Pakistan

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Toramana is here trying to say "If you are against the war in Afghanistan you support isi and pakistan interests" how is that even possible?

Wrorre, they are uncomfortable with their own past mistakes and sins that either they or their parents committed when they left their people to fight the Russian juggernaut or now as they surrender their people over to the Pakistani fauj under some feudal banner called ANP. They refuse to comment on Commander Dauran as depicted by Paul Refsdahl because it reminds them of their humiliations and guilt. They know he is as Afghan as they come and that he represents the beating heart of the Afghan populace that rises against what they seek to impose upon it. They cannot, with their own hands, kill such a man who represents, in his most basic element, the proof positive that struggle against tyranny can proceed with even the most base weapons if one has the heart of a lion.

There were oppressors like this before. When the CIA agent held a gun to Che Guevara, after they caught him in Bolivia as he struggled against imperialism under the banner of an ideology that I do not agree with (yet I still admire his goals), they could not pull the trigger. He, per their own records, looked squarely at them and said "what, are you afraid to simply kill a man?" And the agent passed the gun to his Bolivian henchman who pulled the trigger.

These people, like Karzai Bibi/Toramana are comfortable letting the Americans kill Commander Dauran and his children because they do not want their own hands to get dirty. In Baygham's words, "why get your own hands dirty when you got a slave to do it for you!"

They sleep at night by labeling these folks that carry the banner against tyranny with terms like Terrorist/Fascist/Paki agent etc. In their heart of hearts they know that they are kil

Force them to comment on who this man is, and to justify how this individual is either brainwashed, indoctrinated by Pakistan, ISI created, or some secret Panjabi in Pashtun clothes:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e5_1283088242

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Noone's given me an explanation of who caused the Civil War. I've heard many people blurt out Pakistan, but noone has told me how.

You do realize that the Civil War in Afghanistan started in 1991, well before the emergence of the Taliban? Who started it in 1991 is what I was asking? Don't blurt Pakistan. What did Pakistan do to instigate the Civil War? And give some evidence.

Let's assume the Afghan people wanted the ex-king back. Why wasn't he part of the 5-point UN peace plan? And why did Masood launch an attack on Kabul before the peace plan was finalized?

I think I can offer you some information. Per Scheuer's latest book, a bio of Osama Bin Ladin, he says that of the factions, the contribution Pakistan made to the Civil War was as follows:

Saudi Intelligence and the ISI supported Abdul Rasul Sayyaf (he was a favorite of Turky Bin Faisal). Abdul Azzam on the other hand supported Mossoud. Mr. Bin Ladin appeared to support a Pashtun dominance as well and broke ranks with Azzam, but remained cordial. So I think that there is evidence that Pakistan did have its money on a particular horse. The dilemma was that they simulataneously backed Hekmetyaar in the assumption that if their other war horses lost, they could at least have someone sympathic to their cause. Bin Ladin collected the various factions together and attempted to bargain a peace between the factions to no avail. He was in Jalalabad and had not heard of the Taliban when they poured out of Helmand and approached Jalalabad. When they took it, they asked him his loyalties and made an armistace with them. However, even he was surprised by their rapid ascendency from the chaos of the Civil War. So it would seem reasonable to assume that where Sayyaf and Hekmetyaar could not win with their backers money/arms; Pakistan saw more promise in this nascent movement being cradled in the Arghandab and Urzogan that eventually gave birth to the Taliban and catalyzed what was likely to happen anyways. In the mean time, America (once again per Dr. Scheuer's excellent work) and western powers had not, as is popularly stated, abandoned Afghanistan. They were working heavily and actively to install a secular and irreligious government, which was ridiculous as they had utilized religious and devout men to win the war while soft handed, effeminate, elitists ran to mud baths in Italy.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Barakzai your initial argument on Khyber-Pashtunkhwa is fallacious. The reason Pashtunkhwa should be separated from the policy of Pakistan (in the way you described it) is simply that one of the intentions of Pakistan's policy was to sideline the Pashtuns east of the durand line. Pakistan, due to the initial history of its creation, has had a rough patch in that region so they had to formulate a policy which they perceived could sideline the Pashtuns east of the line politically. Second of all, had these policies bore any fruit for Pashtunkhwa Pashtuns then they wouldn't be the primary losers in it. Up until now, Pashtunkhwa has gone backwards in all counts thanks to this policy. And it is becoming even more clearer that those regions are at best a second tier region and at worse a backyard for strategic games. I don't think it is fair for you to make such statements and you have to stop going back "listening to kabul, etc". That is not the point. The 30 years of war in Afghanistan has had political consequences for Pashtuns on both sides, it is not as simple as saying they won't listen to kabul or Kabul won't accept them. The situation has fundamentally crossed that. When we look at Pashtun lands now we have to look at it from different perspective and with different actors.

