Islamic Republic of Afghanistan : News & Discussions

[Neo]

Whats your take on Taliban? Should they be back at power in Afg?

To be honest I think thats the only solution to keep it from falling apart. There's no way you can unite the four enthnical blocs and none of the other ethnities is strong enough to defeat the pashtuns.
We have already recognised the Taliban as a political entity and China too supports the concept. It's a matter of time and the Taliban will take over again. This time not as militants but as a pseudo democratic political party.

 

[_Anonymous_]

To be honest I think thats the only solution to keep it from falling apart. There's no way you can unite the four enthnical blocs and none of the other ethnities is strong enough to defeat the pashtuns.
We have already recognised the Taliban as a political entity and China too supports the concept. It's a matter of time and the Taliban will take over again. This time not as militants but as a pseudo democratic political party.

How come with all the support you provided the Taliban, they never reciprocated your "kind" gesture by recognizing the Durand Line in their first avataar? And if they haven't done so in their previous avataar, do you think they'd do it now?

The problem isn't with your lot i.e - Pakistani Punjabi, it's that we or more specifically our spineless leaders haven't exploited your fault lines, which incidentally is deeper than ours, even when you have done your worst.

But, apart from the fact that Kashmir is going to flare up in the near future, in anticipation of the Taliban in Kabul, I'd be very interested in the final outcome of Radd ul Fasaad & it's fallout in KPK ( including FATA) & the rest of the land of the pure, something that wasn't a factor during the first incarnation of the Taliban.

 

[T-123456]

To be honest I think thats the only solution to keep it from falling apart. There's no way you can unite the four enthnical blocs and none of the other ethnities is strong enough to defeat the pashtuns.
We have already recognised the Taliban as a political entity and China too supports the concept. It's a matter of time and the Taliban will take over again. This time not as militants but as a pseudo democratic political party.

Pseudo democratic?
Like in Iran or somewhere else?

 

[suryakiran]

Pseudo democratic?
Like in Iran or somewhere else?

That is not an option. An Afghanistan under the Taliban is a ticking time bomb. In Iran, civil society exists. In Afghanistan it does not. Afghanistan will be Saudi without the money. And guess what the creates. What Pakistan wants is to not shutdown the jihadi factories. It simply wants to move the jihadi factories from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

The only lasting solution is the break-up of the Pakistani state.

 

[Neo]

Pseudo democratic?
Like in Iran or somewhere else?

Iranian model will not work in Afghanistan due to lack of a powerful clergy, civil structure and a weak military.
Any future elected/selected govt will only survive with foreign support, i.e. the three major powers and Pakistan.
Iran and Saudia will support taliban above any puppet selected and installed by the west.

 

[Neo]

What Pakistan wants is to not shutdown the jihadi factories. It simply wants to move the jihadi factories from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

The only lasting solution is the break-up of the Pakistani state.

And this is the typical Indian mindset and failed foreign policy that has to be dealt with soon. India needs to get out of Afghanistan asap and stop sponsoring TTP and other terrorists.

We can deal with them ourself or hope that BJP wins next two elections. That will be enough to break up India. BJP is the best hope for Pakistan.

 

[Ginvincible]

To preface this comment, I'm looking at the Afghanistan situation from an American POV:

Whenever I hear about how we are going to resolve the situation in Afghanistan the solutions always end up being:
(a) Leave and let Afghanistan capitulate to the Taliban, returning it to a pre-2001 state.

(b) Stay there indefinitely, while maybe recruiting more allies, to prop up a weak Afghan government (just kicking the can further down the street).
or
(c) Make "peace" with the Taliban and allow them to participate as a legitimate political party (which is really just option (a) but with face saving for the US)

There have to be other solutions to consider.

I know there is a stigma with Erik Prince and Blackwater, but is the idea of an "Afghanistan Company" really that bad when compared to what we have now? I'm not saying to mimic the East India Company when it comes to colonization, but a private organization that manages private efforts to solve the issue. Privatize the war, incentivize mining & refining industries to fund the deployment of a mercenary army in exchange for lucrative contracts in Afghanistan's rich mineral deposits. There will have to be checks and balances on this private army, and it will have to train and coordinate with the Afghan National Army. There will have to be an international body providing oversight and strict penalties for violations.
This plan, theoretically, should generate a more robust economy that employs tens of thousands of Afghans, bringing in funds for the Afghan government to build infrastructure, schools, electricity, etc. Hopefully the employment/poverty reduction and new business opportunities that will arise out of the stronger economy will dissuade local Afghans from taking up arms. If violent elements remain, there is a private army with the Afghan Army to meet them. Regardless, it will turn Afghanistan from a lost cause into a something remotely stable. It will keep the land from becoming another terror hotbed while transforming it into something productive and will ultimately result in a more stable state.


