US Policy Analysis: Pakistan and Afghanistan

by YankeeJim | April 10, 2010 at 04:24 am
645 views | 16 Recommendations | 16 comments

Photos

Taliban | Photo 06

Taliban | Photo 06

see larger image

uploaded by YankeeJim

US enemies in Afghanistan are Taliban.

Taliban fled to Pakistan where they initiated insurgency against the government and aligned in support of al-Qaeda, a principal target of the US.

Pakistan arrests #2 Taliban Mullah Abduhl Ghani Baradar, which the US would see as a good thing.

Afghanistan officials say Baradar’s arrest is a bad move because they are negotiating with Taliban for peace.

Based on the Pakistan experience, negotiating with the Taliban is a bad move as they see that as a sign of victory against which they move aggressively as they did in Swat, Pakistan.

Analyze the balance of the report and you will see that Afghanistan is a capitulating state, willing to give up control to the Taliban as they do not have the strength and backbone to stand up an alternative government.

Conclusion: Afghanistan is an unworthy partner in the process, undermining the Obama strategy in Afghanistan. The US does not have the resources for nation building, and a labor intensive effort to convert the nation from Taliban to something else isn’t available.

Strengthen the relationship with Pakistan. Help Pakistan shut the Taliban down there. Consolidate the targets in Afghanistan. When the targets are consolidated, eliminate them with as few civilian casualties as possible, but let everyone know, there will be civilian casualties because the Afghanistan people make it impossible to discern them from the Taliban enemy. If the Afghanistan people and their political leaders do not mount a successful campaign against US enemies in their country, they all become our enemy.

Military and political solutions are unworkable short of annihilating targets that threaten Pakistan’s stability and US national security interests of which Pakistan is a part.



“Afghan officials say Pakistan's arrest of Taliban leader threatens peace talks

By Joshua Partlow and Karen DeYoung

Washington Post staff writers
Saturday, April 10, 2010

KABUL -- Senior Afghan officials are now criticizing as counterproductive the arrest in Pakistan this year of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the No. 2 Taliban official. Its main effect, the Afghan officials say, has been to derail Afghan-led efforts to secure peace talks with the Taliban, making that peace ever more remote.

The episode offers a window into the mutual suspicions that still divide Afghanistan and Pakistan, mostly because of Pakistan's long history of support for the Taliban, as well as differences between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States about how best to seek reconciliation between insurgents and the Afghan government.

Senior Afghan officials in the military and presidential palace accuse Pakistan of orchestrating the arrest of Baradar and others to take down Taliban leaders most amenable to negotiations. Some of them say that Afghans had been in secret contact with Baradar before his arrest and that he was prepared to join the 1,400 people descending on Kabul next month for a peace conference. Despite Afghan requests, Pakistan has refused to hand over Baradar and other Taliban leaders.

Pakistani officials flatly deny that they intended to derail Taliban talks. Such an allegation, one Pakistani intelligence official said, is a "slur on us."

If the Afghan government "were talking to him, why did they allow him to leave Afghanistan?" he said. "If he was so important [to the peace process], he himself should have stayed there. If he was so important to the jirga, why did the United States provide the information that allowed us to catch him?"

The Afghan government's concern over the timing of the arrests reflects the urgency many feel to initiate a political dialogue with Taliban leadership. This push for high-stakes diplomacy has worried certain segments of Afghan society, including women and minority ethnic groups, who suffered the most under Taliban rule in the 1990s. The Obama administration prefers to focus on enticements for lower-level foot soldiers to switch sides, but President Hamid Karzai says the insurgency cannot be subdued without a political deal with Taliban leaders, according to his aides.

"There is a dire need for all of us, the international community and the Afghan government, to seek ways we can bring them peace," said Shaida Mohammad Abdali, deputy national security adviser in Afghanistan.

Both Afghans and their NATO allies want a negotiated solution to the nine-year-long insurgency, although there are differences of opinion among Afghanistan's Western partners -- and within some Western governments -- on how and how quickly negotiations should proceed.

Senior officials in Washington, including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, have counseled delaying substantive reconciliation talks until the Taliban has been weakened by the current U.S. military surge, while Britain has said publicly that negotiations should proceed in tandem with the fighting.

In Afghanistan, U.S. military officials appear much more amenable to such talks. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander, has appointed the retired British officer who performed the same task for U.S. forces in Iraq to begin probing for dialogue at all levels.

"One without the other makes absolutely no sense," retired Lt. Gen. Graeme Lamb said of the distinction drawn in Washington between reintegration of low-level fighters and reconciliation with top Taliban political leaders.

The pursuit of contacts with the Taliban appears to be happening at many levels within Afghan society, including governors, tribal elders, religious scholars and former Taliban and mujaheddin fighters. In the Taliban heartland of southern Afghanistan, both Ahmed Wali Karzai, the president's half-brother and the region's leading power broker, and Nangarhar governor Gul Agha Sherzai, his longtime rival, made separate visits to U.S. officials in Kandahar earlier this year to try to convince them they could lead the effort to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table.

Some Afghans say the arrests of Baradar and others undermined their bargaining position. "He was ready to go to the peace jirga," one senior Afghan official said. After his arrest, "the process of negotiations with the Taliban has slowed. We are now in a suspended state."

Afghan officials attribute to Pakistan multiple motives for the timing of the arrest of Baradar: a desire to not let Afghans control peace talks, to offer up select Taliban leaders to slake American demands for action, and to maintain a degree of influence over the Taliban movement they once openly supported. One American military official in Kabul said Pakistan is using the capture of insurgents as "trade bait" to extract more aid and military assistance from the United States.

Pakistan insists it has no relationship with the Afghan Taliban, although officials acknowledge having intelligence contacts, who they say are similar to those developed by the CIA.

