training operation suggested last year that, to have the slightest chance of success, it would need to be extended through at least 2016 or 2017. (Forget for a moment that an impoverished Afghan government will be utterly incapable of supporting or financing the forces being created for it.) The Pashtun-based Taliban, like any classic guerrilla force, has faded away before the overwhelming military of a major power, yet it still clearly has significant control over the southern countryside, and in the last year its acts of violence have spread ever more deeply into the non-Pashtun north. Weak as the several outfits that make up the Taliban may be, there can be no question that they are preparing to successfully outlast the greatest military power of our time. And mind you, none of this does more than touch on the debacle that the Afghan War could become. If you want to judge the full folly of the American war (and gauge the waning of US power globally), don't even bother to look at Afghanistan. Instead, check out the supply lines leading to it. After all, Afghanistan is a landlocked country in Central Asia. The US is thousands of miles away. No giant ports-****-bases as at Cam Ranh Bay in South Vietnam in the 1960s are available to bring in supplies. For Washington, if the guerrillas it opposes go to war with little more than the clothes on their backs, its military is another matter. From meals to body armor, building supplies to ammunition, it needs a massive - and massively expensive - supply system. It also guzzles fuel the way a drunk downs liquor and has spent more than $20 billion in Afghanistan and Iraq annually just on air conditioning. To keep itself in good shape, it must rely on tortuous supply lines thousands of miles long. Because of this, it is not the arbiter of its own fate in Afghanistan, though this seems to have gone almost unnoticed for years. Of all the impractical wars a declining empire could fight, the Afghan one may be the most impractical of all. Hand it to the Soviet Union, at least its "bleeding wound" - the phrase Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev gave to its Afghan debacle of the 1980s - was conveniently next door. For the nearly 91,000 American troops now in that country, their 40,000 NATO counterparts, and thousands of private contractors, the supplies that make the war possible can only enter Afghanistan three ways: perhaps 20% come in by air at staggering expense; more than a third arrive by the shortest and cheapest route - through the Pakistani port of Karachi, by truck or train north, and then by truck across narrow mountain defiles; and perhaps 40% (only "non-lethal" supplies allowed) via the Northern Distribution Network (NDN). The NDN was fully developed only beginning in 2009, when it belatedly became clear to Washington that Pakistan had a potential stranglehold on the American war effort. Involving at least 16 countries and just about every form of transport imaginable, the NDN is actually three routes, two of them via Russia, that funnel just about everything through the bottleneck of corrupt, autocratic Uzbekistan. In other words, simply to fight its war, Washington has made itself dependent on the kindness of strangers - in this case, Pakistan and Russia. It's one thing when a superpower or great power on the rise casts its lot with countries that may not be natural allies; it's quite a different story when a declining power does so. Russian leaders are already making noises about the viability of the northern route if the US continues to displease it on the placement of its prospective European missile defense system. But the more immediate psychodrama of the Afghan War is in Pakistan. There, the massive resupply operation is already a major scandal. It was estimated, for instance, that, in 2008, 12% of all US supplies heading from Karachi to Bagram air base went missing somewhere en route. In what Karachi's police chief has called "the mother of all scams", 29,000 cargo loads of US supplies have disappeared after being unloaded at that port. In fact, the whole supply system - together with the local security and protection agreements and bribes to various groups that are part and parcel of it along the way - has evidently helped fund and supply the Taliban, as well as stocking every bazaar en route and supporting local warlords and crooks of every sort. Recently, in response to American air strikes that killed 24 of their border troops, the Pakistani leadership forced the Americans to leave Shamsi air base, where the CIA ran some of its drone operations, successfully pressured Washington into at least temporarily halting its drone air campaign in Pakistan's borderlands, and closed the border crossings through which the whole American supply system must pass. They remain closed almost two months later. Without those routes, in the long run, the American war simply cannot be fought. Though those crossings are likely to be reopened after a significant renegotiation of US-Pakistani relations, the message couldn't be clearer. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in those Pakistani borderlands, have not only drained American treasure, but exposed the relative helplessness of the "sole superpower". Ten (or even five) years ago, the Pakistanis would simply never have dared to take actions like these. As it turned out, the power of the US military was threateningly impressive, but only until George W Bush pulled the trigger twice. In doing so, he revealed to the world that the US could not win distant land wars against minimalist enemies or impose its will on two weak countries in the Greater Middle East. Another reality was exposed as well, even if it has taken time to sink in: we no longer live on a planet where it's obvious how to leverage staggering advantages in military technology into any other kind of power. In the process, all the world could see what the United States was: the other declining power of the Cold War era. Washington's state of dependence on the Eurasian mainland is now clear enough, which means that, whatever "agreements" are reached with the Afghan government, the future in that country is not American. Over the past decade, the US has been taught a repetitive lesson when it comes to ground wars on the Eurasian mainland: don't launch them. The debacle of the impending double defeat this time around couldn't be more obvious. The only question that remains is just how humiliating the coming retreat from Afghanistan will turn out to be. The longer the US stays, the more devastating the blow to its power. All of this should hardly need to be said and yet, as 2012 begins, with the next political season already upon us, it is no less painfully clear that Washington will be incapable of ending the Afghan War any time soon. At the height of what looked like success in Iraq and Afghanistan, American officials fretted endlessly about how, in the condescending phrase of the moment, to put an "Afghan face" or "Iraqi face" on America's wars. Now, at a nadir moment in the Greater Middle East, perhaps it's finally time to put an American face on America's wars, to see them clearly for the imperial debacles they have been - and act accordingly. <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA11Ak02.