after 2014?

[faye]

ok catya.

[Catya Sher]

Welcome here, Karpo. I saw your thread about Dr Miraki earlier.
This member is CONTRIBUTING !

So much in contrast to Fey Faye - who darts in and attacks
everyone who is constructive here.
Whenever she thinks she can get away with it.
She wouldn't do that to Admin or the moderators !

It's a childish game she plays.

Many consider her a pale version of Troublemaker DZJ 1
So ignore her, don't let her bother you.

Best idea is to pretend she said nothing at all and she will sulk
instead of exulting in having put a roadblock up for
any useful conversation.

As for the thread's topic, hopefully there will be a very prompt
withdrawal if the U.S. is smart - if not already mentioned on PF,
the poll over the weekend from - CNN, at that - quoted
only 25 percent of the American public as in favor of staying in
Afghanistan.
Most want the promptest return of NATO forces possible --

So let's think earlier than 2014...at least pray for this goal

[randolph85]

Randolph,

In previous posts, it looks as if you state that the Taliban/insurgency are manipulated by Pakistan, in past and present.

With that in mind, when one then considers your thoughts that the US will not leave and will 'defend' the karzai government, it certainly does not appear to be very objective thought at all.

As much as I may try to be objective in assessing the situation in Afghanistan, I do admit that it is difficult to do since I myself look forward to the end of the war and the US occupation.

However, at the same time, there are enough facts that are there to see where this is heading.

The US talks with the Taliban will not end with a sustained or accepted US presence in the form of bases. Its just not going to lead to a general peace which is what the region, and even countries like Pakistan (who have been supporting the US-led war, a support that if did not exist, the US war becomes unsustainable) want. With the US-led war failure in Afghanistan to 'crush' the Afghan insurgents/Taliban, the regional opposition to the US-led war and continued presence, the lack of credibility and support for karzai gang, the US, NATO, and Pakistan public opposition to the war (polls), and most importantly, the derailed US and EU economy, one can reasonable conclude that this war is at its end. There is no money to continuously support it.


Obama is a politician. His democrat party will want to win the 2016 election as well as the 2012 election. Afghanistan can not be an issue for the 2016 election. Not at all.


The only Afghanistan can not be an issue is with the complete US withdrawal and accompanying negotiations for a smooth transition away from the disreputable and lackey karzai regime to a national one


There will be no US bases in Afghanistan

are you completely oblivious to the fact that a strategic pact for military bases in the country post 2014 have been in negotiations for quite some time and been confirmed by the US administration and the afghan government?

the only reason the taliban and the americans are talking are because they both realize they both will not achieve their complete initial objectives by doing what they are doing. what you keep AVOIDING is that the taliban clearly said in the past that THEY WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH AMERICA AS LONG AS THEY WERE OCCUPYING THE COUNTRY. that was obviously BS. a certain member named unknownprince called me pro american for even suggesting there were secret negotiations hahaha


and why are you banking on the democrats or obama? like i clearly said and that you avoided responding to was that bush won his reelection after iraq had been invaded. this was after millions of people in america were marching against the war. you act like americans seriously care enough about afghanistan for this to be a major issue. the war is low intensity and will be cheap after 2014. obama also made a campaign promise to close quantanamo bay, how many americans remember that or still care? NONE. what you also forget to remember is that america is still in iraq even after the withdrawal, their military is STILL there and they are STILL aiding the government with billions of dollars. the same thing they will be doing with the afghan government after the official withdrawal in 2014.

[faye]

Welcome here, Karpo. I saw your thread about Dr Miraki earlier.
This member is CONTRIBUTING !

So much in contrast to Fey Faye - who darts in and attacks
everyone who is constructive here.
Whenever she thinks she can get away with it.
She wouldn't do that to Admin or the moderators !

It's a childish game she plays.

Many consider her a pale version of Troublemaker DZJ 1
So ignore her, don't let her bother you.

Best idea is to pretend she said nothing at all and she will sulk
instead of exulting in having put a roadblock up for
any useful conversation.

As for the thread's topic, hopefully there will be a very prompt
withdrawal if the U.S. is smart - if not already mentioned on PF,
the poll over the weekend from - CNN, at that - quoted
only 25 percent of the American public as in favor of staying in
Afghanistan.
Most want the promptest return of NATO forces possible --

So let's think earlier than 2014...at least pray for this goal

ooohhhhh loooooky here.....catya the sniper.
what a co incidence

[Karpo]

the strategic pact means nothing to me but hot air. I dont put much into the words of the US officials and the karzai lackey regime which is in fact insignificant. The situation is fluid. What is eventually determined at the Qatar talks between teh two sides of the conflict, the US and the Taliban is of consequence, not a flimsy "strategic pact" with the lackey karzai regime.