Michael Scheur is a decent analyst at best, but he is by no means the only one....one can also take a look at Selig Harrison, Ahmed Rashid, etc.

P.S. ISI initially supported Hekmatyaar until the 90s bore a different outcome during the siege of Kabul. Azzam and OBL's break I believe also came from some internal issues of the Arab fighter's ranks.

[fzpz]

I respect Selig Harrison for crying in an opinion piece about China building a hi-speed train through a tectonic collision zone, through the highest mountains in the world, to a place where there is no economic, cultural, or political viability of such an adventure by the chinese. The chinese are also putting in missile silos in Gilgit-Baltistan because they ran out of places to put them in all the mountains in Tibet. I suspect your crush on Harrison is more for his comical diatribes than actual reason or analysis.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

I respect Selig Harrison for crying in an opinion piece about China building a hi-speed train through a tectonic collision zone, through the highest mountains in the world, to a place where there is no economic, cultural, or political viability of such an adventure by the chinese. The chinese are also putting in missile silos in Gilgit-Baltistan because they ran out of places to put them in all the mountains in Tibet. I suspect your crush on Harrison is more for his comical diatribes than actual reason or analysis.

fzpz typical lol. The man correctly predicted the 1965 war and has been one of the leading experts on the region. He has given many talks on the internal dynamics of Pakistan and probably runs circles on the likes muhibe watan when it comes to the politics of Baluchistan and Sindh. Of course he is not infallible and his article on the China-karakarom has its issues...but then again do you know of any experts who have not made similar mis-calculations? I can give you one, it is called operation Gibralter ;-).

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Barakzai your initial argument on Khyber-Pashtunkhwa is fallacious. The reason Pashtunkhwa should be separated from the policy of Pakistan (in the way you described it) is simply that one of the intentions of Pakistan's policy was to sideline the Pashtuns east of the durand line. Pakistan, due to the initial history of its creation, has had a rough patch in that region so they had to formulate a policy which they perceived could sideline the Pashtuns east of the line politically. Second of all, had these policies bore any fruit for Pashtunkhwa Pashtuns then they wouldn't be the primary losers in it. Up until now, Pashtunkhwa has gone backwards in all counts thanks to this policy. And it is becoming even more clearer that those regions are at best a second tier region and at worse a backyard for strategic games. I don't think it is fair for you to make such statements and you have to stop going back "listening to kabul, etc". That is not the point. The 30 years of war in Afghanistan has had political consequences for Pashtuns on both sides, it is not as simple as saying they won't listen to kabul or Kabul won't accept them. The situation has fundamentally crossed that. When we look at Pashtun lands now we have to look at it from different perspective and with different actors.

Michael Scheur is a decent analyst at best, but he is by no means the only one....one can also take a look at Selig Harrison, Ahmed Rashid, etc.

P.S. ISI initially supported Hekmatyaar until the 90s bore a different outcome during the siege of Kabul. Azzam and OBL's break I believe also came from some internal issues of the Arab fighter's ranks.

Salamoona BLS wrorre. Thank you for your measured response. I think you misunderstood me. In my wildest dreams wrorre, I see a state spanning the major Pashtun cities of Qandahar, Jalalabad, and Peshawar. And I think we are just missing eachother in what I am attempting to say. In it, I attend your wedding and fire guns at Toramana's wedding if he invites me. But then there is reality.

I am trying to say that the general refrain (one that I believed and myself advocated) until I traveled there to Pashtunkhwa, was the view that Graveyard espouses. Basically, if you wanted to see a younger version of me, look right at Graveyard. He's not at all naieve... he's brave, patriotic, and a wonderful person. However, he also lives in idylls of the king, which all of us are raised on. Abdali and his exploits are our staples for breakfast lunch and dinner. All of us dream of the return of his daur.

