Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Taliban 'poised to retake Afghanistan'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Taliban 'poised to retake Afghanistan'

    Taliban 'poised to retake Afghanistan'

    Grim assessment of U.S.-led war

    The U.S. military said in a secret report that the Taliban, backed by Pakistan, are set to retake control of Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw, raising the…

    Hamid Shalizi and Mirwais Harooni, Reuters
    First posted: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 09:51 AM EST | Updated: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:20 AM EST
    Topics


    KABUL - The U.S. military said in a secret report that the Taliban, backed by Pakistan, are set to retake control of Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw, raising the prospect of a major failure of Western policy after a costly war.
    Lieutenant Colonel Jimmie Cummings, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, confirmed the existence of the document, reported on Wednesday by Britain's Times newspaper and the BBC.
    But he said it was not a strategic study.
    "The classified document in question is a compilation of Taliban detainee opinions," he said. "It's not an analysis, nor is it meant to be considered an analysis."
    Nevertheless, it could be interpreted as a damning assessment of the war, dragging into its 11th year and aimed at blocking a Taliban return to power.
    It could also be seen as an admission of defeat and could reinforce the view of Taliban hardliners that they should not negotiate with the United States and President Hamid Karzai's unpopular government while in a position of strength.
    The U.S. military report could boost the Taliban's confidence and make its leaders less willing to make concessions on demands for a ceasefire, and for the insurgency to renounce violence and break ties to al-Qaida.
    But Britain's Kabul Ambassador William Patey wrote on his official Twitter feed that "if elements of the Taliban think that in 2015 they can take control of Afghanistan they will be in for a shock." He did not say whether he was referring directly to the leaked document.
    Hours after The Times report, the Afghan Taliban said that no peace negotiation process had been agreed with the international community, "particularly the Americans."
    Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a statement that prior to any negotiations, confidence building measures must be completed, putting pressure on Washington to meet demands for the release of five Taliban in U.S. custody.
    The hardline Islamist movement also said it had no plans to hold preliminary peace talks with Afghanistan's government in Saudi Arabia, dismissing media reports of talks in the kingdom.
    The U.S. military said in the document that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) security agency was assisting the Taliban in directing attacks against foreign forces.
    Reasserting control over the country would be more difficult a second time for the Taliban, however, with Afghan police and soldiers expected to number around 350,000 beyond 2014 and some foreign troops likely to remain, including elite forces.
    Close U.S. ally Australia said on Wednesday that its special forces could be in the country for years beyond the handover, with other western nations likely to take a similar stance.
    The report overshadowed a visit to Kabul by Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar designed to repair ties and consult with Karzai on possible peace talks with the Taliban.
    "I can disregard this as a potentially strategic leak... This is old wine in an even older bottle," she told reporters, reiterating Pakistan's frequent denials it backs militant groups seeking to topple the U.S.-backed Kabul government.
    Khar, whose visit was the first high-level meeting in months between officials from both countries, added that the neighbors should stop blaming each other for strained cross-border ties.
    The Times said the "highly classified" report was put together by the U.S. military at Bagram air base, north of Kabul, for top NATO officers last month.
    Large swathes of Afghanistan have been handed back to Afghan security forces, with the last foreign combat troops due to leave by the end of 2014. But many Afghans doubt their security forces will take firm control once the foreign troops leave.
    The document may leave some U.S. policymakers wondering whether the war was worth the cost in human lives and funding.
    As of late January, 1,889 U.S. soldiers had been killed in a conflict that was launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks and has drained almost half a trillion dollars from U.S. coffers.
    "The unfortunate reality is that this is a failure of the allied strategy in Afghanistan. They have not been able to achieve the goals they set out to achieve," said Mahmud Durrani, a former Pakistan army general and ambassador to Washington.
    New accusations of Pakistani collusion with the Taliban will likely further strain ties between Western powers and Islamabad.
    Critics say Pakistan uses militants as proxies to counter the growing influence of India in Afghanistan. The belief that Pakistan supports the insurgents is widely held in Afghanistan.
    "It would be a mistake now for the international community to leave Afghanistan, and drop us in a dark ocean," said Afghan telecommunications worker Farid Ahmad Totakhil.
    TURBULENT HISTORY
    Pakistan is reviewing ties with the United States which have suffered a series of setbacks since a U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil in May last year humiliated Pakistan's powerful generals.
    A November 26 cross-border NATO air attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers deepened the crisis, prompting Pakistan to close supply routes to NATO forces in Afghanistan.
    Pakistan is seen as critical to U.S. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, a feat one foreign power after another has failed to accomplish over the country's turbulent history.
    Islamabad has resisted U.S. pressure to go after insurgent groups like the Taliban, and argues Washington's approach overlooks complex realities on the ground.
    Pakistan says the United States should attempt to bring all militant groups into a peace process and fears a 2014 combat troop exit could be hasty, plunging the region into the kind of chaos seen after the Soviet exit in 1989.
    "They don't need any backing," Tariq Azim, a member of the Pakistani Senate's Defence Committee, told Reuters, referring to the Taliban.
    "Everybody knows that after 10 years, they (NATO) have not been able to control a single province in Afghanistan because of the wrong policies they have been following.
    The document's findings were based on interrogations of more than 4,000 Taliban and al-Qaida detainees, the Times said, adding that it identified only few individual insurgents.
    Despite the presence of 130,000 foreign troops, violence is at its worst since the Taliban were ousted by U.S.-backed Afghan forces in late 2001, according to the United Nations.
    The Taliban announced this month they would open a political office in the Qatari capital, Doha, to support possible peace talks with the United States.
    But there has also been talk of efforts to hold separate negotiations in Saudi Arabia because Karzai fears his government could be sidelined by U.S. talks with the Taliban.
    Last edited by Ghundal; 02-01-2012, 03:54 PM.