Alternately, there might be merit in just partitioning Afghanistan into Afghanistan and Pashtunistan. Concentrating remaining coalition efforts in the newly formed Pashtun nation would be a step to save money and allow the new Afghanistan to develop and integrate with the rest of the world. Might not work out perfectly, but it might atleast localize the violence and efforts to combat that violence.

 

[Neo]

A private army of such an magnitude will have to deploy more than 100.000 highly trained and armed soldiers, maybe even double the size of what US/Nato brought with them. Who is going to pay for it? Afghanistan may have rich deposits of minerals, it takes time and again money to build the infrastructure before you can generate a single penny.
And he big Q is; who is going to control such a powerful institution which is not patriotic but works for money.

 

[Ginvincible]

A private army of such an magnitude will have to deploy more than 100.000 highly trained and armed soldiers, maybe even double the size of what US/Nato brought with them. Who is going to pay for it? Afghanistan may have rich deposits of minerals, it takes time and again money to build the infrastructure before you can generate a single penny.
And he big Q is; who is going to control such a powerful institution which is not patriotic but works for money.

Do you really need over 100,000 troops to combat a spread out insurgency? Even now that the Taliban are resurgent, there are only around 17,000 foreign troops spread throughout the country. The mercenaries themselves will be retired soldiers, marines, etc. so training shouldn't be an issue. The mercenary contractors will work under a larger company that manages the relationships between the government of Afghanistan, the private army and companies seeking to benefit from Afghanistan's riches. This company will come to manage the private operations in Afghanistan going forward. The funding can initially come from the current ISAF participants in exchange for ownership in this company (and thus future revenue earned in this company). I'm sure whatever funding is required will be far less than the $45B a year that's currently being spent in upkeep and operations. Other private entities, namely the MNCs that will benefit from extracting and refining the Afghan resources, will also compete with one another for resource deposits and will fund this entity. Their prize/motivation will be the lucrative deals and tax benefits they receive from the Afghan government. The Afghan government gets the tax income and stability.

This private entity will have to have oversight. An international committee that ensures it up keeps human rights and doesn't involve itself in criminal activity will have to be there. The comittee could be a UN initiative or a continuation of ISAF oversight committees.

To make the offer more palatable to China and Pakistan perhaps an arrangement could be made. Allow Chinese companies (or really any company globally) to participate in this endeavor. Pakistan's new Gwadar port could even compete for exclusivity deals in exporting the resources collected and refined in Afghanistan (or maybe India with their Chabahar port?).

 

[suryakiran]

And this is the typical Indian mindset and failed foreign policy that has to be dealt with soon. India needs to get out of Afghanistan asap and stop sponsoring TTP and other terrorists.

We can deal with them ourself or hope that BJP wins next two elections. That will be enough to break up India. BJP is the best hope for Pakistan.

Indian mindset cannot be changed, till the day Pakistani mindset of good jihadi and bad jihadi is not removed. Good terrorist and bad terrorist. Good Taliban and bad Taliban.

And both of us know, this is not going to happen. Usage of state sponsored terrorism is a tool of Pakistani foreign policy. With more than 50,000 civilians being killed due to your foreign policy, I don't think it needs to be seen what has failed.

 

[Milspec]

A private army of such an magnitude will have to deploy more than 100.000 highly trained and armed soldiers, maybe even double the size of what US/Nato brought with them. Who is going to pay for it? Afghanistan may have rich deposits of minerals, it takes time and again money to build the infrastructure before you can generate a single penny.
And he big Q is; who is going to control such a powerful institution which is not patriotic but works for money.

The only issue with that being the maturity of Taliban as a political organisation.

 

[RATHORE]

To preface this comment, I'm looking at the Afghanistan situation from an American POV:

Whenever I hear about how we are going to resolve the situation in Afghanistan the solutions always end up being:
(a) Leave and let Afghanistan capitulate to the Taliban, returning it to a pre-2001 state.

(b) Stay there indefinitely, while maybe recruiting more allies, to prop up a weak Afghan government (just kicking the can further down the street).
or
(c) Make "peace" with the Taliban and allow them to participate as a legitimate political party (which is really just option (a) but with face saving for the US)

There have to be other solutions to consider.

