Making Sense Of The Latest India-Afghanistan-Pakistan Drama

President Hamid Karzai’s provocative two-day trip to India this week continues to resonate across the subcontinent. His announcement of an unprecedented strategic partnership with India has put Pakistan on edge, with potentially significant consequences for the region.

 

Why was President Karzai in India, and what were his objectives for the trip?

India has been a longstanding partner, not only of President Karzai, but of Afghanistan. India has certainly been the biggest regional donor to Afghanistan, and it’s been one of the Afghanistan’s most important global donors.

There’s a lot of antagonism towards Pakistan in Afghanistan, whereas India is held in high regard. So I think [the visit was motivated by Afghan] interest in understanding where India is vis-à-vis Pakistan in Afghanistan. What will be its long-term goals as the U.S. security umbrella continues retreating?

India is having a big debate about how important it is for India to remain in Afghanistan, with what objectives and at what cost.

During his trip, President Karzai signed a strategic partnership agreement with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh under which India will provide assistance to Afghanistan, including stepping up trade and training Afghan forces after U.S. forces leave in 2014. What’s the significance of this accord and why has it set off such fears in Pakistan?

Pakistan’s concerns with this partnership stem from their conviction that India will use its position in Afghanistan to the detriment of Pakistan.

The basic problem is that, according to my sources, who are not Pakistani – British diplomats, UN diplomats and increasingly Americans as well – India has been supporting the Baloch insurgents from Pakistan, [who are waging an ethnic nationalist rebellion in Pakistan’s southwestern province of Balochistan].

This is not the first time that India has done this. Balochistan has been a historical place of intervention for the Indians, so this is very disconcerting to the Pakistanis.

The Indians have also historically – although they haven’t made the official proclamations to this effect in recent history – supported Afghanistan in its irredentist claims on Pashtun parts of Pakistani territory. Pakistan is concerned about India using Afghanistan to deny Pakistan strategic depth.

Finally the Northern Alliance – and of course [assassinated former president Burhannurdin] Rabbani was a key figure in that – was aided and facilitated by the Indians, and they were the only rival to Pakistan’s proxy, the Taliban.

For all of these reasons, Pakistan sees this strategic partnership between India and Afghanistan as completely detrimental to its interests.

Are Pakistan’s fears well-founded?

The Americans would dismiss Pakistan’s fears, and so would Indians. They would basically say the Indians have no interest in destabilizing Pakistan, but that’s not entirely true. If that were true India would not be manipulating affairs in Balochistan to the varying levels that it is, and it’s certainly not at the levels that Pakistan claims.

So Pakistan does have concerns. Pakistan fears India and its partnership with the Americans: the American commitment to build it up as a global power; the Indian-American nuclear deal. … So the Pakistanis want to have the opportunity to deny India’s rise as a regional hegemon, much less a global power.

President Karzai has tried to do some damage control. He clarified the agreement wasn’t directed at Pakistan and said, ”Pakistan is a twin brother, India is a great friend. … The agreement that we signed yesterday with our friend will not affect our brother.” Will his words placate any concern in Pakistan, or are they merely lip service?

Pakistan will not be reassured by this. Karzai can say whatever he wants to say; it’s not going to reassure Pakistan.

Pres. Karzai also announced that Afghanistan would be calling off peace talks with the Taliban, saying, “We have decided not to talk to the Taliban because we do not know their address … therefore we have decided to talk to our brothers in Pakistan.” Has Karzai given up on negotiations with the Taliban?

I think he’s realized that rather than talking to the floor manager, he has to talk to the CEOs, and the CEOs are Pakistani intelligence and military officials in Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

What does that mean for the peace process, and for the American military’s role in Afghanistan?

The American’s military role in Afghanistan is going to end no matter what, in terms of this high-intensity counterinsurgency initiative. There’s just a growing realization that there are limits to what the Americans can do given Pakistan’s intransigence on supporting the Afghan Taliban.

