Pakistan

[BarakzaiAbdali]

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.

I dont disagree that the region was quiet united when It traveled through KP mainland closer to Peshawar/Nowshera... folks barely knew their tribe and clan lineages. This was a stark contrast to the medical service I pursued in the tribal areas where the tribal confederacies were distinct in Bajaur and Waziristan and Afridistan. The jirga/malik system resembled much more what goes on in the Quetta/Kandahar nexus area. So I would disagree with you in regard to FATA dissolving its traditional tribal confederacies. Regarding links across the lines... it depends because once again then, that claim becomes a double edged sword. The Ahmadzai Wazirs held a jirga post 2001, and unanimously declared enmity to Mr. Karzai.

They have no problem doing so as the Wazirs, as I had stated earlier had never sworn fealty to Ahmad Shah or even the Barakzai lineages. Nadir and Amanullah had to ask the Wazirs for help and could not order them to do anything:

http://books.google.com/books?id=iqk...0tribe&f=false

However, a few questions:

1) When you say Afghanistan will stabilize do you mean under NATO auspices? Do you mean under the Karzai government? Do you mean under a stalemate situation where Karzai has to comprimise with the Taliban or vice versa?

2) Regarding the US and Afghanistan comparison.... once again be careful there because American democracy took centuries to reach this point and started in RunnyMede in England... The picture you paint, of a tribal society gone party system is a bit idyllic. If this were the case, then Ahmad Wali Karzai would not be so able to rely on the Popalzai tribal network in and around Qandahar to sustain some element of power. In fact tribal ties cross the Taliban/Karzai regime order/disorder. So I'll require some more evidence for this scenario.

3) What role does Islam play in all of this?

4) How do you control for General Fahim, Qanooni, and a hose of other hosers who have their own power projections in mind?

[roadrunner]

Road,
you have a hard time following a debate.
you said the Peshawar 7 was a government in exile, I proved to you they were not, but a proxy of Pakistan.

Complete foolishness. Establishing a connection between a person and Pakistan in the 1970s, doesn't mean that the same connection existed in the 1980s.

For this reason, the Peshawar 7 were not proxies of Pakistan. By the 1980s each warlord was supported by different nations. Dostum was supported by Uzbekistan, Rabbani by Iran, Hekmatyar by Pakistan, Massoud by Tajikistan.

Look these up. Do you get a sense of how clueless your idea that because during a period in the 70s they went to Pakistan for help against Daud, the same relationship existed in the 80s. They went to Pakistan because Pakistan had problems with Daud, but their loyalties were to Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan etc.

You said that Rabbani had nothing to do with pakistan, I proved to you that he was pakistan's proxy since 1973.

Rabbani was Iran's proxy. This is very well established. Saying that he was Pakistan's shows up how little you know of Afghanistan.

I am aware that rabani broke the peshawar accords, but thats not the point, any one of the parties would have eventually broke it because they were all power hungary opportunists. My point about that quote is that the ISI supplied Hekamtyar knowing full well he was going to use it to destroy Kabul.

All the warlords destroyed Kabul.

And the point is, if the peace process was followed, noone would have needed to destroy anything.

The point is the pakistan purpose and interest was to destroy the afghan nation and thats what happened.

Provide some proof. So far you have not.

It is not in Pakistan's interest to destroy Afghanistan and make it unstable. It is more in India's interests.

[khushal]

Complete foolishness. Establishing a connection between a person and Pakistan in the 1970s, doesn't mean that the same connection existed in the 1980s.

For this reason, the Peshawar 7 were not proxies of Pakistan. By the 1980s each warlord was supported by different nations. Dostum was supported by Uzbekistan, Rabbani by Iran, Hekmatyar by Pakistan, Massoud by Tajikistan.

Look these up. Do you get a sense of how clueless your idea that because during a period in the 70s they went to Pakistan for help against Daud, the same relationship existed in the 80s. They went to Pakistan because Pakistan had problems with Daud, but their loyalties were to Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan etc.



Rabbani was Iran's proxy. This is very well established. Saying that he was Pakistan's shows up how little you know of Afghanistan.



All the warlords destroyed Kabul.

And the point is, if the peace process was followed, noone would have needed to destroy anything.
.