What I am commenting on (and let me clarify that I DO NOT think that Graveyard holds this view) is this absurd scenario:

Pakistan fractures --> Khybar Pashtunkhwa asserts itself vs Afghan troops/ANA soldiers/tribal soldiers pour across the border and retake it ---> holds a referendum --> joins Afghanistan proper ---> legitimate Pashtun leaders (i.e. Not Sherpao, not the Mianguls, etc) swear fealty to Karzai --> We throw flowers at eachother --> the monarchy resumes or a republic is created where basically transplant American governance style to Pashtunkhwa and you have a Pashtun Obama running in an election against a Pashtun McCain one day.

A possible scenario is Pakistan fractures --> Khybar Pashtunkhwa asserts itself --> it looks out for its own interests and has free trade with whatever Afghanistan emerges and close links emerge over time.

I think the anecdotal evidence that the majority of Peshawaris that I meet think that Mullah Omar was perfect for Afghanistan but not to rule over them, and now they also think Karzai is in their dialect "Kriyaa titoo (they told me titto is urdoo for donkey)" makes it hard for me to believe in scenario 1 my friend.

Where I ought to caution you from wishful thinking is in regard to FATA itself and I can provide evidences. I can refer you to a well known source (a text on 19th century governance in Afghanistan) and I am married into the Wazirs and can provide you anecdote as well from this experience (here is where Toramana chimes in regarding my in laws having some admiration for Zia). I will provide these for you later as I am traveling at an airport and am writing fast. But the source (called Tribal Governance in 19th Century Afghanistan) indicates that Ahmad Shah Baba had great difficulty in securing loyalty from the Wazirs and never was able to extract tax from them. They and the Mehsuds were fiercly independent against Durrani rule. In fact, they never swore fealty to the crown.

The other thing is that Wana itself, per in laws of mine from there that are in the yargu khel malik lineage, was taken from adjacent tribes in Afghanistan. Despite this occuring way back, there is still bad blood, hence the fued between the Kharotiyaan and the Waziryaan. In fact, when Zahir Shah armed the Kharotyaan and when they made excursions under his directives after the creation of Pakistan, it was a disaster because it was liking army one tribe against its enemy. Many Wazirs were killed during these excursions. So now, imagine if an Afghan tribal army cross the frontier to reclaim it... do you think the Waziryaan would greet the Kharotyaan like brothers coming to free them from Pakistani hegemony??? And do you think the Kharotyaan would not seize and take lands?

BLS, these are realities and they have to be considered. That is what I mean when I advocate against a kabulcentric design where Afghanyaan march across the border and "retake" Pashtunkhwa". Each tribe, in the modern era, is well equipped to fight long and hard. You do not want Pashtun on Pashtun violence and massacres to occur for some pipe dream.

So once again, regarding the fracture of Pakistan... I am with you all the way brother. Regarding the rest of it... show me your vision and build the evidence otherwise, otherwise I cannot but help follow the evidence trail.

Regarding Scheuer, he has been spot on about the Afghan escalations that Obama would pursue and wrote about it in Imperial Hubris and Marching Towards Hell. He basically discussed the Mumbai Massacres before they happened... he is an amazing anti terrorism/security studies mind. I will look into your other recs though with great vigor.

Remember, I deeply respect you and Admin Khan. If you and Admin Khan create the Admin Khan/BLS insurgency I would have no problem saying its the best alternative. Until then, I have to go on assuming that the only show in town is Omar and his boys and that they have far more legitmacy than Hamid Bibi who is basically the left hand of Fahim Kaka.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Salamoona BLS wrorre. Thank you for your measured response. I think you misunderstood me. In my wildest dreams wrorre, I see a state spanning the major Pashtun cities of Qandahar, Jalalabad, and Peshawar. And I think we are just missing eachother in what I am attempting to say. In it, I attend your wedding and fire guns at Toramana's wedding if he invites me. But then there is reality.

I am trying to say that the general refrain (one that I believed and myself advocated) until I traveled there to Pashtunkhwa, was the view that Graveyard espouses. Basically, if you wanted to see a younger version of me, look right at Graveyard. He's not at all naieve... he's brave, patriotic, and a wonderful person. However, he also lives in idylls of the king, which all of us are raised on. Abdali and his exploits are our staples for breakfast lunch and dinner. All of us dream of the return of his daur.