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA11Ak02.html</a> bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/3#post-275141 Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:35:57 +0000 bsobaid 275141@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Everything going according to the plan and prediction made in original post 2-3 years ago... It was no rocket science, all too obvious "US wants to drastically scale down its Afgan combat role by 2014" <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/02/us-explores-faster-afghan-handover/?test=latestnews" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/02/us-explores-faster-afghan-handover/?test=latestnews</a> aftab on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-255469 Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:00:10 +0000 aftab 255469@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Among multiple layers of deception and newspeak, the official Washington spin on the strategic quagmire in Afghanistan simply does not hold. No more than "50-75 'al-Qaeda types' in Afghanistan", according to the CIA, have been responsible for draining the US government by no less than US $10 billion a month, or $120 billion a year. At the same time, outgoing US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been adamant that withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is "premature". The Pentagon wants the White House to "hold off on ending the Afghanistan troop surge until the fall of 2012." That of course shadows the fact that even if there were a full draw down, the final result would be the same number of US troops before the Obama administration-ordered AfPak surge. And even if there is some sort of draw down, it will mostly impact troops in supporting roles - which can be easily replaced by "private contractors" (euphemism for mercenaries). There are already over 100,000 "private contractors" in Afghanistan. It's raining trillions A recent, detailed study by the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University revealed that the war on terror has cost the US economy, so far, from $3.7 trillion (the most conservative estimate) to $4.4 trillion (the moderate estimate). Then there are interest payments on these costs - another $1 trillion. That makes the total cost of the war on terror to be, at least, a staggering $5.4 trillion. And that does not include, as the report mentions, "additional macroeconomic consequences of war spending", or a promised (and undelivered) $5.3 billion reconstruction aid for Afghanistan. Who's profiting from this bonanza? That's easy - US military contractors and a global banking/financial elite. The notion that the US government would spend $10 billion a month just to chase a few "al-Qaeda types" in the Hindu Kush is nonsense. The Pentagon itself has dismissed the notion - insisting that just capturing and killing Osama bin Laden does not change the equation; the Taliban are still a threat. Inside Story: Leaving Afghanistan In numerous occasions Taliban leader Mullah Omar himself has characterised his struggle as a "nationalist movement". Apart from the historical record showing that Washington always fears and fights nationalist movements, Omar's comment also shows that the Taliban strategy has nothing to do with al-Qaeda's aim of establishing a Caliphate via global jihad. So al-Qaeda is not the major enemy - not anymore, nor has it been for quite some time now. This is a war between a superpower and a fierce, nationalist, predominantly Pashtun movement - of which the Taliban are a major strand; regardless of their medieval ways, they are fighting a foreign occupation and doing what they can to undermine a puppet regime (Hamid Karzai's). Look at my bankruptcy model In the famous November 1, 2004 video that played a crucial part in assuring the reelection of George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden - or a clone of Osama bin Laden - once again expanded on how the "mujahedeen bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat." That's the exact same strategy al-Qaeda has deployed against the US; according to Bin Laden at the time, "all that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the farthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note, other than some benefits to their private companies." The record since 9/11 shows that's exactly what's happening. The war on terror has totally depleted the US treasury - to the point that the White House and Congress are now immersed in a titanic battle over a $4 trillion debt ceiling. What is never mentioned is that these trillions of dollars were ruthlessly subtracted from the wellbeing of average Americans - smashing the carefully constructed myth of the American dream. So what's the endgame for these trillions of dollars? The Pentagon's Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine implies a global network of military bases - with particular importance to those surrounding, bordering and keeping in check key competitors Russia and China. This superpower projection - of which Afghanistan was, and remains, a key node, in the intersection of South and Central Asia - led, and may still lead, to other wars in Iraq, Iran and Syria. The network of US military bases in the Pentagon-coined "arc of instability" that stretches from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf and South/Central Asia is a key reason for remaining in Afghanistan forever. But it's not the only reason. Surge, bribe and stay It all comes back, once again, to Pipelineistan - and one of its outstanding chimeras; the Turkmenistan/Afghanistan/Pakistan (TAP) gas pipeline, also known once as the Trans-Afghan Pipeline, which might one day become TAPI if India decides to be on board. The US corporate media simply refuses to cover what is one of the most important stories of the early 21st century. Washington has badly wanted TAP since the mid-1990s, when the Clinton administration was negotiating with the Taliban; the talks broke down because of transit fees, even before 9/11, when the Bush administration decided to change the rhetoric from "a carpet of gold" to "a carpet of bombs". TAP is a classic Pipelineistan gambit; the US supporting the flow of gas from Central Asia to global markets, bypassing both Iran and Russia. If it ever gets built, it will cost over $10 billion. It needs a totally pacified Afghanistan - still another chimera - and a Pakistani government totally implicated in Afghanistan's security, still a no-no as long as Islamabad's policy is to have Afghanistan as its "strategic depth", a vassal state, in a long-term confrontation mindset against India. It's no surprise the Pentagon and the Pakistani Army enjoy such a close working relationship. Both Washington and Islamabad regard Pashtun nationalism as an existential threat. The 2,500-kilometer-long, porous, disputed border with Afghanistan is at the core of Pakistan's interference in its neighbour's affairs. Washington is getting desperate because it knows the Pakistani military will always support the Taliban as much as they support hardcore Islamist groups fighting India. Washington also knows Pakistan's Afghan policy implies containing India's influence in Afghanistan at all costs. Just ask General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's army chief - and a Pentagon darling to boot; he always says his army is India-centric, and, therefore, entitled to "strategic depth" in Afghanistan. It's mind-boggling that 10 years and $5.4 trillion dollars later, the situation is exactly the same. Washington still badly wants "its" pipeline - which will in fact be a winning game mostly for commodity traders, global finance majors and Western energy giants. From the standpoint of these elites, the ideal endgame scenario is global Robocop NATO - helped by hundreds of thousands of mercenaries - "protecting" TAP (or TAPI) while taking a 24/7 peek on what's going on in neighbours Russia and China. Sharp wits in India have described Washington's tortuous moves in Afghanistan as "surge, bribe and run". It's rather "surge, bribe and stay". This whole saga might have been accomplished without a superpower bankrupting itself, and without immense, atrocious, sustained loss of life, but hey - nobody's perfect. <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/2011711121720939655.html" rel="nofollow">http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/2011711121720939655.html</a> aftab on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-250140 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:30:02 +0000 aftab 250140@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Canadian troops have begun to return home from Afghanistan, as the country's nine-year combat mission comes to a close. At a flag-lowering ceremony on Tuesday, troops officially handed over control of their last district to US forces. Canada's 2,800 troops are mandated by parliament to return home in 2011. Other countries have also announced troop withdrawals, but the Canadians are the first major contributor to begin a pull-out this year. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14042786" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14042786</a> aftab on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-249385 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:39:30 +0000 aftab 249385@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ @ Sweettruth There is nothing unusual about Afghanis but unfortunately the world powers want to play they games in Afghanistan and not in each others countries. I have no doubt if Afghanistan or any other country is allowed to live freely and independently then one day they will also be developed like Japan. Sweettruth on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-249365 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:16 +0000 Sweettruth 249365@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Afghanistan will not change in next 50 years (rather will get worse) and your guys are talking about 2 years and 5 years. Fate of Countries are made up of its people; I learnt this in Japan how people of Japan firmly believe in making their own fate. aftab on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-249346 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:52:36 +0000 aftab 249346@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ The trail of the Kabul Bank scandal that was originally triggered by the so-called Afghan Threat Finance Cell, a little-known unit of the United States Embassy in Kabul, has reached a hotel room in Virginia in the suburbs of Washington. Afghanistan's central bank governor Abdul Qadir Fitrat, a former official in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and an adviser to the World Bank, fled Kabul in panic even as the Afghan government was about to question him in connection with the scandal. Fitrat, who enjoys permanent residency status in the US, announced his resignation while ensconced in the Virginia hotel and within two hours he was on air, interviewed by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty flashing his side of the story across the Hindu Kush mountain tops and valleys. His story, essentially, is that he is a whistle blower on the bank scandal rather than a fraudster and that he fears for his life because of testimony he gave to the Afghan parliament some two months ago in which he implicated by name certain influential people in the Kabul power structure. Fitrat produced a list of what he said was nearly US$800 million in fraudulent loans taken out by the lender's politically connected management and shareholders. The Afghan government has issued an arrest warrant for Fitrat and sent it to the US Embassy in Kabul. There is no extradition treaty between the US and Afghanistan and it is going to be an Afghan pipedream if anyone in the Kabul government really fancies that the US would hand him over. He was one of its (and the IMF's) key point persons in controlling the Afghan banking sector. The Afghan government has literally warned the US Embassy in Kabul, which under outgoing ambassador Karl Eikenberry has been at loggerheads with the Afghan leadership for the past two years. In Afghan government perceptions, Fitrat was the actual brain behind the initiative of the US Embassy's Afghan Threat Finance Cell last year to expose the Kabul Bank. Unsurprisingly, just about all sides - the Afghan government, the US government and the accused in the Kabul Bank scandal - want physical possession of Fitrat. He has become a precious entity and he himself considers he is safe only on the US soil. The US mentors apparently advised Fitrat to flee Kabul lest he ended up in Afghan custody in a Kabul jail and was compelled to spill the beans about America's role in the Kabul Bank expose. The heart of the matter is that this is not a mere bank scam. The accused include powerful figures in the Afghan power structure. The US's principal targets are without doubt Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Vice President Mohammed Fahim, whose brother and nephew respectively are alleged to be involved in the scam. The US has been gunning for Fahim for some time on the estimation that as long as the strongman from Panjshir continues to back Karzai the attempts to unseat the Afghan president, or to arrest his growing defiance of American diktat, will not work. Besides, Washington has been propping up two other "Panjshiris" - Abdullah Abdullah, former foreign minister, and Amrullah Saleh, former intelligence chief, both of whom Karzai sacked - but Fahim calls the shots ultimately as he inherited the Tajik militia that used to be led by Ahmad Shah Massoud (whose brother Wali Massoud also happens to be linked to the Kabul Bank scandal). One solid achievement the US has made in the bargain is to splinter the Panjshiri camp, which previously had close links with Iran and Russia. The bank scam as such is not essentially dissimilar to practices common to many countries in the world, including such semi-developed countries as Turkey, the United Arab Emirates or Brazil, with shareholders of private banks misappropriating the banks' capital for business purposes. Why the US is making such a song and dance about the issue is the big question. To quote Martine van Bijlert, a commentator on Afghan affairs: The Kabul Bank investigations provide insight in the main sectors that Afghanistan's business networks are invested in and how they intersect. These sectors include fuel (import, storage and transport - partly for the normal consumer market, but to a large and increasing extent to service the large US/NATO contracts, among others through the expanding Northern Distribution Network); mining (not much money is being made yet, but contracts are competed over); banking (every self-respecting businessman would like a bank of his own); real estate (mainly in Dubai, but also in Afghanistan); and construction materials and consumer goods (import, distribution, manufacturing) - although the latter did not surface here so much ... Powerful business groups tend to have, or seek, a foothold in most, if not all, of these sectors. The ongoing case against the Kabul Bank is the slow and public unpeeling of one of Afghanistan's politically-connected business networks. There is nothing extraordinary here in terms of the political economies of most developing countries. However, a peculiarity of the Afghan scam is that the Kabul Bank holds the deposits of thousands of Afghan soldiers and policemen and the bank's collapse could lead to great disaffection within the security apparatus and common people, which could turn to be awkward for Karzai politically. Second, Kabul Bank handles almost 80% of the Afghan government's salary disbursement to state employees and the IMF promptly stepped in last year even as the scandal broke, to dictate that further aid for Afghanistan would be put on hold until the matter was sorted out to its satisfaction, which, in turn, is threatening Karzai's government with a "cash crunch" at a very sensitive time politically. The US simultaneously aimed to get the Afghan parliament look into the Kabul Bank scam so as to get the MPs to train the guns on Karzai. This parallel template merits some explanation. The point is, thanks to the irregularities in last year's parliamentary elections and the unstable conditions in the southern