I think the best that the Americans can hope for is to put some modicum of stability and to try to put some pressure on Pakistan, but I think there is a growing realization that without some massive scaling down of the conditions for security transfer to the Afghans, the Americans won’t get out when they want to get out.

By get out, I don’t mean pull out and then go home. I mean scale down counterinsurgency activities in preference to a more normal relationship with Afghanistan, with the ability to conduct robust counterterror operations when needed.

Tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan have reached new heights since Rabbani’s assassination. Afghan officials say Pakistan’s intelligence agency was involved in the murder, a charge Pakistan denies. Is this an unusually low point in Afghan-Pakistan relations, and how long will these tensions likely last?

They’re going to last forever. They’ve never had good relations.

Afghanistan hasn’t handled this in a terribly sophisticated way either. Afghanistan has been really happy to use the Indian card to beat up on the Pakistanis, and this will not be in Afghanistan’s advantage, because no matter what India does, it’s not going to be able to insulate Afghanistan from what the Pakistanis are doing.

Obama: Afghan war secures America

Soldiers dying in Afghanistan keeps us safe ?

Press TV – US President Barack Obama says there will be no quick or easy victory over the Taliban, noting that the war in Afghanistan is crucial in protecting Americans from terrorism.

Talking in a meeting of veterans in Arizona on Monday, Obama tried to step up the campaign in Afghanistan. “The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight and we won’t defeat it overnight,” he said.

US administration is sending 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, therefore the success or failure of the mission of US forces in the war-torn country is crucial for its future plans in the region.

“This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget this is not a war of choice, this is a war of necessity,” he said. “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans,” he said.

The remarks came a day after British Prime Minister Gordon Brown trying to ease the growing opposition to the Afghan war said the war in Afghanistan is a “sacrifice” made to make “Britain and the rest of the world” a safer place.

The two leaders however failed to elaborate the dire situation the war-ravaged nation has been facing ever since the US-led coalition forces invaded their country more than eight years ago.

According to UN figures, Afghan civilians remain the main victims of the notorious war which was launched to allegedly destroy the militancy and arrest militant leaders including Osama bin Laden.

This week’s Afghan presidential and provincial elections will be considered as a test of the new US strategy of providing security on the ground.

This is while, Taliban vowing to interrupt the election, have already fired rockets at the Afghan capital twice this month.

A rocket hit Tuesday the presidential palace in the center of Afghan capital, Kabul and a second struck the city’s police headquarters.

Also on Saturday, a suicide car bomb exploded outside the NATO military headquarters in the Afghan capital Kabul near the US embassy, killing seven people and injuring scores.

US forces leave east Afghanistan area after deadly attack

US forces have withdrawn from a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan following last week’s major battle there with the Taliban, NATO-led forces said today in Kabul.

The pullout was announced before the October 3 attack, but the assault has drawn fresh attention to a new US strategy to move troops out of remote areas and focus more on populated districts.

“It is the intent of the ISAF (NATO-led force) commander, US Army General Stanley McChrystal, to place an emphasis on protecting the people of Afghanistan by focusing on more populated areas,” the NATO-led force said in a statement.

It said troops and equipment had been moved from the outpost in the Kamdesh district of northeastern Nuristan Province to other locations in eastern Afghanistan.

In the deadliest attack for US forces since a July 2008 battle in nearby Kunar, eight US soldiers were killed when Taliban fighters stormed remote outposts near the Pakistan border last week. At least two Afghan troops died in the firefight.

NATO forces said 100 insurgents were killed.

In the past, when US troops have left areas in dispute, the Taliban have launched attacks to display strength and lay claim to them.

This year has become by far the deadliest for Western forces in the eight-year war that followed the removal of the Taliban from power. More than 400 Western troops have died so far, more than in the entire period from 2001-05.

There are now more than 100,000 Western forces serving in Afghanistan, two-thirds of them American. McChrystal has submitted a request for tens of thousands more, arguing that without them he cannot implement his new strategy and the war will probably be lost

Kabul blast kills 7 civilians, wounds 45 – police

SEVEN Afghan civilians were killed and 45 more were wounded in a blast outside the Indian embassy in the Afghan capital today, police sources said.