You are complete fool, In the 80's Tajikistan and Uzbekistan was a soviet colony. They were supporting Najib at the time. Dostom at the time was a high ranking member of the Afghan army who later became a general in the afghan army.
Rabbani's and Massoud's forces killed more Shia in Kabul than anyone else, how could he be Iran's ally, when they were fighting Iran proxies, the Hazara.

I already provided proof he was pakistans proxy since 1973, why dont you provide a source that he was not.

[roadrunner]

You are complete fool, In the 80's Tajikistan and Uzbekistan was a soviet colony. They were supporting Najib at the time. Dostom at the time was a high ranking member of the Afghan army who later became a general in the afghan army.

Which proves that they switch allegiances from decade to decade. But they usually will have their loyalties somewhere (usually to their ethnic group).

Rabbani's and Massoud's forces killed more Shia in Kabul than anyone else, how could he be Iran's ally, when they were fighting Iran proxies, the Hazara.

Then you haven't got a clue. Hazara Wahdats shifted sides in later 1992 to Hekmatyar's side, but were fighting with Massoud when he took Kabul.

"Jamiat-i Islami-yi Afghanistan (hereinafter known as Jamiat-i Islami). Jamiat-i Islami was one of the original Islamist parties in Afghanistan, established in the 1970s by students at Kabul University where its leader, Burhanuddin Rabbani, was a lecturer at the Islamic Law Faculty. Although Rabbani remains the official head of Jamiat-i Islami, the most powerful figure within the party was Ahmad Shah Massoud. Both Rabbani and Massoud are ethnic Tajiks (Persian-speaking Sunni Muslims) but from different areas. Massoud's ethnic power base has historically been in Parwan and Takhar provinces in the northeast, where he established a regional administrative structure in the late 1980s, the Supervisory Council of the North (SCN, Shura-yi Nazar-i Shamali). Massoud's forces have received significant military and other support from Iran and Russia, in particular."
http://www.dhushara.com/book/zulu/islamp/rawa.htm

I already provided proof he was pakistans proxy since 1973, why dont you provide a source that he was not.

Why is it difficult to get through your skull that allegiances amongst warlords are just fleeting?

One warlord will be supported by one intelligence service in one decade, then a different one the next, depending on how the objectives change.

It's all above in the link. Massoud, Rabbani were not Pakistan's men during the Civil War. Hekmatyar probably was.

[khushal]

your still a dumb*ss.

the support from russia and Iran came in the 90's when the Taliban came in the picture. Iran didnt want the Taliban to control Afghanistan, they even threaten to invade AFghanistan when the Taliban where in control.
In the 80's and early 90's they were ISI proxies. How could Russia support him in the 80's when he was getting money in the 80's from the CIA to give Russia a hard time.

[roadrunner]

your still a dumb*ss.

the support from russia and Iran came in the 90's when the Taliban came in the picture. Iran didnt want the Taliban to control Afghanistan, they even threaten to invade AFghanistan when the Taliban where in control.
In the 80's and early 90's they were ISI proxies. How could Russia support him in the 80's when he was getting money in the 80's from the CIA to give Russia a hard time.

ohhhh, but I thought when you prove that country X supported warlord X at any point in history, then that is proof of their interference whatever the timescale. At least that is YOUR theory with your 70s Pakistan supporting everyone, even though it's been proved otherwise.

Try this out then. If Hekmatyar was being supplied by Pakistan during the Civil War, why was Pakistan supplying Rabbani and Massoud, who were Hekmatyar's enemies in the war? To defeat their own man, dohhhhhhhhh?

[khushal]

ohhhh, but I thought when you prove that country X supported warlord X at any point in history, then that is proof of their interference whatever the timescale. At least that is YOUR theory with your 70s Pakistan supporting everyone, even though it's been proved otherwise.

Try this out then. If Hekmatyar was being supplied by Pakistan during the Civil War, why was Pakistan supplying Rabbani and Massoud, who were Hekmatyar's enemies in the war? To defeat their own man, dohhhhhhhhh?

Hekmatyar was their man. Rabanni and Massoud broke their ties with pakistan once they were in power, which made pakistan angry.

But all this is beside the point. My point was that peace should have been made right after the soviet withdrawal.

[roadrunner]

Hekmatyar was their man. Rabanni and Massoud broke their ties with pakistan once they were in power, which made pakistan angry.

But all this is beside the point. My point was that peace should have been made right after the soviet withdrawal.

well no again.