regions, a disproportionately higher number of non-Pashtuns got elected to the present parliament and Abdullah (who enjoys US backing) controls a big faction. That is to say, Karzai virtually faces an "unfriendly" parliament, which happens to be heavily under the influence of the American Embassy in Kabul. Karzai's answer has been to institute a tribunal to settle the disputed election results and this has now led to the "unseating" of some six dozen MPs. The tribunal announced its verdict over the weekend. Obviously, when Fitrat took the Kabul Bank scam to the parliament two months ago, and took the extraordinary step of mentioning on record the names of such powerful people associated with the Kabul power structure, he was only acting on the advice of American mentors who were confident of pushing the envelope. As an ethnic Afghan - a Tajik from the remote Badakshan province - Fitrat certainly would know he was punching far above his weight when he took on the powers that be in Kabul. Now, with the tribunal verdict on the unseating of the Afghan MPs and the prospect of a radical change in the alchemy of the Afghan parliament looming large - most likely, resulting in a "swing" in Karzai's favor - the American game is almost certainly up. And the US Embassy in Kabul did the right thing to instruct Fitrat to return to the pavilion in Washington. He has become what Graham Greene would call a "burnt-out case". What do all these shenanigans by the US add up to? One, it underscores that the US is not getting anywhere near to good results by arm-twisting Karzai to concede favorable terms of a strategic partnership agreement on the establishment of American military bases in Afghanistan. The ambivalence in US President Barack Obama's "drawdown" speech 10 days ago shows that the US is very much keeping open the plans for the future of much of the 68,000 troops still remaining in Afghanistan beyond the pullout in 2014. Walter Pincus, who reports on intelligence, defense and foreign policy for Washington Post, wrote on Monday: The United States may be planning to reduce its troop levels in Afghanistan over the next three years, but new construction contracts at Bagram Air Field serve as a reminder that current plans call for a significant continuing American military presence there. Bagram, an old Russian air facility, now houses some 30,000 US Army, Air Force and NATO personnel. The base has always been seen as the hub of the current and future American military presence in Afghanistan. Earlier this month, the US Army Corps of Engineers awarded a $14.2 million contract to a Turkish company to construct an eight-building barracks complex for troops. The facility is expected to house more than 1,200 personnel, and it's not scheduled to be completed until the fall of 2013. Other Bagram construction projects have either just been completed, or are still being lined up. In March, construction was completed on an $18 million two-bay hangar for C-130 transport planes at Bagram, almost two years after it was begun. The hangar is approximately 60,000 square feet. Last month, meantime, a pre-solicitation notice went out for a new "Entry Control Point" at Bagram that is expected to cost more than $5 million and take a year to finish, which would put completion into late 2012. This is merely about Bagram. According to the Russian newspaper Moskovskiye Novosti, the US is planning to have four other huge military bases, aside Bagram near Kabul, on a long-term basis - Shindand in the west on the border with Iran, Jalalabad in the east and Kandahar in south (both on the border with Pakistan) and Mazar-i-Sharif (under construction at present) on the border region with Central Asia. The influential Moscow daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported last week that Tajikistan had offered to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization its airfield in Aini, which, ironically, India had constructed and hoped to retain as its base in Central Asia close to the border with China. Well-known Russian expert Alexander Knyazev was quoted by the daily as saying: The Americans will retain garrisons in only a few key locations in the southern part of Afghanistan and will withdraw to the north of Afghanistan and to the Central Asian countries, namely, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. They are already building a major military base in the northern part of Afghanistan (Mazar-i-Sharif) and trying to mould favorable opinion ... By securing key positions in Central Asia, Americans will address their task which they consider to be of paramount importance: they will be in a position to act against the interests of China, Russia and Iran. Knyazev's expression "trying to mould favorable opinion" in northern Afghanistan is very significant. This is where Fahim and the Panjshiris come in. Fahim is proving to be a stumbling block for the Americans in two respects. First, his open support for Karzai frustrates the US attempt to destabilize the Afghan president and make him politically vulnerable. Karzai has brilliantly forged an alliance with the two most important Tajik figures in the north - Fahim and Burhanuddin Rabbani (former president who heads the Afghan High Council for Peace and an important interlocutor with Pakistan). The Karzai-Fahim-Rabbani axis virtually closes the gateway for the US to the northern region. The US game plan is to somehow strike a deal with the Taliban on the basis of the southern Afghanistan regions being "ceded" to them and as quid pro quo to the Taliban accepting the long-term US military presence in Afghanistan. It is a different matter that such a de facto partition of Afghanistan is the one development that Pakistan dreads most as it stokes the fires of Pashtun nationalism and will strike at the very heart of Pakistan's national unity. (Which explains the US strategy to keep Pakistan out of the loop and instead preferring direct talks with the Taliban leadership.) Equally, Karzai and his allies also oppose any de facto division of Afghanistan. The US factors in that Karzai has rapidly diversified his external relations and takes an active interest in regional affairs, which has enabled him over time to secure support from Russia, China and Iran - and from Islamabad (to an extent), the complexities of Afghan-Pakistan relations notwithstanding. Karzai is able to tap into the profound disquiet in these regional countries over the prospect of long-term US military presence in the region. What makes the Kabul Bank affair a matter of utmost importance to the US is that it sees the scam as a handle to weaken Fahim, who, incidentally, was a top leader of the erstwhile Northern Alliance, which was supported by Russia, Iran, India and Tajikistan. The cat-and-mouse game between Karzai and the US has finally burst into the open with Fitrat's escape to Washington. Karzai has already alleged that the core issue in the Kabul Bank scam is that Afghanistan lacked the necessary banking experience to oversee the institution and allowed itself to be guided by "foreign advisers". Clearly, Fitrat, having been the central bank governor, had a good view of what was going on in the Kabul Bank until the scam sailed into view, piloted by the US Embassy in Kabul. In sum, the Afghan government has drawn a red line by sending Fitrat's arrest warrant to the US Embassy in Kabul. The message is quite blunt: "Do not interfere in our internal affairs, if you know what is good for you." Washington will be well-advised to take the message seriously when the Afghan officials openly have warned, "He [Fitrat] will be brought here [Kabul] to face the judiciary. We will follow him." A low-key phase in American activities on the Afghan political chessboard will certainly help to calm the tempers. It should be crystal clear by now that the Afghan leadership is in sync with the popular opinion in the country in