The blast came from a bomb placed inside a car at the scene, police said, but it was not immediately clear if it was a suicide attack.

Courtesy: Shanghai Daily

Obama receives request for Afghan troop increase!

Source: Agencies | 2009-10-8 |

US President Barack Obama has received a request for more troops by the top US commander in Afghanistan, the Pentagon said yesterday, moving him a step closer to a long-awaited decision on a new military buildup.

The document recommends sending up to 40,000 additional US and NATO troops to support the stalled, eight-year-old Afghan campaign on top of the 104,000 currently in place, according to congressional officials.

Obama, who has launched a review of his administration’s six-month-old war strategy, remains undecided on whether to send in more troops — the recommendation of the top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, to try to reverse gains by a resurgent Taliban, officials said.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama received the request from Defense Secretary Robert Gates last Thursday before traveling to Europe, where he met with McChrystal. It was unclear how long Obama would take to act on the troop request.

“We’re going to go through this process of evaluating the goals and the strategy, and … at a point after that, we’ll get to discussing resources,” Gibbs said.

Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, said in Washington he expected Obama to settle on a strategy and troop levels later this month or in early November.

A US official said Obama held a roughly three-hour strategy review on Wednesday focusing on Pakistan, ways to improve cooperation with Islamabad and how to continue “disrupting, dismantling and defeating al-Qaeda.” Another session on Friday will focus primarily on Afghanistan.

The decisions may be the most important, and difficult, of Obama’s young presidency, congressional leaders say.

BACKLASH OR CRITICISM?

US and NATO casualties have risen and public support for the eight-year-old war has eroded. Sending as many as 40,000 additional troops could spark a backlash within Obama’s own Democratic Party.

Sending a smaller number of troops, or no troops at all, will open Obama up to further criticism from congressional Republicans and, possibly, the military, for taking a more politically palatable middle-road approach.

CBS News, without citing named sources, reported that McChrystal wanted to ask for 50,000 troops but was convinced to lower the request to 40,000.

An alternative to the current counter-insurgency strategy, backed by Vice President Joe Biden, would focus more narrowly on air strikes against al Qaeda targets.

But Obama has told congressional leaders that he would neither substantially reduce the US mission in Afghanistan, nor shift the strategy to focus mainly on hunting militants.

Officials said strong consideration was being given to a war strategy that incorporates both counter-insurgency and counterterrorism operations inside Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said McChrystal’s request, which will be kept secret, was based upon the assumption that the United States was pursuing a counter-insurgency strategy. This would focus more on securing the support of the Afghan people than killing militants.

“If the decisions that are made in the coming weeks are different from that, there can be adjustments made to the request,” Morrell said.

Gates has yet to provide the president with his personal recommendations, the Pentagon said.

A pivotal player in the decision making, Gates has said that many of his earlier reservations about adding forces have been addressed. He remains a strong proponent of a counter-insurgency strategy, which could signal that he may be leaning toward a further buildup.

Pressure has been mounting on Obama for weeks to make a swift decision. Republican Sen. John McCain, who was defeated by Obama in last year’s presidential election, repeated his call for Obama to implement the commander’s recommendations and not take “half-measures.”

Courtesy: Shanghai Daily

White House: US won’t pull out of Afghanistan

WASHINGTON: Defense Secretary Robert Gates appealed Monday for calm amid intense administration debate over the flagging war in Afghanistan, asking for time and privacy for the president to come to a decision – an apparent message to the commanding US general there who has pressed publicly for more American troops.

US Marine radio operator and infantryman Lance Cpl. Walter Jennings of Normal, Ill. with Bravo Company, 1st Battalion 5th Marines walks in front of an armored vehicle, in Nawa district, Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Monday, Oct. 5, 2009. [Agencies]

Gates’ careful remarks appeared to stand as an implicit rebuke of the man he helped install as the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for his lobbying as President Barack Obama faced a critical week of decision over whether to escalate the Afghan war.