  • #2
    a report that mentions the word 'Taliban' 20 times and the word 'Pakistan' 16 times has obviously no pointed agenda
    It's enough that I know, Our time had a home, In your heart..Was a place..But the glass always breaks..

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Talal View Post
      a report that mentions the word 'Taliban' 20 times and the word 'Pakistan' 16 times has obviously no pointed agenda
      Typically today's NATO report, has been denied by Pakistan, but as far as the international commentators are concerned, it is a no-brainer. It's time everyone came clean. Take this comment, from the BBC.

      A senior al-Qaeda commander in Kunar province said: 'Pakistan knows everything. They control everything. I can't [expletive] on a tree in Kunar [province] without them watching. The Taliban are not Islam. The Taliban are Islamabad.'
      Last edited by tor_khan; 02-01-2012, 06:16 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tor_khan View Post
        Typically today's the NATO report, has been denied by Pakistan, but as far as the international commentators are concerned, it is a no-brainer. It's time everyone came clean. Take this comment, from the BBC.
        The POINT Tor_Khan that this 'secret' report comes out now..I wonder what the NATO scribes were doing when truckloads of these mullah's were bundled up in AC-130's and flown out of Afghanistan right infront of them

        My grievance with the bias is that its selective...People here will turn up and start cursing Pakistan if their dog started writing poetry..yet an army of thousands that has been mauling Afghanistan for over a decade gets away with just a reproachful nod now and then..These are I assume, your own people that are being killed..first and foremost you have to look at who is killing them.
        It's enough that I know, Our time had a home, In your heart..Was a place..But the glass always breaks..

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Talal View Post
          The POINT Tor_Khan that this 'secret' report comes out now..I wonder what the NATO scribes were doing when truckloads of these mullah's were bundled up in AC-130's and flown out of Afghanistan right infront of them

          My grievance with the bias is that its selective...People here will turn up and start cursing Pakistan if their dog started writing poetry..yet an army of thousands that has been mauling Afghanistan for over a decade gets away with just a reproachful nod now and then..These are I assume, your own people that are being killed..first and foremost you have to look at who is killing them.
          Talal, these things are timed, you and I know. However, even with that said, Pakistan is losing the media 'war' on this one and that triggers denial. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16831875

          Like I said in my posting before, it would be good if everyone came clean - NATO/the US and Pakistan. A decade of war in Afghanistan would NOT have been possible WITHOUT Pakistan. That's the other way of looking at this.

          Comment


          • #6
            the airlift was very interesting talal. there was an accusation that pakistan had taken out top taliban to hide and re-entrench them in the role of rulers in afghanistan, after the invaders leave.

            Comment


            • #7
              The question remains : why is Pakistan supporting the US war?


              That's the question

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ghundal View Post
                The question remains : why is Pakistan supporting the US war?


                That's the question
                Extending that logic. Why does the US 'allow' Pakistan's support of militants (Mujahids/Taliban), if at some point in the past - or in the coming future - it doesn't have a planned use for them.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tor_khan View Post
                  Talal, these things are timed, you and I know. However, even with that said, Pakistan is losing the media 'war' on this one and that triggers denial. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16831875
                  The media war or the couple of BBC documentaries, as you put it can't do much to change anything..10 Years, thats a long time to realize which side is playing whom and if the Americans had any cards they would have pulled them by now.