its deep resentment of the US occupation of their country. Karzai's hands are tied. He is perhaps willing to tolerate the US military presence, provided the American and NATO troops are prepared to operate under Afghan laws. But that is out of the question for Washington and Brussels - or any Western capital - and there are no precedents. Equally, the IMF pressure tactic is only going to boomerang - unless Obama's ulterior motive is to comprehensively destabilize the Afghan situation before walking away from it so as to leave a great deal of debris for the regional powers to clean up. Just what is it that the IMF and the US are hoping to achieve by creating a "cash crunch" for the Afghan government at the present juncture? Again, if the intention is to compel Karzai to crawl on his knees and beg forgiveness, it betrays a horrible lack of understanding of the Afghan character. Finally, if the IMF-US game plan is to somehow get Karzai removed from power and to have him replaced by a surrogate ruler with some previous World Bank experience, that is not going to work - even if he is an ethnic Pashtun. The paradox is that there is yet another party today who is involved in the question of who rules Afghanistan beyond 2014 - the Taliban. The IMF and the US should see the writing on the wall when half a dozen suicide bombers walk into the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and NATO aircraft and troops have to be brought in to counter their invasion. <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MF30Df04.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MF30Df04.html</a> bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-248088 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:10:11 +0000 bsobaid 248088@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Safaid ghar kay hijra.e.aswadd se abhi abhi nida aaee hai kay 2014 mein tamam momineen wapis apnay gharoon ko hijratt karr jaein g ay <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/22/obama-prepares-to-recall-afghanistan-troop-surge/" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/22/obama-prepares-to-recall-afghanistan-troop-surge/</a> Ab koi poochay kay aamil bs bangali bawa ko 2009 mein mustaqbil kee tasveer kaisay nazar aagaee? bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-248054 Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:39:19 +0000 bsobaid 248054@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/world/asia/23prexy.html?_r=1&hp" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/world/asia/23prexy.html?_r=1&hp</a> aftab on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-248051 Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:27:50 +0000 aftab 248051@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Nothing to get joyous about until "all" foreign troops are out of Afghanistan. bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-248038 Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:33:22 +0000 bsobaid 248038@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ sorry, my mistake the reduction will complete by 2012 not 2013 <a href="http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/06/22/president-obama-pull-out-10000-us-troops-afghanistan-end-year" rel="nofollow">http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/06/22/president-obama-pull-out-10000-us-troops-afghanistan-end-year</a> bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-248016 Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:41:40 +0000 bsobaid 248016@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/us/politics/22costs.html?_r=1&ref=world" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/us/politics/22costs.html?_r=1&ref=world</a> bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-248008 Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:59:31 +0000 bsobaid 248008@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Obama to announce 30% troop reduction by 2013 starting from next month. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13851930" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13851930</a> Abdul Rahman on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-248007 Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:55:58 +0000 Abdul Rahman 248007@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VeTm0-DrmA" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VeTm0-DrmA</a> bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247857 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:41:24 +0000 bsobaid 247857@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ that is true, truths but you mentioned Iran and yes Iran and Russia and India would prefer Northern alliance as opposed to Taliban because of Taliban's friendship with Pakistan and Amreeka. So Iran and its allies backing of northern alliance will keep Taliban from taking over the whole country and I'd guess US would'nt want to see that either anymore, unless Taliban become good Taliban under Mulla Zaeef. truths on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247855 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:10:34 +0000 truths 247855@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ bsobaid, its right jazb e eemaani but not only forigners play will be end because forigners not more finance in grave yard in future as facing own financial problem in future talban worriers/gorrillas no need money finance and weapons they can fight with local made weapons having historical war experiance no any country will be finance in long term for any one currently usa need to force back just only financial problem as so many ground realties iran supporting nothern allience as dostum and ahmed shah massoud groups in future after exit of forign forces iran also come back after seen ground realties bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247851 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:52:47 +0000 bsobaid 247851@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ truths, aisaa aap jazba-e-eemaani ke bunyaad pay keh rahay hein? yaad rahay, shumali afghanistan pay taliban kabhi bhi poori tarah se qabza nahi karr sakay. haan agar taliban Iran aur russia se dosti karr lein tou baat aur hai. truths on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247849 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:46:34 +0000 truths 247849@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ after 6 years talban will be in power in whole afghanistan, some little resistance still running by many little groups bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247842 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:11:02 +0000 bsobaid 247842@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ The most interesting aspect will be how Taliban is included in the power structure. It is hard to imagine Northern Alliance and Taliban can sit in same government, therefore, as I predicted in the original post of this thread, it will become south afghanistan government and north afghanistan government in effect and central government will only be a figure head. This is the ideal scenario. Lets see what comes out of it. bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247841 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:09:15 +0000 bsobaid 247841@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Iran and Pakistan are at strategic odds and will remain like that. I think biggest reason of US interest in Pakistan is to root out remaining infrastructure of terrorism and yes, US definitely wants Pakistan in its camp or as they call it "strategic partner" in order to keep its presence with atleast one AFghan neighbor due to supply router etc reasons. US's strategic partnership with Iran is on case-to-case basis. The current partnership revolves around Farsi Afghanistan and eliminating Taliban. Post-US departure the strategic partnership