As we speak the karzai foreign minister Rasool has gone to Qatar in hope of talking to the Taliban. Its not the other way around

[Karpo]

are you completely oblivious to the fact that a strategic pact for military bases in the country post 2014 have been in negotiations for quite some time and been confirmed by the US administration and the afghan government?

the only reason the taliban and the americans are talking are because they both realize they both will not achieve their complete initial objectives by doing what they are doing. what you keep AVOIDING is that the taliban clearly said in the past that THEY WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH AMERICA AS LONG AS THEY WERE OCCUPYING THE COUNTRY. that was obviously BS. a certain member named unknownprince called me pro american for even suggesting there were secret negotiations hahaha


and why are you banking on the democrats or obama? like i clearly said and that you avoided responding to was that bush won his reelection after iraq had been invaded. this was after millions of people in america were marching against the war. you act like americans seriously care enough about afghanistan for this to be a major issue. the war is low intensity and will be cheap after 2014. obama also made a campaign promise to close quantanamo bay, how many americans remember that or still care? NONE. what you also forget to remember is that america is still in iraq even after the withdrawal, their military is STILL there and they are STILL aiding the government with billions of dollars. the same thing they will be doing with the afghan government after the official withdrawal in 2014.

Lets get this straight., the karzai government is of no consequence at all.

What happens at the eventual Qatar talks between teh two sides of the conflict, the US and the Taliban is of consequence, not some flimsy 'strategic pact' that karzai has already agreed to sign.

There is enough of a reason for the karzai government to be all in a worry over the Qatar talks, withdrawing the karzai ambassador to Qatar in retaliation. Im sure you can put 1 and 1 together. What do you think is worrying them? I dont know, could it be teh end of this war, and with it teh occupation?

I dont put much into anything the US officials or the lackey karzai regime says in regards to strategic pacts. Indeed you might as well not even mention the lackey karzai regime in this topic since they really are of no consequence with respect to the end of this , at all.


Rasool, the karzai foreign minister is on his way to Qatar in hopes of talking to the Taliban. Its not the other way around. no one is traveling to talk and engage the karzai group, and nor is the US going out of their way for karzai
Go figure

[Karpo]

nor do I suggest to explain the reasoning the Taliban accepted offers for talks, but can reasonable figure that it was because it would give them a public venue to achieve their goals on a diplomatic front instead of being rescinded to not being able to make their objectives clear.

Strategically speaking, why wouldnt they want to engage in talks which would 1) see the end of the war, and 2) see the US withdraw. Only an idiot would not accept this


It looks as if you dont understand grandstanding and such. The Taliban were playing politics. Teh US did not want to talk at that time, but was insistent on a military solution which now is evident has failed.

The US is looking for a way out, and as many have suggested are simply going through the motions. till 2014. This is also what Henry Kissinger has confirmed, a well connected diplomat who I think has more credibility in this regards than anyone else. The end is no longer an illusion

[faye]

So much in contrast to Fey Faye - who darts in and attacks
everyone who is constructive here.
Whenever she thinks she can get away with it.
She wouldn't do that to Admin or the moderators !
It's a childish game she plays.
Many consider her a pale version of Troublemaker DZJ 1
So ignore her, don't let her bother you.
Best idea is to pretend she said nothing at all and she will sulk

i am sulking now, you won't talk to me, karpoo.
i wish i was brave like you karpoo, having a bash at admin and the mods. how do you do it? such strength.
you mean dzj? the pashtun that you want to try and push off a pashtun forum

[Karpo]

Randolph,

It also looks as if you are keen on putting substance into only what the US says and does. The US was supposed to keep Iraq occupied, and that did not happen. The US has withdrawn from Iraq for all practical purposes.

The US was supposed to stay in Vietnam forever too, and nor did that happen.


You ascribed almost some limitless powers to the US, where the economy is in desperate need of recovery, and part of the reason the economy is in such a mess is due to the Afghan war.


You conveniently seem to be underestimating both the American public and the Afghan insurgency objective to find a conclusive end of this.

70% of the American public want the US to accelerate the withdrawal from Afghanistan. This is not something that can be brushed aside with talks of this is cheap and that is cheap.

It will soon reach 80%, then 90%. Then what? American public discontent is still meaningless to you?

America is a democracy. This stuff matters. Obama doesnt get to ride on the back of a foreign occupation like karzai now. Dont be so eager to dismiss the American publics sentiment. Bush won in 2004 because of the bible belt and when the events of 9/11 were being constantly put forward by him. People no longer are buying that anymore.


The on and off talks, preliminary as they are, have not meant a cessation of violence yet, or a ceasefire. This summer before the 2012 election will see many stances change. If the situation remains the same and there is unrest in Afghanistan, then the acceleration of withdrawal will become inevitable, and beyond anymore debate.


If Obama wants to avoid that all together, there will probably a ceasefire in certain zones which will then lead to a full ceasefire. He does not want bad news to continue to come from Afghanistan whether it be US losses or civilian casualties as it then shows him to be a failure in that regard.

the 2012 election and Afghanistan are very much intertwined, and can not be separated at all. To do so is to be wildly ignorant of how this is unraveling.


As of now, there is no peace yet in Afghanistan, and no peace is no good for talks of stability and the coded word of transition which really just means withdrawal in a nice way.

[faye]

what about iran? you don't think that has anything to do with whether obama will be allowed to retain his throne or not? i think that is probably even more on the agenda than afghanistan. doesn't obama have to keep the israeli lobby appeased?