What I am commenting on (and let me clarify that I DO NOT think that Graveyard holds this view) is this absurd scenario:

Pakistan fractures --> Khybar Pashtunkhwa asserts itself vs Afghan troops/ANA soldiers/tribal soldiers pour across the border and retake it ---> holds a referendum --> joins Afghanistan proper ---> legitimate Pashtun leaders (i.e. Not Sherpao, not the Mianguls, etc) swear fealty to Karzai --> We throw flowers at eachother --> the monarchy resumes or a republic is created where basically transplant American governance style to Pashtunkhwa and you have a Pashtun Obama running in an election against a Pashtun McCain one day.

A possible scenario is Pakistan fractures --> Khybar Pashtunkhwa asserts itself --> it looks out for its own interests and has free trade with whatever Afghanistan emerges and close links emerge over time.

I think the anecdotal evidence that the majority of Peshawaris that I meet think that Mullah Omar was perfect for Afghanistan but not to rule over them, and now they also think Karzai is in their dialect "Kriyaa titoo (they told me titto is urdoo for donkey)" makes it hard for me to believe in scenario 1 my friend.

Where I ought to caution you from wishful thinking is in regard to FATA itself and I can provide evidences. I can refer you to a well known source (a text on 19th century governance in Afghanistan) and I am married into the Wazirs and can provide you anecdote as well from this experience (here is where Toramana chimes in regarding my in laws having some admiration for Zia). I will provide these for you later as I am traveling at an airport and am writing fast. But the source (called Tribal Governance in 19th Century Afghanistan) indicates that Ahmad Shah Baba had great difficulty in securing loyalty from the Wazirs and never was able to extract tax from them. They and the Mehsuds were fiercly independent against Durrani rule. In fact, they never swore fealty to the crown.

The other thing is that Wana itself, per in laws of mine from there that are in the yargu khel malik lineage, was taken from adjacent tribes in Afghanistan. Despite this occuring way back, there is still bad blood, hence the fued between the Kharotiyaan and the Waziryaan. In fact, when Zahir Shah armed the Kharotyaan and when they made excursions under his directives after the creation of Pakistan, it was a disaster because it was liking army one tribe against its enemy. Many Wazirs were killed during these excursions. So now, imagine if an Afghan tribal army cross the frontier to reclaim it... do you think the Waziryaan would greet the Kharotyaan like brothers coming to free them from Pakistani hegemony??? And do you think the Kharotyaan would not seize and take lands?

BLS, these are realities and they have to be considered. That is what I mean when I advocate against a kabulcentric design where Afghanyaan march across the border and "retake" Pashtunkhwa". Each tribe, in the modern era, is well equipped to fight long and hard. You do not want Pashtun on Pashtun violence and massacres to occur for some pipe dream.

So once again, regarding the fracture of Pakistan... I am with you all the way brother. Regarding the rest of it... show me your vision and build the evidence otherwise, otherwise I cannot but help follow the evidence trail.

Regarding Scheuer, he has been spot on about the Afghan escalations that Obama would pursue and wrote about it in Imperial Hubris and Marching Towards Hell. He basically discussed the Mumbai Massacres before they happened... he is an amazing anti terrorism/security studies mind. I will look into your other recs though with great vigor.

Remember, I deeply respect you and Admin Khan. If you and Admin Khan create the Admin Khan/BLS insurgency I would have no problem saying its the best alternative. Until then, I have to go on assuming that the only show in town is Omar and his boys and that they have far more legitmacy than Hamid Bibi who is basically the left hand of Fahim Kaka.

I see where you are coming from. However this has little to do with Afghanistan and more to do with what happened to Pashtunkhwa post-1893. Pashtunkhwa (and I told this to Admin khan, amir ul ghaznavi, etc) is that within Pashtunkhwa there are political gaps. These gaps are what differentiates between the peshawarite from a swatae from a wazir, etc. However, you have to remember that necessity is an important driver. In the event of a breakdown in the region it won't be possible for Pashtunkhwa (Khyber part) to be split from the other areas. The resulting scenario will push it towards a sort of unity. I think this is will also eventually led to unity with the Pashtuns to the west of the durand line.