Since Baradar's arrest, he has been interrogated by Pakistani and U.S. intelligence officials, but the Afghans have been left out. During Karzai's recent visit to Islamabad, he asked Pakistan to turn Baradar and other captured Taliban leaders over to Afghan custody. But Pakistan has said they must go on trial there.

Correspondents Keith Richburg and Rajiv Chandrasekaran in Kabul and Griff Witte in Islamabad contributed to this report.



 


Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
1
YankeeJim

Military focus in Afghanistan has only to do with securing a land route for oil distribution. The customers for the oil and the land route include China, India, and Pakistan, among others. A broader based coalition that include China, India, and Pakistan is the means to the end, with the USA bearing the majority of the load. We should be engaged with the user nations about this situation as it is not unilaterally in the US interest alone.

1
stejeb

Very true Jim, the end users should be putting in the effort to secure the country and spending some of their money on it instead of letting the US foot the bill.

1
YankeeJim

Hostile people in hostile states must get the message that now that the US resoruces are too thin for diplomacy, hostile acts will be met with overwhelming force -- robotic war -- that is unforgiving.

2
Barbara McPherson

The American people should not forget who armed the Taliban when it was convenient for them to fight the Soviet occupation.  When the Bush administration was looking for a target after 9/11, they zeroed in on Afghanistan and convinced the NATO countries to contribute people to the invasion. A hasty decision which will be long regretted.

0
YankeeJim

I agree completely with that Barbara.

2
Paul Conneally

The Taliban were trained and supported by US and it is rumoured that Bin Laden humself was part of the Taliban army funded by US against the USSR as was.

0
YankeeJim

A fact it is.

2
safronbandits

Taliban were never the enemy of America, they were turned into enemy after 9/11. Despite their extremely orthodox way of government, Taliban had never indulged in any subversive act against the US. A little sensible diplomacy on the part of US after 9/11 could have saved her billions of dollars apart from retaining the goodwill. Looking from the hind sight now that the US is facing acute shortage of resources to rebuild Afghanistan, had the US spent just 20 % of the total war budget allocated for Afghanistan on its development instead, the results would have been astonishing. The people of Afghanistan would have left Taliban a long time back in a quest to rebuild their country. It is so unfortunate that world powers have always preferred to use the weapon of guns and bombs instead of  the weapon of development, and the results are obvious. We do not try to learn lessons from history. Afghanistan will keep bleeding for a long time to come, and so will the economy and armed forces of the US.

0
YankeeJim

I agree that sensible diplomacy was absent.

I think the Taliban are a ridiculuos lot of outdated people, but, that would be an opinion from afar, and not cause for intervention had they not harbored al-Qaeda.

1
Paul Conneally

The subjugation of women and other Taliban ways that essentially go against many Islamic teachings - denying women education for instance - things I couldn't ever agree with - but they would not warrant a war - we'd be at war with many places if we conducted wars based on such things - even against ourselves... and clearly the arguments that we use around 'bringing democracy' as reason for wars... they don't wash do they? If it were so we'd be bombing Saudi and lots of other places too... War ... who can fathom it?

0
YankeeJim

Agreed. Intervention and intrusion in the Middles East is all about the oil.

1
t k kidwai

The Talibans lacked political acumen,diplomatic manoeuvering and most probably had never had studied some basic lessons of history.

The fact of the matter is that Taliban's refusal to accept Unocal's offer precipitated their downfall;had they accepted the offer US administration would have recognised their government.The other bolt from  blue was entry of Bridas,an Argentina based oil company into foray for construction of pipe line,and Bridas accepted demand of Talibans.This upset Clinton,who was enjoying oral sex with Monica Lewisnsky at that point of time,and who wanted Unocal to get the contract, for reasons best known to him.To policy makers in the US administration,ouster of Talibans was necessitated .

War in Afghanistan can never be won by either side like Iraq-Iran war.Terror attacks,attributed to Talibans or Pakistani based organisations are false flag operations to provide an alibi to US imperialists to stay in the region till the region is either totally devastated or rendered into Vietnam.

1
YankeeJim

Imperialism implies we want to take over. I don't think that is the case. We just want access to the oil.

America has been aggressive in imposing its will in the world, and for that I am embarrassed and ashamed.

We also have done a lot of good in the world, and for that I am proud.

We have a spotty track record, though for the most part. we have done a lot more good than bad, and have the potential to perform much better because our foundation is superior, IMO.

1
t k kidwai

YJ.while respecting your valuable opinions as always,I beg to differ with you on your perception of imperialism.Kindly look at the dictionary meanings and US foreign policy,you are rightly ashamed of like all sensible Americans."The policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries".

YJ,since the end of the second World War,name a country where US did not intervene overtly and/or covertly to contain or halt expansion of communism?Wasn't involved in overthrow of elected governments,murder, or attempts to murder, of head of states?There is long list of crimes US has committed against humanity.'Killing Hope' by Willium Blum gives a detailed account of US'interventions.

Access to oil theory has no legs to stand on.In Cuba there is no oil,in Congo(now Zaire) there was no oil,in Chile there was no oil.

In short USA (United States of Amnesia,what Gore Vidal calls) is an empire but neither benevolent nor benign.

 

 

0
YankeeJim

tkk, you are a persistent truth detector. I cannot gain proper vision with sand in my eyes. Dust it up, but please keep it from my eyes.

0
t k kidwai

My friend I want you to gain proper vision as I gained.Truth is uncomfortable,knowing it makes one outrageous.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

NowPublic on Facebook

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

stejeb
First Flagged at 5:57 AM, Apr 10, 2010 by stejeb
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (16)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from