Can Afghanistan survive in the region

[Admin Khan]

Given how weak she is, can Afghanistan survive without western support, given her hungry neighbors?

I look forward to a fruitful discussion.

[randolph85]

i think our neighbors are simply waiting on the US approach to post 2014 afghanistan. given pakistans recent prison releases and seemingly pro reconciliatory stance, i would say they know something that we don't know in that they know america is here to stay. they could also be trying to appease the west and the afghan gov't, but at this point it would be useless given the harm already done in contrast to them just waiting it out 2 years and hedging on a taliban take over. a take over which would entail a very bloody civil war.

najib survived with far less support from his puppet masters against an opposition which was very well supported. in today's terms that means to me that the current government will not fall and the afghan doomsday scenarios will not play out.

the government is too strong to fall, and the resistance is too small for there to be another mid 90s scenario again.

[Khostai]

Afghanistan will survive, we had worser problems in the 90s when the whole world turned there back on us, only Russia helped but that also for a limit of time.
I think once US army will go away after 2014, the support for the insurgency will decrease, and given the fact that even the aid will be not so much as now, Afghanistan will still get some money, Pakistan and Iran can only bring down Afghanistan if they will try to invade and kill almost every Pashtun, but I don't see that happening any soon, so the dogs will calm down a bit, the taliban will still be planing atacks but it will not bring them to victory. So eventualy they will fade away.

[Talal]

There are some changes afoot, Pakistan and Indian militaries have undergone doctrine changes. Afghan Taliban well it remains to be seen what kind of a power they will emerge as the Amreekans leave and looks they plan on leaving with no man left behind. The worst thing that could happen to Afghanistan is if it becomes a CIA state, that would mean the start of a new civil war between the ANA and Taliban.

Afghanistan's future depends on avoiding a civil and ethnic war and the more western allied the government seems the more chances of it happening and it happening very bad. The way things are and what no one is talking about is the impending Shia - Sunni conflict mark my words if this thing spreads it will be one of the worst conflicts our people would have faced..Its already happening in Syria and Hazaras in Pak/Afg this is a huge threat and one that no one seems to be concerned about as it represents a huge change in the Taliban ideology.

[Toramana]

There are some changes afoot, Pakistan and Indian militaries have undergone doctrine changes. Afghan Taliban well it remains to be seen what kind of a power they will emerge as the Amreekans leave and looks they plan on leaving with no man left behind. The worst thing that could happen to Afghanistan is if it becomes a CIA state, that would mean the start of a new civil war between the ANA and Taliban.

Afghanistan's future depends on avoiding a civil and ethnic war and the more western allied the government seems the more chances of it happening and it happening very bad. The way things are and what no one is talking about is the impending Shia - Sunni conflict mark my words if this thing spreads it will be one of the worst conflicts our people would have faced..Its already happening in Syria and Hazaras in Pak/Afg this is a huge threat and one that no one seems to be concerned about as it represents a huge change in the Taliban ideology.

Stop putting your Ranjit Singhi Punjabi masala into it, Sardar Talal Singh ---The US is going to leave a residual force behind may be to the tune of 6000-9000 that would do the counter terrorism. That together with military and economic assistance and political backing would do the job---And then West is not going to be dependent on Pakistan for supply routes.

This time they will use danda of economic sanctions to force Pakistan to behave. It will be that another colonal Imam will be the viceroy as it happened in 1990s. Even the traditional Pakistani ally China is not in favour of any militant adventurism.

[Talal]

Stop putting your Ranjit Singhi Punjabi masala into it, Sardar Talal Singh ---The US is going to leave a residual force behind may be to the tune of 6000-9000 that would do the counter terrorism. That together with military and economic assistance and political backing would do the job---And then West is not going to be dependent on Pakistan for supply routes.

This time they will use danda of economic sanctions to force Pakistan to behave. It will be that another colonal Imam will be the viceroy as it happened in 1990s. Even the traditional Pakistani ally China is not in favour of any militant adventurism.

Do you think that if the central government seems allied with the US it will not create a rift ? and how is a 6000 force going to help? mind you the number may be even smaller and as far as equipping ANA goes I dont know if the NATO will be as accommodating. I remember reading about request for Tanks from an ANA general and the NATO commander was off the view that what the heck they need tanks for ?

You need a solid political solution, free and fair elections and a credible government. How do you see any of these things happening ?

[Toramana]

Obama signals end to war in Afghanistan

President Obama, eager to turn the page after more than a decade of war, Friday said beginning this spring American forces would play only a supporting role in Afghanistan, which opens the way for a more rapid withdrawal of the troops.

Though Obama said he had not yet decided on specific troop levels for the rest of the year, he said the United States would accelerate the transition of security responsibilities to the Afghans, which had been set to occur at the middle of the year, because of gains by Afghan forces.

Obama also made it clear he planned to leave relatively few troops after the NATO combat mission ends in 2014, saying those forces would be narrowly focussed on advising and training Afghan troops and hunting down the remnants of al-Qaeda.