When the Soviets withdrew, the US, Pakistan, the West, Saudi Arabia were supplying the anti-Communist forces until 1992 when they stopped (not Pakistan alone - you presumably supported the Soviet presence in Afghanistan). Masood and Hekmatyar weren't getting money or arms from anyone at the time they took Kabul.

But after the Peshawar Accords broke down, warlords started arming again. Pakistan probably only supplied Hekmatyar during the initial stages, Rabbani and Massoud got their arms from Iran and Tajikistan. Though they all probably had quite a lot of arms from the previous war they were involved in.

It was always the case that Rabbani and Massoud would be closer to Iran and Tajikistan, and even the Moscow. Pakistan wanted power-sharing. some Iranian influence would have been alright, but also some Pakistani influence. Rabbani had other ideas with his "Council of Elders" vote.

[khushal]

well no again.

When the Soviets withdrew, the US, Pakistan, the West, Saudi Arabia were supplying the anti-Communist forces until 1992 when they stopped (not Pakistan alone - you presumably supported the Soviet presence in Afghanistan). Masood and Hekmatyar weren't getting money or arms from anyone at the time they took Kabul.

But after the Peshawar Accords broke down, warlords started arming again. Pakistan probably only supplied Hekmatyar during the initial stages, Rabbani and Massoud got their arms from Iran and Tajikistan. Though they all probably had quite a lot of arms from the previous war they were involved in.

Who cares, they already were armed to the teeth. The afghan army had huge stockpiles of soviet weaponry which almost all of it went to Dostom and Massoud.

Who cares about all this. your question was how should have pakistan handled the afghan civil war, and I answered your question. Your going on and on about things that are not related to your question.

[roadrunner]

You were blurting out Pakistan, so I was just trying to get to the bottom of why that was.

So we narrowed it down till the Peshawar Accords where things went wrong. Rabbani staying on as president and not handing over power sharing due to his election by the self-appointed "Council of Wise Men".

Finally a new peace deal, the Islamabad Accords tried the same power sharing formula. It came to Rabbani's turn again. He got elected by a self-appointed "Council of Wise Men" to stay as president for longer again.

Was Pakistan on the Council of Wise men?

[khushal]

Your funny,

Dont worry about the pashawar accords and Islamabad accords or the Mars accords, all this is mumbo jumbo. Why would they work. The peace plan should have been pushed in 1989 with Najib's government, or Pakistan should have made an agreement with Najib and dissolved Pakistan's proxies. Pakistan was using the proxies to destroy Afghan infrastruture and eventually the afghan state.

[gadoonwal]

US foreign secretary Mandeline Albright during Clinton era called Pakistan international maigrine. One cannot but agree with her assertion. This canceride state is a problem for every other country in the region and the broader world except perhaps China. It is also a problem for nations inside its border except Punjab.

Like isreal is cancer for the entire arab world ,right.
So pakistan is a cancer for the whole region.Both countries created by the west in the name of religion, both work for the west,s interests.
It is the US and British supporting pakistan/punjabis so Albright was wrong.
So why the West and US love so much pakistan?
Was used against USSR during sovet-afghan war and dumped till 9/11.
Still in use for the ISI=Cia so called war On terror.
Palkistan will be used again against the India,iran and china etc.
It is fake identity.The army generals and the politicains are the decendants of old british indian slaves.

[roadrunner]

Your funny,

Dont worry about the pashawar accords and Islamabad accords or the Mars accords, all this is mumbo jumbo. Why would they work. The peace plan should have been pushed in 1989 with Najib's government, or Pakistan should have made an agreement with Najib and dissolved Pakistan's proxies. Pakistan was using the proxies to destroy Afghan infrastruture and eventually the afghan state.

well that might be the second dumbest thing I've read.

An unstable, destroyed Afghanistan is not in Pakistan's interests because it will make Pakistan unstable also. Pakistan needed to open up trade routes to central asia, not remove them.

Why are the peace Accords irrelevant? If they had been followed, the power sharing agreement would have worked, and Afghanistan would probably not have had any Civil War.

How much do you REALLY know of Afghanistan as opposed to India, Khushal? You do realize that in 1989, Moscow was supporting Najibullah, and Najibullah was refusing to allow any non Communist government take over?

WHY do you keep insisting that all the exiled groups were PAKISTAN'S proxies? I've already proved that during the Civil War, many countries were supporting their faction including Iran, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Moscow, and some others.