In two separate appearances Monday, Gates made the point that Obama needs elbow room to make strategy decisions about the war – as the internal White House debate went increasingly public.”It is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right,” Gates said at an Army conference. “In this process, it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations – civilians and military alike – provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.”

Later, speaking alongside Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Gates praised McChrystal and said no matter what Obama decides the general will execute it faithfully.

The fierce Taliban attack that killed eight American soldiers over the weekend added to the pressure. The assault overwhelmed a remote US outpost where American forces have been stretched thin in battling insurgents, underscoring the appeal from the top Afghanistan commander for as many as 40,000 additional forces – and at the same time reminding the nation of the costs of war.

Gates has not said whether he supports McChrystal’s recommendation to expand the number of US forces by as much as nearly 60 percent. He is holding that request in his desk drawer while Obama sorts through competing recommendations and theories from some of his most trusted advisers.

“I believe that the decisions that the president will make for the next stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most important of his presidency,” Gates told the Army conference.

In trying to blunt the impression that the White House and military are at odds, Gates did not name names. But his remarks came days after McChrystal bluntly warned in London that Afghan insurgents are gathering strength. Any plan that falls short of stabilizing Afghanistan “is probably a shortsighted strategy,” the general said, and he called openly for additional resources.

That prompted Obama’s national security adviser, retired four-star Gen. James Jones, to say Sunday that military advice is best provided “up through the chain of command.”

Kabul under curfew after bloody riots over U.S. road accident

The Government of Afghanistan declared a six-hour curfew in the capital Kabul Monday after one of the worst riots broke out across the city since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Afghan people look at a burning police vehicle in Kabul, Afghanistan, May 29. Afghan people look at a burning police vehicle in Kabul, Afghanistan, May 29, 2006. (Xinhua/AFP Photo) The riot was stirred by a road accident involving a U.S. military truck reportedly slamming into civilian vehicles. The fatal accident took place in Sarai Shamali, some 10 km north of the Presidential Palace, and killed at least 25 and damaged 15 civilian vehicles, according to eyewitnesses. The U.S. military has expressed its sorrow and accepted responsibility after the bloody road accident. However, the locals of Kabul gathered and started stoning the troops Monday. The riot soon snowballed with demonstrators torching buildings and scores of police posts as well as trying to force their way into compounds for the United Nations office and massing near the U.S. embassy. Meanwhile, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has expressed his deep sad over the traffic accident, by saying that the government of Afghanistan is the sole protector of the lives and property of Afghans, and called on his people to exercise restraint. At least eight people have been killed and more than 100 injured in riots. The toll and number of injured are expected to rise. Enditem (Agencies)

Courtesy : Xinhua

The US should end the Afghan war–China

Afghanistan’s political and social turmoil has been aggravated by different intentions of the participating nations that constitute the coalition forces. In the short term, the fragile Afghan regime is finding it difficult to tame its restive domestic situation. Still, a prescription could help bring the country out of the mess if key players adopt a peaceful and reconciliatory approach in their push for the end of the war.The United States should first put an end to the war. The anti-terror war, which the former US administration of George W Bush launched in 2001, has turned out to be the source of ceaseless turbulence and violence in the past years. To promote much-needed reconciliation among the parties concerned, the US should end its military action. The war has neither brought the Islamic nation peace and security as the Bush administration originally promised, nor brought any tangible benefits to the US itself. On the contrary, the legitimacy of the US military action has been under increasing doubt.

Public opinion within the US on the war has undergone dramatic change. According to a recent poll, opinion in favor of the war has declined from 53 percent in April to 39 percent, while opinion opposed to the war has increased to 58 percent from 46 percent. The US Congress has also cast doubt over the Obama administration’s Afghanistan strategy. The opposition from 74 percent Democrats and 70 percent independent votes to the war would be a big restraint on the Obama administration’s larger military strides given that the new president cannot afford to bet his political fate on a unpopular war. Since taking office as president, Obama has been under pressure from the Pentagon for military reinforcements in Afghanistan. The calls of war opponents over that of supporters will give the young US president the best chance to extricate himself from the Pentagon’s pressures. If Obama resolutely decides to stop the war, that would not only meet the US public expectations and save more American lives, but also help recover the US’ peaceful image and enhance the president’s personal political prospects.