[faye]

the american economy is 'said to be' looking up.
the influencial think tank, fpi, is upset with obama for wanting to reduce the federal militery budget and not being aggro enough, but are pleased with a wisconsin politician, paul ryan. he wants to keep the budget well up. this they like.
know anything about this guy ryan?

[DaMalakandGhar]

For a good assessment of future possibilities regarding Afg after 2014, you have to take into account the whole geopolitical configuration regional one as well as the extra-regional (collision and alignment of interests e.g. Pak-India, US-China-Russia, US-Iran, Middle-East rivalries and conflicts, non-state actors) in which Afghanistan exists.

These coupled with Afghanistan's internal conditions and contradictions e.g., drugs, economy, ethnic, sectarian, and ideological rivalries have an impact and play out into Afghan politics and rivalries. It would not be useful employing simplistic models to study it or impose an irrelevant past model on it.

[Karpo]

It looks as if some may have this almost wishful thought of a civil war.

While the non-pashtun ethnic groups have not been as opposed to the US-occupation as the Pashtuns, this by no means translates into them taking up arms and having a civil war.

Northern Alliance warlords were never interested in the interests of Tajiks, Uzbeks, or Hazaras. In the last decade, the supposed representatives of these communities have gotten fat from aid money, and largely ignored their people. In the process, the operational capabilities of an alliance such as the Northern Alliance no longer exist.


There is nothing left of what the Northern Alliance was in the first place which was a weak grouping of fighters who could not withstand an indigenous movements.


In all due respect, in 2014 when the US leaves which they will leave as there is no other alternative for the way forward, there will be no civil war simply because there will be no Northern Alliance that will be willing to fight for disreputed and discredited rulers who have bought mansions in Dubai, etc.


Why would the common man take up arms for a Fahim or Abdullah Abdullah or Karzai or Amarulleh Saleh?


Got it?

[Catya Sher]

^ Informative analysis, thank you.

Personally, if I were Pashtun resistance leaders, I would be contacting
major figures in the rungs BELOW those ugly-souled warlords right now.

Because they know very well they would probably be killed out of anger
at their collaboration with the Nato-propped-up regime,
I would offer them DEALS. Like they could stay in the country and
live in peace IF they will publicly support Islamic govt.
Most would agree to such terms. After all, they are not Buddhists ;
many Uzbeks, Tajiks, Turkomans, Hazaras, etc would LIKE Islamic govt.
for Afghanistan.

Probably even almost ALL of these groups who were supposedly
working with or allied with NATO secretly are sick of Americans
beyond belief.

So they are heartily wishing for a return to Afghanistan ruled by Afghan Muslims,
toned down from the previous era, with the essentials kept intact
but unimportant restrictions loosened up a bit.

After all, if they take their zillions to Sharjah, that benefits NO ONE.
Let them keep their money in Afghanistan and use it to fund
reconstruction projects.

I believe some appeal like this should be formulated and addressed to those
mid-level figures who never denounced the American occupation ;
thus overtly or tacitly
supported it by their refusal to call a spade a spade.

There could be a committee set up for this, making reassurances to
these ethnic minorities that Pashtuns returning to power will NOT
trample on them and will respect their rights as citizens of Islamic Emirate II - !!

What about this idea?

[badmash_khel]

taliban lay down their arms and get into politics and media.
process much like muslim brotherhood.
Afghans are united under their religion of Islam ethnofascism is gone

Unless I have missed something Last time I checked Taliban were opposed to Gulbudin (ikhwani, muslim brotherhood)?

Talibs won't lay their arms until they have their version of Islam imposed on the Afghan nation if they really stick to their true aim. If Taliban lay down and somehow become part of a broad unity based government then that would be the ideal scenario but I doubt that. Last time the Taliban were in a position of power they used less dialogue and more guns and fighting do the talking. Maybe now they are in a weaker position so thats why all these compormises and dialogues.

One thing is clear that Taliban's interpretation of Islam is alien to the Afghanistan. Just because people are fighting NATO/USA doesn't mean they are Taliban sympathizers. Taliban can not hijack the legitimiate resistance of Afghans to the occupation. The only reasons Taliban came to power in the first place was because of power vaccum where warlords controlled their own areas and there was no governance. Once a legitimate, capable and accountable government is established, the support for Talibs will go down. The only reason Taliban had support was because of their swift justice and supposed islamic rule.

Neither Karzai and his lackhies neither Taliban are the solution for Afghanistan. Taliban have proven from their previous track record that they are incapable of governance when they can't even feed the people and put wrong people in the wrong places. People should be chosen on merit of how well they can do their job rather than their religious affiliation and political views. Mullah Zaeef clearly states in his book that he was made in charge of things he was not capable of. Putting illiterate Mullahs in charge of economy is like putting Salman Rushdi in charge of Islamic madrassa. Its retarded. The job of the Taliban is to secure the interests of Islam and since most of them are illiterate it means they have to be just foot soliders for the defence of Afghanistan. The educated ones among them can become part of a council for religious opinion on state matters.