will remain no more specially when it comes to trade routes etc. bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247840 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:04:58 +0000 bsobaid 247840@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ @Mirza, why do you think US was in love of Afghanis and came here to alleviate AFghanis from poverty and war? Did US ever say that? US stated reason for attacks was security concerns and this is the top goal for US still. US wants to invest as much as it is necessary to maintain a mimimum level of stability needed to achieve its security concerns. gazi23 on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247833 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:26:33 +0000 gazi23 247833@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Whatever might lies ahead for Afghanistan but one thing is for sure that USA wont gonna LEAVE this region PERMANENTLY but instead hold key Strategic spots available to them and I sense Pakistan is what is called LEFTOVER for them available right now.....The reason why they are pulling most of their Strings on Pakistan now instead of fixing things in Afghanistan is because they know that they can Bear Departure from Afghanistan but loosing Pakistan would meaning loosing the whole Region in the hands of China and Russia.....USA has finally Realized that their is nothing in Afghanistan that has any Charm for USA but the real Charm that motivates them is Natural reserves of Central Asia and Persian/Arabian Gulf which is the SUPPLY ROUTE of World's 70% Oil and Gas and no wonder why USA currently got their Six Aircraft Carriers and so many Military Bases around the coasts of many Countries(Excluding Iran) of Persian Arabian Gulf...... Currently USA would push most of their efforts in Pakistan instead of Afghanistan cause their primary AIM after Departure from Afghanistan would be to have STRONG POSITION of Trading route of Central Asia so that USA could get some BARGAIN in the region cause if they dont then this region will fall back in the hands of Russia or this time Chinese would took over hence USA would be left with their Middle Eastern Allies to defend its interest in this region..... In 2014 Afghanistan could again Turn into Battle Ground of Warlords for Controlling the LEFTOVERS after American Departure and might be Possible that Iran could try to get Influence of Northern half of Afghanistan which they often call "Khorasan" due to Persian Influence and Pakistan could get Influence of Southern Half where Pashtun Dominates due to Pashtun Influence in this matter of time Peace in Afghanistan would Completely Rely on Pakistan Iran Relationship and Trade Opportunities Available for Central Asia through Pakistan......USA would would try their Level best to keep Pakistan in their Camp to ensure their Existence in the region so the interference of USA would grow in Pakistan in coming days till Pakistanis FINALLY decide which Camp is better for them.....Pakistan has tried their best to keep itself NEUTRAL against POWER GAME in the region but this time Pakistan couldnt keep itself NEUTRAL in the whole Scenario..... Rohail Taqi on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247832 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:22:08 +0000 Rohail Taqi 247832@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ In above comment 'a land of opportunity' is used in literal sense and does not mean 53rd state of the USA. Kaheen Fatwa na ajaye agent honay ka. Rohail Taqi on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247831 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:17:25 +0000 Rohail Taqi 247831@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Yes, Afghanistan is no more than a graveyard. Ironically, Afghans seem to be contented with this reference and comically, Pakistanis are proud of this reputation. I as a Pakistani do not want my country to be a graveyard but 'a land of opportunity'. Afghans defeated all of their oppressors - I doubt it specially when I compare London, Saint Petersburg or Chicago with Kabul. In fact, they (and all Muslims) lost a long long time ago. Sooner we realize it the better. S.E.Mirza on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247829 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:57:14 +0000 S.E.Mirza 247829@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Those who created taliban so as to serve their purpose and forward their aims while having no direct concern or relief towards Afghans under Russian occupation. They themselves being inhabitants of a distant land cleansed of ethnic populace, later repopulated through mass influx from europe and elsewhere might call their abode 'a land of opportunity' but Afghanistan remains a historic graveyard of all who dared to occupy it but ended up laid here, dead! bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247828 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:47:03 +0000 bsobaid 247828@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ I remember during his presidential campaign speeches, Obama said multiple times US needs to adjust their expectations on Fghanistan. He said Afghanistan cant be as peaceful and prosperous as Texas and US definitely is'nt ready or capable to invest in Afghanistan to achieve these kind of results but US also does not want to leave a total mess behind security-wise. It is impossible for Karzai to achieve peace and stability in Afghnistan on his own using Afhgan security forces. Logically, I can think of two possible options, considering US wants to go ahead with its withdrawl date of 2014. 1) Weaken Taliban and break their back so they dont impose any threat to Afghanistan's central government. This is not going to happen, although US will try as much as it can for now. 2)Give Taliban stake and bring them into power. This is also happening, read US Defence Sec. speech from 2 days ago. US is opting for option #2 but for the time being it is trying to hurt Taliban as much as it can as negotiations with Taliban are at early stages. I am sure if negotiations take some form or shape the anti-taliban operation will cool down. End of surge date for 2012 is a good indication. S.E.Mirza on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247823 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:06:50 +0000 S.E.Mirza 247823@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ How they can ever think of removing Karzai and his brother, a drug lord? This is one more drama of arms traded in and opium/herione flown out on the same us/nato planes as they did in Iran/Contra affair. bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-247815 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:32:04 +0000 bsobaid 247815@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Surge to end in 2012 <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/21/obama.afghanistan.troops/index.html?hpt=hp_t1" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/21/obama.afghanistan.troops/index.html?hpt=hp_t1</a> Logically, withdrawl starts afterwards. bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-246648 Fri, 17 Jun 2011 03:45:47 +0000 bsobaid 246648@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ pull out thora thora start vhogaya hai <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/16/afghanistan-drawdown-in-sight-as-pentagon-prepares-to-pull-out-troops-this/" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/16/afghanistan-drawdown-in-sight-as-pentagon-prepares-to-pull-out-troops-this/</a> bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-246336 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:22:11 +0000 bsobaid 246336@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Good article Aftab, Karzai wants US help long-term because he knows iti s close to impossible for him to handle the country. US on the other hand has