Another way to help Afghanistan break the current deadlock is to promote reconciliation among the Afghan government, the Taliban and the country’s major warlords, all being key actors that can play an influential role in deciding the country’s prospect. In addition to the US factor, the chaos in Afghanistan is also closely related to the long-standing domestic strife between factions. Afghanistan experienced numerous wars and conflicts in history, including invasion by the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and the US war. The war-ravaged Asian nation is undergoing a chaotic battle that has involved the US-led coalition forces, its government troops and domestic warlords, the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces. The disorderly confrontations and strife do no good to anyone but have only caused untold suffering to Afghan people.

Afghanistan’s political disorder is also the main cause of its domestic chaos. The country’s presidential election on Aug 20 has so far failed to produce a final result. The recount of votes in more than 600 polling stations alleged to have suffered fraud is expected to last another two or three months, which will add to the chaos. The US has urged Afghan president Hamid Karzai to hold a second round of voting. It seems that Karzai has hammered home the perception that the US is not a reliable partner that can help end Afghanistan’s current predicament. Talks, he thinks, is the only way out. The Afghan president is likely to open the process of tri-party peace talks with the Taliban and major warlords provided that the US ends its military action.

Support from the international community is needed to help Afghanistan make a substantive move toward peace. The international community can take advantage of the ever-mounting anti-war calls within the US to prompt the Obama administration to end the war and withdraw US troops. Germany, France and Britain have planned an international conference this year to discuss the gradual withdrawal of Afghanistan military deployment. International pressures may offer Obama another excuse to withdraw US troops. The UN Security Council should carry the baton from the three European nations to convene a conference on the Afghanistan issue and try to reach a consensus among its five permanent Security Council members and draft a roadmap and timetable for resolution of the thorny issue. In the process, a ticklish issue is whether parties concerned can accept the Taliban as a key player in Afghanistan and how to dispose of the Al Qaeda armed forces, an issue that has a key bearing on the outcome of any international conference on the Afghanistan issue.

Surely, an international peacekeeping mission is needed in the absence of US troops. With the aid of international peacekeepers, the Afghanistan government and its security forces can be expected to exercise effective control over domestic unrest and maintain peace and security.

The author is deputy secretary-general of the China Council for National Security Policy Studies

McChrystal and India

Increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India, Gen McChrystal stated in his report. –Photo by Reuters

‘Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian.’

These words of Gen Stanley McChrystal, which are a part of his assessment of the war in Afghanistan, are perhaps as significant as any other in the report for two reasons. One, it is clear that peace in Afghanistan cannot prevail unless the interests of the Pakistani state are taken into account. And from that perspective, enhanced Indian interests in Afghanistan are inimical to peace in the region. Lest there be any doubt about this, Gen McChrystal has himself stated this in his report: ‘Increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.’

Two, several factors have combined to force the Obama administration to revisit the very purpose of its mission in Afghanistan. Most apparent is the catastrophe that is the recent presidential election in Afghanistan. The US is now faced with a very difficult choice: either let Hamid Karzai be declared the victor in the first round, notwithstanding the serious allegations of fraud, or push for a run-off, with the attendant uncertainties and risks in a place as volatile as Afghanistan.

Domestically, President Obama is facing pressure from within his own party and from the public generally as Americans grapple with the necessity of the Afghan war.
What this adds up to, now more than ever, is the Obama administration needing to at the very least convince the skeptics that the war is winnable. But that means gaining Pakistan’s full cooperation, which in turn means alleviating the national security establishment’s concerns vis-à-vis India.