Imagine a scenario of a breakdown of Pakistan with a possible civil war (or even stable Afghanistan). In either case there is an issue of dependence. Pashtunkhwa and Afghanistan will have to depend on each other for cultural and economic reasons. It can't be that Khyber-Pashtunkhwa will seek out a future in a vacuum, without it affecting the other Pashtun areas. FATA itself despite the tribal enmities, still has strong links west of the durand line (dare I say much stronger there than to Khyber-Pashtunkhwa).

Also remember the political actors have changed. Those days of a separate yousafzai confederacy, or khattak confederacy, of Ghilzai, wazir, etc are gone. Now for the most part political parties (or opportunities) are transcending. We have to really look at the actors who are politically or militarily active (taliban, a post-taliban without pakistan, anp, pkmap, post-these parties outside of Pakistan, etc). Only then can we gauge the situation further. Obviously with those political gaps, differences arise, but what nation or people don't have this? Even US, despite its development, is going to a cultural divide (or at least how they have marketed it, liberals vs conservatives, bible belt, etc). This is the nature of any society. However with more stability the two sides will come closer...it is the only natural bond and the only one artificially divided. Even today the amount of trade between the two is huge, imagine if Pashtunkhwa was autonomous and Afghanistan was stable...the possibilities are huge. It isn't an issue about retaking, those days are gone, now it is an issue of a scenario in a region that can prompt a change in how we view Central and South Asia. The line is almost non-existent to the locals, any major push can result in greater changes (remember no government including the talibs acknowledge).

Ideally the best scenario is to stabilize Afghanistan and make Pashtunkhwa an autonomous unified region (even within Pakistan). That, in my opinion, is the only logical format to overcome any political and regional gaps over the years.

[roadrunner]

I think I can offer you some information. Per Scheuer's latest book, a bio of Osama Bin Ladin, he says that of the factions, the contribution Pakistan made to the Civil War was as follows:

Saudi Intelligence and the ISI supported Abdul Rasul Sayyaf (he was a favorite of Turky Bin Faisal). Abdul Azzam on the other hand supported Mossoud. Mr. Bin Ladin appeared to support a Pashtun dominance as well and broke ranks with Azzam, but remained cordial. So I think that there is evidence that Pakistan did have its money on a particular horse. The dilemma was that they simulataneously backed Hekmetyaar in the assumption that if their other war horses lost, they could at least have someone sympathic to their cause. Bin Ladin collected the various factions together and attempted to bargain a peace between the factions to no avail. He was in Jalalabad and had not heard of the Taliban when they poured out of Helmand and approached Jalalabad. When they took it, they asked him his loyalties and made an armistace with them. However, even he was surprised by their rapid ascendency from the chaos of the Civil War. So it would seem reasonable to assume that where Sayyaf and Hekmetyaar could not win with their backers money/arms; Pakistan saw more promise in this nascent movement being cradled in the Arghandab and Urzogan that eventually gave birth to the Taliban and catalyzed what was likely to happen anyways. In the mean time, America (once again per Dr. Scheuer's excellent work) and western powers had not, as is popularly stated, abandoned Afghanistan. They were working heavily and actively to install a secular and irreligious government, which was ridiculous as they had utilized religious and devout men to win the war while soft handed, effeminate, elitists ran to mud baths in Italy.

It's not as simple as that.

Sayyaf was Saudi's man in Afghanistan. The GID supported him. Hekmatyar was probably ISI's man for a while. Dostum probably was Uzbekistan's man etc. They all had backing from somewhere or other.

But what caused the failure of the UN peace plan? Which man was it? Massoud for his pre-emptive strike on Kabul?

Or was it Rabbani for his sham election by the "Council of wise men", which violated the Peshawar Accords that everyone agreed to?

A bit later, in 1993, the Islamabad Accords were signed. Mujadidi became president of Afghanistan, but his term finished and it was Rabbani's turn. Again, Rabbani, once in power, did not vacate the presidency but tried holding onto it.

Since Rabbani's name comes up twice, who was pulling his strings? Pakistan?

It's very easy sitting blurting out Pakistan to everything. But the reality is it was nowhere like that.

[ComradePashtun]

Pakizai,

You are treading on a flaw logic with your lateral Paki-defence mindset. I guess you too need to update since such hard end approach for Pashtun unity i.e. through Afghan tribal or otherwise even ANA conquest is essentially obsolete. Even if that was the case Kharoti and Waziri ancient clash won't set the standards. Try hard. If anything Waziris and Maseeds have championed collectivised Pashtun sense of macro and solidarity as a nation through the course of history. Had the Afghan government been just a little stronger when Pakistan came in to existence it could well have been an integral part of today's Afghanistan. And at times they were let down by Kabul either through choice or compulsion and pressure to take their independence for Angreezan first and then Filthistan.