                  If the west can't stop a nation that is still developing nuclear weapons despite the overwhelming support it has from the arabs, what chance do they stand to start a conflict with Pakistan ? or more importunity what benefit ? a conflict with Pakistan would just mean given the taliban a new battlefield..a population of 180 million to contend with and lets have a couple of nukes flying around and see where the world ends up.

                  Originally posted by tor_khan View Post
                  A decade of war in Afghanistan would NOT have been possible WITHOUT Pakistan. That's the other way of looking at this.
                  The part you miss out on is that WITHOUT Pakistan you would still be looking at a decade of war in Afghanistan perhaps even longer, the difference would have been boots on Pakistani soil as well
                  It's enough that I know, Our time had a home, In your heart..Was a place..But the glass always breaks..

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    the reason they all don't come clean is probably because they all know secrets about the shonky dealings each of them have been up to.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tor_khan View Post
                      Extending that logic. Why does the US 'allow' Pakistan's support of militants (Mujahids/Taliban), if at some point in the past - or in the coming future - it doesn't have a planned use for them.
                      The US war is not possible without Pakistan

                      The US War is creating instability within Afghanistan, Pakistan and the entire region.

                      War is not peace

                      Non enforcement of the Durrand line is not support

                      If Pakistan was supporting Taliban, how come Talibam don't have choppers and modern weaponry?

                      Why is Karzai backed by 100 nation alliance with advanced weapons- the most advanced alliance of nations? Why not ask that question?

                      Why is Pakistan recognizing Karzai's regime? How does Karzai's regime have any legal basis with a foreign occupation?
                      Last edited by Ghundal; 02-01-2012, 06:51 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Whether Pakistan supports Taliban or not to know is not important. What is important to know is should they? If you were in Pakistans place what would you do? Pakistan does exactly what Pakistan should do, that is to look out for its own interests. These are the exact words of Musharaf (read his book). Pakistan support for Taliban is the pink elephant in the room.

                        This "Taliban" that they support depends on who or what you think Taliban are. As we speak the Pakistani jets are bombing so-called "Taliban" in Khurram, Orakzai and Khyber agencies. Are they Taliban? Couple of days before Taliban killed captured Pakistani troops. Those Taliban?

                        The relationship between Taliban and Pakistan is that of the scorpion riding on the back of the fox. It is one of necessity. This is not a love marriage, but an arranged one where both parties have their own unique agendas. It is survival. To make it out anything more than that is ludicrous.

                        The only solution is for Afghans and Pashtuns from all sides to accept the existence of their differences or this will continue on for many more generations where the role of Pakistan and the US would be filled by another.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ghundal View Post
                          The question remains : why is Pakistan supporting the US war?


                          That's the question
                          simple answer

                          Pakistan is scared of the US, they have no choice but to support the war unless they want to be bombed themselves. so Pakistan allows US to bomb the pashtun areas but God forbid anything happens to lahore or islamabad.
                          Pakistan doesn't want to give up on on what it calls the "Good" Taliban. so they divide Talibans into two camps "good" Talibans and "bad" Talibans, the good ones are the ones who only fight in Afghans and bad ones are the ones who fight in pakistan. Although Tallibs themselves don't make that distinction nor does the US. Pakistan only fights those Taliban which it considers dangerous to its interests but they protect the ones who have agreements with them that they will not attack pakistan. Taliban are a valuable asset for Pakistan after US/Nato withdraws. Pakistan will keep supporting the Afghan Talibans who they betrayed in 2001 due to US pressure but they will make up for it by providing shelter to Mullah Omar for 11 years plus support after 2014.
                          The curious thing is why US has turned blind eye to this situation. Maybe Pakistan is too clever for US and they have been playing this double game expertly. Pakistan deserves an award for this if this is the case.

                          Pakistan made some good money at the expense of pashtun lives on both sides of the border. Another reason why it supports the war against pashtuns and so called "bad" Talibans. (TTP).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            @ Resistance. Hence the nature and the reason of these symbiotic relations are important to figure out if there is to be a lasting peace.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Due to Pakistan support for Western war, over a million Afghans have been killed, and over 40,000 Pakistanis have been killed

                              Pakistan is not a peaceful nation at all

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X