I know there is a stigma with Erik Prince and Blackwater, but is the idea of an "Afghanistan Company" really that bad when compared to what we have now? I'm not saying to mimic the East India Company when it comes to colonization, but a private organization that manages private efforts to solve the issue. Privatize the war, incentivize mining & refining industries to fund the deployment of a mercenary army in exchange for lucrative contracts in Afghanistan's rich mineral deposits. There will have to be checks and balances on this private army, and it will have to train and coordinate with the Afghan National Army. There will have to be an international body providing oversight and strict penalties for violations.
This plan, theoretically, should generate a more robust economy that employs tens of thousands of Afghans, bringing in funds for the Afghan government to build infrastructure, schools, electricity, etc. Hopefully the employment/poverty reduction and new business opportunities that will arise out of the stronger economy will dissuade local Afghans from taking up arms. If violent elements remain, there is a private army with the Afghan Army to meet them. Regardless, it will turn Afghanistan from a lost cause into a something remotely stable. It will keep the land from becoming another terror hotbed while transforming it into something productive and will ultimately result in a more stable state.


Alternately, there might be merit in just partitioning Afghanistan into Afghanistan and Pashtunistan. Concentrating remaining coalition efforts in the newly formed Pashtun nation would be a step to save money and allow the new Afghanistan to develop and integrate with the rest of the world. Might not work out perfectly, but it might atleast localize the violence and efforts to combat that violence.

Blackwater + ANA is good; if India could step up to the plate (assisting the fight in monetary and physical forms) that'd really help things. If the Taliban takes Afghanistan, India will eventually be fighting them at its own doorstep anyways. And who knows, while the Russians and Iranians have crossed over to the other side and are not at odds with the Taliban (and actively looking to cut deals) - if a situation arises where the Taliban rapidly loses momentum and the US isn't around anymore, they might also turn against them (part of the reason RUS & IR became pro-Taliban was to stick it to the USA; at their cores neither can truly be friends with the Taliban).

A reinforced ANA, a Blackwater not straightjacketed by rules & diplomatic ties w/ Pakistan, an India that really steps up and punches its weight, and Russia & Iran working as "swing votes" in the region; backed up by serious development in Taliban free areas without the (often) counterproductive presence of the US might just be what the region needs. As for China, they may have Pakistan as a rented attack dog; but I doubt they're huge fans of the Taliban either, they know a fire that starts in Afghanistan will eventually make its way to Xinjiang too.

 

[Ginvincible]

Blackwater + ANA is good; if India could step up to the plate (assisting the fight in monetary and physical forms) that'd really help things. If the Taliban takes Afghanistan, India will eventually be fighting them at its own doorstep anyways. And who knows, while the Russians and Iranians have crossed over to the other side and are not at odds with the Taliban (and actively looking to cut deals) - if a situation arises where the Taliban rapidly loses momentum and the US isn't around anymore, they might also turn against them (part of the reason RUS & IR became pro-Taliban was to stick it to the USA; at their cores neither can truly be friends with the Taliban).

A reinforced ANA, a Blackwater not straightjacketed by rules & diplomatic ties w/ Pakistan, an India that really steps up and punches its weight, and Russia & Iran working as "swing votes" in the region; backed up by serious development in Taliban free areas without the (often) counterproductive presence of the US might just be what the region needs. As for China, they may have Pakistan as a rented attack dog; but I doubt they're huge fans of the Taliban either, they know a fire that starts in Afghanistan will eventually make its way to Xinjiang too.

A resurgent and militant Taliban suits nobody in the long run, even Pakistan. Ideally the Taliban would conform to international norms and support the democratic process...but nobody believes they will do this. India definitely has a role to play in stabilizing Afghanistan, we will just have to see what that role is.

I should say, that I only expect PMCs to provide defense from Taliban/extremist offenses. They should only exist to protect infrastructure, people, foreign assets and the authority of the Afghan government. Any offensive action will be left to the Afghan National Army, with limited supervision from PMCs. However, I truly believe it's soley up to the Afghan government to "win the war", and they only way they will do this is by providing incentive to follow paths other than Jihad to the population. This isn't something that will happen overnight. It will take generations of economic growth and education to resolve. American soldiers cant remain there for that long, which is why I mainly liked the idea of PMCs

Also I'm certain that everything won't go down perfectly. PMCs earned their terrible reputation in Iraq for a reason. There will be plenty of opportunity for elements within this "Afghanistan Company" to run underground criminal empires amid the prevalent corruption that exists. I'm sure that there will be cases of serious human rights abuses. There will be cost overruns and a lot of foreign policy maneuvering to be had. But these problems aren't exclusive to private military contractors, these are all problems that plague our existing military presence in Afghanistan. In order for this to work the US government will have to subject the contractors to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and have a robust & genuine oversight committee. Contractors will also have to take accountability for their actions.