problems of its own and wants to end the engagement in AFghnistan or atleast wants to bring it down to a bare minimum. NATO European part is not cooperating though which was evident from Gates speech last week. I still think, as I mentioned in the original post of this thread that by 2014 the combat role will erode although their presence will remain. aftab on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-246291 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:53:50 +0000 aftab 246291@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Secret US and Afghanistan talks could see troops stay for decades American and Afghan officials are locked in increasingly acrimonious secret talks about a long-term security agreement which is likely to see US troops, spies and air power based in the troubled country for decades. Though not publicised, negotiations have been under way for more than a month to secure a strategic partnership agreement which would include an American presence beyond the end of 2014 – the agreed date for all 130,000 combat troops to leave — despite continuing public debate in Washington and among other members of the 49-nation coalition fighting in Afghanistan about the speed of the withdrawal. American officials admit that although Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, recently said Washington did not want any "permanent" bases in Afghanistan, her phrasing allows a variety of possible arrangements. "There are US troops in various countries for some considerable lengths of time which are not there permanently," a US official told the Guardian. British troops, Nato officials say, will also remain in Afghanistan long past the end of 2014, largely in training or mentoring roles. Although they will not be "combat troops" that does not mean they will not take part in combat. Mentors could regularly fight alongside Afghan troops, for example. Senior Nato officials also predict that the insurgency in Afghanistan will continue after 2014. There are at least five bases in Afghanistan which are likely candidates to house large contingents of American special forces, intelligence operatives, surveillance equipment and military hardware post-2014. In the heart of one of the most unstable regions in the world and close to the borders of Pakistan, Iran and China, as well as to central Asia and the Persian Gulf, the bases would be rare strategic assets. News of the US-Afghan talks has sparked deep concern among powers in the region and beyond. Russia and India are understood to have made their concerns about a long-term US presence known to both Washington and Kabul. China, which has pursued a policy of strict non-intervention beyond economic affairs in Afghanistan, has also made its disquiet clear. During a recent visit, senior Pakistani officials were reported to have tried to convince their Afghan counterparts to look to China as a strategic partner, not the US. American negotiators will arrive later this month in Kabul for a new round of talks. The Afghans rejected the Americans' first draft of a strategic partnership agreement in its entirety, preferring to draft their own proposal. This was submitted to Washington two weeks ago. The US draft was "vaguely formulated", one Afghan official told the Guardian. Afghan negotiators are now preparing detailed annexes to their own proposal which lists specific demands. The Afghans are playing a delicate game, however. President Hamid Karzai and senior officials see an enduring American presence and broader strategic relationship as essential, in part to protect Afghanistan from its neighbours. "We are facing a common threat in international terrorist networks. They are not only a threat to Afghanistan but to the west. We want a partnership that brings regional countries together, not divides them," said Rangin Spanta, the Afghan national security adviser and the lead Afghan negotiator on the partnership. Dr Ashraf Ghani, a former presidential candidate and one of the negotiators, said that, although Nato and the US consider a stable Afghanistan to be essential to their main strategic aim of disrupting and defeating al-Qaida, a "prosperous Afghanistan" was a lesser priority. "It is our goal, not necessarily theirs," he said. Though Ghani stressed "consensus on core issues", big disagreements remain. One is whether the Americans will equip an Afghan air force. Karzai is understood to have asked for fully capable modern combat jet aircraft. This has been ruled out by the Americans on grounds of cost and fear of destabilising the region. Another is the question of US troops launching operations outside Afghanistan from bases in the country. From Afghanistan, American military power could easily be deployed into Iran or Pakistan post-2014. Helicopters took off from Afghanistan for the recent raid which killed Osama bin Laden. "We will never allow Afghan soil to be used [for operations] against a third party," said Spanta, Afghanistan's national security adviser. A third contentious issue is the legal basis on which troops might remain. Afghan officials are keen that any foreign forces in their country are subject to their laws. The Afghans also want to have ultimate authority over foreign troops' use and deployment. "There should be no parallel decision-making structures ... All has to be in accordance with our sovereignty and constitution," Spanta said. Nor do the two sides agree over the pace of negotiations. The US want to have agreement by early summer, before President Barack Obama's expected announcement on troop withdrawals. This is "simply not possible," the Afghan official said. There are concerns too that concluding a strategic partnership agreement could also clash with efforts to find an inclusive political settlement to end the conflict with the Taliban. A "series of conversations" with senior insurgent figures are under way, one Afghan minister has told the Guardian. A European diplomat in Kabul said: "It is difficult to imagine the Taliban being happy with US bases [in Afghanistan] for the foreseeable future." Senior Nato officials argue that a permanent international military presence will demonstrate to insurgents that the west is not going to abandon Afghanistan and encourage them to talk rather than fight. The Afghan-American negotiations come amid a scramble among regional powers to be positioned for what senior US officers are now describing as the "out years". Mark Sedwill, the Nato senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, recently spoke of the threat of a "Great Game 3.0" in the region, referring to the bloody and destabilising conflict between Russia, Britain and others in south west Asia in the 19th century. Afghanistan has a history of being exploited by — or playing off — major powers. This, Dr Ghani insisted, was not "a vision for the 21st century". Instead, he said, Afghanistan could become the "economic roundabout" of Asia. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/13/us-afghanistan-secret-talks-on-security-partnership" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/13/us-afghanistan-secret-talks-on-security-partnership</a> No wonder the Taliban don't want to enter any negotiations until all international troops leave they country. bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-246215 Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:30:38 +0000 bsobaid 246215@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Interesting article by Nazeer Naji. <a href="http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jun2011-daily/14-06-2011/col1.