[khushal]

well that might be the second dumbest thing I've read.

An unstable, destroyed Afghanistan is not in Pakistan's interests because it will make Pakistan unstable also. Pakistan needed to open up trade routes to central asia, not remove them.

Why are the peace Accords irrelevant? If they had been followed, the power sharing agreement would have worked, and Afghanistan would probably not have had any Civil War.

How much do you REALLY know of Afghanistan as opposed to India, Khushal? You do realize that in 1989, Moscow was supporting Najibullah, and Najibullah was refusing to allow any non Communist government take over?

WHY do you keep insisting that all the exiled groups were PAKISTAN'S proxies? I've already proved that during the Civil War, many countries were supporting their faction including Iran, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Moscow, and some others.

You paki always assume that if anyone disagrees with you, automatically india is involved. says something about your paranoia.

They were paki proxies from 1973 but after 92, one by one started to break ties with Pakistan and started to get support from other nations such as iran, russia, india, and Saudi as the major players. Pakistan started to get nervious and needed a new proxy, thats when the taliban started came in to the picture.

But like I keep saying, thats beside the point. The Soviets were open to negotiating with the MAjahadeen, it was the majahadeen who were not interested, just like today the americans are open to negotiation but the taliban are the ones not interested. Like today, the majahadeen at that time number one condition was that foreign forces leave before any negotiations can take place.

But once the soviets left, Peace was possible. Najib was open to negotiations especially after the soviet union collapsed. His lifeline was slowly disappearing. But it was Pakistan that wanted to control afghanistan. Pakistan told their proxies that negotiations were not in their interest because why share the power with najib when they can have it all. We all know how that ended.

[roadrunner]

You paki always assume that if anyone disagrees with you, automatically india is involved. says something about your paranoia.

Experience.

They were paki proxies from 1973 but after 92, one by one started to break ties with Pakistan and started to get support from other nations such as iran, russia, india, and Saudi as the major players. Pakistan started to get nervious and needed a new proxy, thats when the taliban started came in to the picture.

You don't have a clue about Afghanistan.

Pakistan was just logistics and strategic depth for the Afghan Mujahideen. They were getting weapons from all over the place, but because the US had the best weapons, countries like Iran were irrelevant when it came to supplying them. I often wonder why Iran didn't allow strategic depth for the Afghan Mujahideen. They did support Rabbani and Massoud after all.

It is true that Hekmatyar proved to be useless as Pakistan's man. But each of the other groups that formed the Peshawar 7 in the early 90s were not supported by Pakistan. When the Soviets left, and after the 1992 Najibullah step down, the US, Moscow, and Pakistan ceased supplying weapons (Pakistan wasn't supplying much anyway). At this point Rabbani and Massoud relied on "their" countries for support (Iran, Tajikistan). So when the Peshawar Accords were broken, Pakistan was not supplying them or backing them with anything.

But like I keep saying, thats beside the point. The Soviets were open to negotiating with the MAjahadeen, it was the majahadeen who were not interested, just like today the americans are open to negotiation but the taliban are the ones not interested. Like today, the majahadeen at that time number one condition was that foreign forces leave before any negotiations can take place.

This is the first thing you've got right on this thread.

But once the soviets left, Peace was possible. Najib was open to negotiations especially after the soviet union collapsed. His lifeline was slowly disappearing.

Incorrect again.

Najibullah was able to hold out against the Mujahideen for 3 years. It was only when Moscow stopped supplying him that he knew he had to step down, which he agreed to do as in the UN peace plan.

But it was Pakistan that wanted to control afghanistan. Pakistan told their proxies that negotiations were not in their interest because why share the power with najib when they can have it all. We all know how that ended.

This is clueless again.

I know you're desperate to prove Pakistan responsible, and I don't care who was responsible.

But you won't convince anyone through outright lies.

The UN peace plan was accepted. Hekmatyar and Massoud launch a grab for Kabul in early 1992. Kabul is captured. This is fine because it was what the UN peace plan demanded.

THE PROBLEM WAS WHERE THE UN PEACE PLAN FAILED WAS THE PESHAWAR ACCORDS. This was because Rabbani stayed on as president by his election by the Council of Wise Men. Rabbani was not Pakistan's man in 1992. This is where your Pakistan blame theory breaks down. It's difficult to understand for you, from what I've seen.