At the end of the day, even with all the problems that will come with private military contractors, you are still allowing for the development of some economy, preventing the reestablishment of terror hotbeds and bringing stability to the area. All the while doing so much more affordably than the current methods.

 

[Arvind]

To be honest I think thats the only solution to keep it from falling apart. There's no way you can unite the four enthnical blocs and none of the other ethnities is strong enough to defeat the pashtuns.
We have already recognised the Taliban as a political entity and China too supports the concept. It's a matter of time and the Taliban will take over again. This time not as militants but as a pseudo democratic political party.

How much your answer has to do with kind of leverage Pakistan has on Taliban?

Is taliban way the only way ahead for Afghans? Will they ever see civil society?

 

[Arvind]

Pseudo democratic?
Like in Iran or somewhere else?

Can we make Taliban forget the "taliban way" of doing things, especially when things are not so rosy.

 

[Neo]

How much your answer has to do with kind of leverage Pakistan has on Taliban?

Is taliban way the only way ahead for Afghans? Will they ever see civil society?

We don't have the leverage over talibans we used to have since we joined US led war on terror. US over the years has done a lot of damage by killing their leaders just when we were on the verge of a break thru to get a peace deal or open a communication channel between them and the Americans.
But we know them better than anyone and still know how to persuade them to come to the table.
We support the concept of them entering the politics and participate in elections and counter Northern Alliance which historically has been hostile to us.

I'm not sure if I understand the second question; what do you mean with the 'taliban way'?
Afaik the mujahideen gave birth to the Talibans. They want to rule Afghanistan and make her a souvreign nation again and get it liberated from occupiers. if that's the Taliban way then yes, it works for for me.
The civil society is almost non existant in afghanistan. The leaders are US puppets and even the institutions are run with foreign aid so they take diktat from abroad. If Taliban took over, atleast we will see some patriotic guys heading the institurions and put Afghan interests first.
Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks are all sell outs, Taliban are not. Not even with Saudi money.

 

[Neo]

Can we make Taliban forget the "taliban way" of doing things, especially when things are not so rosy.

Taliban are not a threat to anyone. the mercinaries are long gone. It was Al Qaeda in the beginnig and now ita replaced by IS which again is facilitated by the Americans who lifed them over from Syria.

 

[Neo]

The only issue with that being the maturity of Taliban as a political organisation.

Valid point. To get political maturity one must have strong institutions and good leaders. Something we too are struggling with ever since we became a country.

 

[Neo]

Indian mindset cannot be changed, till the day Pakistani mindset of good jihadi and bad jihadi is not removed. Good terrorist and bad terrorist. Good Taliban and bad Taliban.

That's hilarious. Which Taliban are to desperate to talk to now? The good ones or the bad ones?
What happened to "we don"t talk to terrorists" mantra? Turned out to be another fart?

And both of us know, this is not going to happen. Usage of state sponsored terrorism is a tool of Pakistani foreign policy. With more than 50,000 civilians being killed due to your foreign policy, I don't think it needs to be seen what has failed.

Quite rich coming from you after what you have done to the innocent Kashmiris last year. If that is not state sponsored terrorism then what is?

You have been killing your own people throughout your modern history. IAF bombed Nagaland and killed many and Indira killed thousands of fasting saints in Delhi (7/11/1966).
Kashmir too has lost thousands of civilians by attrocities.

 

[Volcano]

Quite rich coming from you after what you have done to the innocent Kashmiris last year. If that is not state sponsored terrorism then what is?

Good news is that not even a single "Innocent Kashmiri" died last year in the hands of Indian forces. Few hundred Islamic terrorists and revolting mob did died. Lots of innocent Kashmiris are killed by terrorists though, including the Sikh civilian killed last week.

You have been killing your own people throughout your modern history. IAF bombed Nagaland and killed many and Indira killed thousands of fasting saints in Delhi (7/11/1966).
Kashmir too has lost thousands of civilians by attrocities.

No one bombed Nagaland, certainly not IAF. There was a bombing in Assam in 1960s during a militant attack, the first and last use of airpower in India. Indiara never killed any fasting saints, police opened fire on a revolting mob of anti-cow slaughter revolters attacking parliament. Kashmir suffered civilian deaths due to the state sponsoring of terrorism by Pakistan and its gift of tens of thousands of Punjabi and Pushtun terrorists. The negligible violence in Kashmir before 1989 is a testimony to that.