Although I agree with alot in what you have made the effort draw on in term of how Afghans are fending against occupation, but that itself negates your Paki line of Mullah Omar being "the only game in the town." it's the people who are fighting not Mullah Omar who is most probably hiden in a safe-house.

Will add my view on the topic some other time, gotta catch up with something.

[ComradePashtun]

Roadrunner,

In all honesty,at least in my view and probably history will prove it too, that the civil war was by and large an internal Afghan making. The question you are posing answer it first in foremost. Pakistan's manipulation cannot be ruled out. Your attribution of Afghans equating their use of Pakistan to strategic depth of Pakistan is comical. :-) I will reply to it when I have time and chance it is killing me using my phone now.

[Michin Khel]

barakzai saab inter-tribal differences and clashes r not as such as you r assuming. Wazir and mehsud do have differences and enemity but they quickly become one outside waziristan and their unity is examplary.
Recently marwats and bhittanis had war but both associate with each other than with others because they are neighbours and r similar tribes in terms of dialect and culture.
We fight with each other but we also love each other, sorry its hard for me to explain the point in my broken english.

[khushal]

Just trying to inject reality my main man. Don't get defensive. I do love you despite our disagreements.You're right, i should read the Qur'an. It would teach both of us not to make up crap.

FZPZ,
It is in no ones interest for me to make things up, I saw this with my own eyes but here are some references.
POSSIBLE THEFT OF U.S. AFGHAN AID BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE G.A.O. - NYTimes.com

even Wikipedia has a minor reference about it.
Soviet war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The theft of large sums of aid spurred Pakistan's economic growth, but along with the war in general had devastating side effects for that country.
The siphoning off of aid weapons in the port city of Karachi contributed to disorder and violence there.

But back to topic.
What would have avoided a civil war in afghanistan was when the departure of soviet forces had commenced. A peace deal with the Najib Government should have been pushed and encouraged. The civil war in Afghanistan didnt start in 1992, it started the minute the soviets left in 1989. Pakistan's refusal to create an alternative leadership to Najib's administration ensured a collapse of the central government in Kabul and the inevitable civil that followed.
UN peace deals almost never work in any war ravaged region because they are not enforced, so I would say Pakistan is still to blame.

Refugee Cooperation - Publications - Afghanistan : "The Saga of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan" by Rostum Shah Mohmand.

The primary reason for the recurrence of conflict was that the Mujahideen had not developed a consensus alternative leadership. Nor had they agreed on how the contours and parameters of the new Islamic state were to be drawn. However, the Mujahideen factions were not alone to blame. The Government of Pakistan was also complicit. Regrettably, there was no spadework by the Pakistani ruling establishment on how to meet the eventuality of an Afghanistan that is no longer under the control of pro-communist parties. Equally, there was no attempt to seek to obtain an agreement with Najibullah so that upon his withdrawal there would be some rules of the game to observe.
The result was a civil war. With Afghanistan lying at their feet, the Mujahideen factions did not know how to adjust themselves to rule, administer, govern a country for the independence of which they had waged such a heroic struggle and given such huge sacrifices.

Calling the Majahedeen factions in Pakistan the afghan government in exile is the joke of century. They were not a government but proxies of Pakistan for strategic depth strategy in Afghanistan. Iran had similar proxies that was also called the Afghan government in exile.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Pakizai,

You are treading on a flaw logic with your lateral Paki-defence mindset. I guess you too need to update since such hard end approach for Pashtun unity i.e. through Afghan tribal or otherwise even ANA conquest is essentially obsolete. Even if that was the case Kharoti and Waziri ancient clash won't set the standards. Try hard. If anything Waziris and Maseeds have championed collectivised Pashtun sense of macro and solidarity as a nation through the course of history. Had the Afghan government been just a little stronger when Pakistan came in to existence it could well have been an integral part of today's Afghanistan. And at times they were let down by Kabul either through choice or compulsion and pressure to take their independence for Angreezan first and then Filthistan.