The Americans appear to have finally understood this and, more importantly from a Pakistani perspective, have become increasingly vocal about it. This should hopefully have a salutary effect on relations between the US and Pakistan, relations which have in part been hostage to Pakistan’s long-standing suspicions of the US being a fair-weather friend.

But welcome as it may be that the US appears to finally be coming around to understanding Pakistan’s security outlook, there are problems. Identifying the problem doesn’t mean the US is necessarily in a position to do something about it.

There are serious questions about whether India is in the mood to listen to advice suggesting it tamp down its interest in Afghanistan and about what leverage the Americans have to try and convince India. Be that as it may, it should not be lost on Pakistani policymakers that the US is at least willing to echo their view.

Source: Reuters

Obama reviews options in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama, under pressure for a swift decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan, has delayed action due to doubts about the election there and over the government’s legitimacy, officials said on Tuesday.

As a prominent Democrat lawmaker warned Obama not to repeat a “half-ass it and hope” policy, and Republicans accused him of foot dragging, the White House engaged in a thorough review of whether its war strategy would still be effective given the widespread reports of fraud in last month’s election.

Even the best counterinsurgency strategy “cannot work” without a legitimate government in place, one White House official said, underscoring the intense debate within the administration about how to move forward.

The Pentagon had initially anticipated that the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, would submit a request for more soldiers soon after delivering his confidential assessment on the war.

But White House and Pentagon officials said questions about Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s legitimacy have thrown that timetable off course. Consideration of a troop increase would now wait until Obama completed a review of the six-month-old counterinsurgency strategy.

That strategy hinges on protecting Afghan civilians, while rapidly bolstering Afghan security and governance in order to sap public support for the Taliban.

Officials said the White House wanted the picture to be clearer before taking a decision on resources that could spark a backlash within Obama’s own Democratic party, where doubts about the war resurfaced this summer.

But a leading Democrat warned Obama to give troops the backing and time they needed to succeed.

“The last administration allowed itself to be distracted from the fight forced on us in Afghanistan by the fight it chose in Iraq,” Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton said in a letter to Obama.

“I believe that this was a strategic mistake … resulting in an approach of ”half-ass it and hope”,” he said. “We cannot afford to continue that policy.”

OPTIONS ON THE TABLE

As part of the review, the administration is considering a range of options, from increasing U.S. force levels in Afghanistan to stepping up aerial attacks on Taliban and al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, or a combination of the two.

McChrystal, who warned in his leaked assessment that the mission was likely to fail without additional troops, may have a hard sell. Obama has described himself as a “skeptical audience” when it comes to the issue of sending more troops.

There are already more than 100,000 Western soldiers in Afghanistan battling an insurgency that has taken control of parts of the south and east of the country.

McChrystal was expected to recommend sending at least 30,000 more, but officials said the White House’s strategy rethink could force him to revise his request.

Karzai’s apparent eagerness to ignore widespread allegations of election fraud, hurry through the process and claim victory has chilled already frosty relations with the Obama administration, officials said.

One U.S. defense official said the fallout from the election was “certainly a complicating factor” in the way of swift consideration of McChrystal’s troop recommendations.

Officials said the main question being asked was whether the counterinsurgency strategy could still succeed if Karzai’s government was not seen by the Afghan people as legitimate.

“I don’t think so,” one official said when asked that question. “Will the Afghan people accept the results of the election? We don’t even know that yet.”

KABUL GOVERNMENT

Some Pentagon officials saw the administration’s sudden focus on the legitimacy of the Afghan government as an excuse for putting off a tough political decision on troops.

Critics suggested Obama was putting off the issue to keep his own Democratic party unified to pass a sweeping overhaul of healthcare, his top domestic policy priority.

Sen. John McCain, who lost the presidential race to Obama last year, said a decision on troops needed to be made urgently and said he was baffled by the idea that Obama would ask McChrystal to delay sending his recommendations.

“Frankly I do not understand, or perhaps I have never seen a disconnect like this between the military leadership and the White House on an issue,” McCain said.

But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat, dismissed talk of a rift as a media construct.