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jun2011-daily/14-06-2011/col1.htm</a> bsobaid on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-245225 Fri, 10 Jun 2011 20:21:39 +0000 bsobaid 245225@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Good article Khan_gee. Basically as expected the withdrawl will start as planned and will reach at a significant point by the end of 2014 as predicted in the original post. It will be interesting to see how government in Afghanistan takes it shape. No wonder Karzai is trying to find allies in his neighbourhood aka Pakistan to sustain his leadership. However the question remains what happend when negotiations with Tablian start and the conditions put forth by Taliban. khan_gee007 on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-245216 Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:06:54 +0000 khan_gee007 245216@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ How to exit Afghanistan without creating wider conflict? BY Hennry A. Kissinger, published in Washington Post, on 8th June <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-exit-afghanistan-without-creating-wider-conflict/2011/06/06/AG9ydPLH_story.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-exit-afghanistan-without-creating-wider-conflict/2011/06/06/AG9ydPLH_story.html</a> What is going to happened in Afghanistan in next few years is quite clear now. Another super power (so called) will see the power of Allah in Afghanistan InshaAllah. it will be another slap on the liberal + socialist who always support the intruders (i.e. ANP supported USSR now they are in lap of USA+ Asma Jahangir & group). If still these liberal + Socialist Communist + = Musharaf allies + ANP + MQM + Asma jahangir & Group = America, Indian, Israeli agents think that material does matter instead of FAITH in Allah! Afghan Mujahid will call you soon to cry on the grave of USA! INSHA ALLAH aftab on "Afghanistan 2 years from now and 5 years from now" http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/afghanistan-2-years-from-now-and-5-years-from-now/page/2#post-245060 Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:19:42 +0000 aftab 245060@http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/ Things are happening almost entirely as the Pakistani military would have expected and the Taliban predicted - time is on their side, not Obama's. The killing of Bin Laden ironically puts Obama in a greater hurry because in popular perceptions, the Afghan war has been "won", the reason for the US to go into the Hindu Kush has been fulfilled and the 9/11 attacks have been avenged. On the other hand, Pakistan is also under immense pressure from many quarters. The international community, including China and Russia, are urging Pakistan to have a paradigm shift in its Afghan policy. Two, Pakistan needs to cultivate Karzai's goodwill. Three, the security situation within Pakistan is alarming and the blowback of terrorism underscores the dangers of using terrorist groups as "strategic assets". Four, with Bin Laden's departure, a window of opportunity arises to detach the Taliban from al-Qaeda and "foreign fighters", and bring them to the negotiating table. Most important, Pakistan's longstanding demand for reconciliation of the Taliban now finds almost complete acceptance in the US establishment. This puts the onus on Pakistan to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table. In short, Karzai is undertaking his visit to Islamabad after a great deal of preparatory discussions and on the assumption that Pakistan is capable of taking a new turn in its Afghan policies. The farewell visit by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates last week to Kabul was conspicuous for its complete absence of any rhetoric against Pakistan by either the American or the Afghan side. Without doubt, Karzai's arrival in Islamabad a week ahead has been carefully timed. As the Wall Street Journal noted: The coordinated push to end the international isolation of Taliban leaders comes as the administration of US President Barack Obama is joining Mr Karzai in ramping up efforts to secure a solid peace deal that could bring an end to a decade of war in Afghanistan ... As the US prepares to scale back its military presence in Afghanistan this summer, the Obama administration is making peace talks a new priority. But Afghan and American officials have so far had a difficult time finding legitimate Taliban leaders willing to talk. A kind of regional consensus is also emerging that the Afghan war is endangering everyone's security. Things can change if in the downstream of a settlement the Taliban try to grab power in their hands. But the probability is low, given the movement's present weakened strength, lack of unity and the remote possibility that the Pakistani state would once again jump into the fray and commit huge resources in the full glare of international scrutiny. Therefore, regional powers are not losing sleep over the prospect of a civil war ensuing from reconciliation with the Taliban. Karzai's visit is taking place just ahead of the summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Astana next Wednesday, which is expected to see the induction of Afghanistan as an "observer" and the granting of full membership to Pakistan. The participation of the two countries in the processes of the single-most influential regional security organization cannot but impact on the overall climate of Afghan-Pakistani relationship. Suffice to say that for the first time, Afghanistan-Pakistan cogitations over the peace process will have one more facilitator or moderator or monitor - depending on one's perspective - other than the US. The big push by the Kremlin to give verve to a strategic partnership between Russia and Pakistan as well as Moscow's "return" to Afghanistan becomes yet another new template of Afghan-Pakistani interactions. So far, only Washington has enjoyed special proximity with Kabul and Islamabad. It is entirely conceivable that Russia is placing itself for a similar status in the coming period. What's more, all indications are that Moscow is moving in close coordination with Beijing. Both Russia and China (and Pakistan) are determined that beyond 2014, the US does not keep a permanent military base in Afghanistan. On his part, Karzai wants continued US assistance and involvement, but the issue of American military bases will be far too delicate for him not to put before a specially convened loya jirga (grand council), as he has promised, given the strong current of Afghan mass opinion militating against any form of foreign occupation of their country. In sum, everything points toward a favorable backdrop for Kabul and Islamabad to kickstart a peace process, finally. Both capitals profess that Washington will be a participant in such a process - and neither is exaggerating the fact. Indeed, they will be downright unrealistic to visualize that there can be an Afghan settlement without the US's involvement and backing. But neither is likely to seek or offer a "larger-than-life" role for the US in the peace process or hand over the steering wheel to it. Their trust deficit with the US runs far too deep, thanks to flawed US policies over recent years - bullying Karzai and humiliating him and even seeking his replacement on the one hand, while on the other hand sowing the seeds of doubt in the Pakistani mind about American intentions toward Pakistan. If the Afghan presidential election of 2009 remains a searing memory for Karzai, the "debriefing" of the key US intelligence operative Raymond Davis through two full months of gruelling interrogation in Lahore has stunned the Pakistani military about the dangerous ramifications of the US's covert operations for Pakistan's security and stability. The US is desperately trying to make amends, but it is all happening too late. An engrossing three-way battle of wits is about to commence on Saturday. <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MF11Df02.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MF11Df02.html</a> The problem is the US is not going to go without getting it's bases, which is one the main problems i see for Pakistan and Afghanistan.