Although I agree with alot in what you have made the effort draw on in term of how Afghans are fending against occupation, but that itself negates your Paki line of Mullah Omar being "the only game in the town." it's the people who are fighting not Mullah Omar who is most probably hiden in a safe-house.

Will add my view on the topic some other time, gotta catch up with something.

LOOOOL, still hurting from the last smack down right?

OK Admins/Mods, you saw his barb above and he earned what follows.

So Comerag Piss-tongue

You still have not cleaned Karzai's genetic material off your face. LOOOOOL. Why is that? Is it because your half tajik half farsiban nature betrays you?

You show complete ignorance of the Waziri and Mehsud tribal dynamic. Unity? The Wazir and Mehsud unite in the settings of a common interest against outsiders... otherwise, they are about as adversial as the various other tribal clashes.

So please before you join the big boys, go clean your face.

[roadrunner]

This is a very very poor post.

FZPZ,
It is in no ones interest for me to make things up, I saw this with my own eyes but here are some references.
POSSIBLE THEFT OF U.S. AFGHAN AID BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE G.A.O. - NYTimes.com

From that article.

"Groups with access to the shipments have traded, sold or hidden large amounts of the equipment, according to Pakistanis and Afghans and Western diplomats in Pakistan."

So this proves nothing of where the money went, just that some was stolen.

even Wikipedia has a minor reference about it.
Soviet war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The theft of large sums of aid spurred Pakistan's economic growth, but along with the war in general had devastating side effects for that country.

That does your case no good at all. It proves you have no case if you need to resort to a wiki phrase that has no reference, and contains one of the more imbecilic ideas that tens of millions can bolster a multi billion GDP economy.

I've no doubt the rulers in Pakistan tried pocketing some of the money. But it is highly unlikely that it was anything significant to spur economic growth or some ridiculous idea like that.

But back to topic.
What would have avoided a civil war in afghanistan was when the departure of soviet forces had commenced. A peace deal with the Najib Government should have been pushed and encouraged. The civil war in Afghanistan didnt start in 1992, it started the minute the soviets left in 1989. Pakistan's refusal to create an alternative leadership to Najib's administration ensured a collapse of the central government in Kabul and the inevitable civil that followed.

ohhhhhhhh. So now Pakistan's fault was that following the Soviet departure, Pakistan refused to do anything and that is the cause of everything.

So you've gone from blaming Pakistan for interfering in Afghanistan to blaming Pakistan for not interfering. Quite desperate.

UN peace deals almost never work in any war ravaged region because they are not enforced, so I would say Pakistan is still to blame.

So Pakistan was behind the UN not enforcing the peace deal?

Refugee Cooperation - Publications - Afghanistan : "The Saga of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan" by Rostum Shah Mohmand.

The primary reason for the recurrence of conflict was that the Mujahideen had not developed a consensus alternative leadership. Nor had they agreed on how the contours and parameters of the new Islamic state were to be drawn. However, the Mujahideen factions were not alone to blame. The Government of Pakistan was also complicit. Regrettably, there was no spadework by the Pakistani ruling establishment on how to meet the eventuality of an Afghanistan that is no longer under the control of pro-communist parties. Equally, there was no attempt to seek to obtain an agreement with Najibullah so that upon his withdrawal there would be some rules of the game to observe.
The result was a civil war. With Afghanistan lying at their feet, the Mujahideen factions did not know how to adjust themselves to rule, administer, govern a country for the independence of which they had waged such a heroic struggle and given such huge sacrifices.

Again you've quoted someone that wanted Pakistani interference in Kabul affairs.

In actual fact, this author is wrong, and it's easily provable. Go look up the Peshawar Accords. These were the plans backed by Pakistan to ensure a stable transition after Najibullah. They didn't work, but through no fault of Pakistan. Who was to blame in your opinion? Rabbani perhaps, that old devious ISI agent? (He was anti-Pakistan in case you wondered).

[roadrunner]

Roadrunner,

In all honesty,at least in my view and probably history will prove it too, that the civil war was by and large an internal Afghan making. The question you are posing answer it first in foremost. Pakistan's manipulation cannot be ruled out. Your attribution of Afghans equating their use of Pakistan to strategic depth of Pakistan is comical. :-) I will reply to it when I have time and chance it is killing me using my phone now.

So you believe there was no strategic depth tactic during the Afghan-Soviet war?

If so, you're completely wrong, and it's easily provable.