“That is a very limited mission, and it is not one that would require the same kind of footprint, obviously, that we’ve had over the last 10 years in Afghanistan,” Obama said after a meeting with Afghan president Hamid Karzai at the White House.

It was the first face-to-face encounter of the leaders since May, and it underscored the quickening pace at which the United States is winding down its involvement in Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan was discussed in only general terms during the election campaign, but a series of decisions on troop levels and other issues is to be settled in the coming weeks and months.

Karzai raised no public objections to troop cuts, saying he had obtained two important concessions from the United States - the transfer of prisons housing terrorism suspects to Afghan control, and the pullout of American troops from Afghan villages this spring.

Brushing aside questions about residual American troop levels, Karzai said: “Numbers are not going to make a difference to the situation in Afghanistan. It’s the broader relationship that will make a difference to Afghanistan and beyond in the region.”

Karzai also said he would push to grant legal immunity to American troops left behind in Afghanistan - a guarantee that the United States failed to obtain from Iraq, leading Obama to withdraw all but a vestigial force from that country at the end of 2011.

Obama signals end to war in Afghanistan - Indian Express

[Toramana]

KABUL — When President Hamid Karzai left for Washington this week, some Afghans wondered what he would bring back. Their leader had a long list of demands, but he would be meeting with an American president whose top priority was a U.S. military withdrawal.

The meeting between the two leaders at the White House on Friday appears to have yielded progress on at least a few of the issues on Karzai’s list — a U.S. pullout from Afghan villages and a full handover of the country’s military detention center at Bagram.

But neither Obama nor Karzai spoke concretely about the future size of the U.S. presence here after 2014, with Karzai saying, “Numbers are not going to make a difference to the situation in Afghanistan.”

In Kabul, though, there’s still great interest in that question, and some voiced disappointment Saturday that neither president offered clarity on an issue that weighs heavily on the minds of many Afghans.

“We wanted to hear from our president key questions about Afghanistan beyond 2014, like what will be the role of the U.S. militarily and politically? What is the Afghan government’s demand from the U.S.?” said Fauzia Koofi, a lawmaker and women’s rights activist. “Those issues were not mentioned by President Karzai.”

While both leaders spoke of their interest in a long-term security partnership, Karzai expressed uncertainty about whether diplomatic immunity would be provided to U.S. troops beyond 2014 — a prerequisite for an enduring troop presence, according to Obama. For Afghans worried about a dramatic U.S. withdrawal, the prospect that the Americans won’t offer Karzai the concessions he needs to grant that immunity prompted concerns.

“Karzai thought that through pressure on the issue of legal immunity, we could gain concessions, but there is no sign that those concessions will be given to Afghanistan,” said Waheed Mozhdah, a longtime Afghan analyst.

“There was no special achievement for Karzai in this trip, but it added to the concerns that American forces may not keep troops after 2014,” he added.

At a joint news conference Friday, Obama announced that the transition to Afghan-led security would be accelerated, with Afghan troops and police taking control of all operations this spring. Remaining U.S. troops will serve a supporting role, he said.

News of the acceleration drew a mixed response from top Afghan commanders confident in their troops’ abilities but concerned about a lack of equipment.

“We have sufficient arms and enough physical strength and manpower on the ground that will allow us to defeat the insurgents,” said Gen. Abdul Hamid, the top Afghan commander in the southern province of Kandahar and the leader of the army’s 205th Corps. “But our army is not complete in terms of equipment; we lack artillery, rockets and an air force.”

Like many parts of the country, Kandahar has formally begun the process of transition to Afghan-led security. But Afghan forces there still rely on U.S. troops for air support and logistical assistance. Many within the Afghan security forces and political establishment are eager to know how those roles, along with U.S. political involvement, will change after 2014, particularly now that the White House has acknowledged the possibility that no troops will remain in the country after next year.

“We wanted a clearer message from Obama that the U.S. will continue to support democracy in Afghanistan,” Koofi said. “It’s the only alternative to Talibanization.”

After Karzai's visit to Washington, fears about U.S. pullout linger in Afghanistan - The Washington Post

[Toramana]

Obama Weekly Address: Afghanistan War Is Winding Down

WASHINGTON -- With the war in Afghanistan winding down after 11 years, President Barack Obama says the time is right for U.S. forces to let Afghans do their own fighting.

In his radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama says U.S. forces will shift to a support role as Afghan soldiers take the lead in defending their country.

Obama met Friday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the White House and agreed that U.S. troops will go home in larger numbers starting this spring – several months ahead of schedule. He says "America's war in Afghanistan will be over" by the end of 2014.

In the Republican address, freshman Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska says that with the "fiscal cliff" averted, Congress and the president must focus on cutting "out-of-control" government spending.

Obama Weekly Address: Afghanistan War Is Winding Down

[Toramana]

NPR Media Player

[Toramana]

President Obama moved Friday toward a faster reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and laid the groundwork with Afghan President Hamid Karzai for a small troop presence in the country after the American mission formally ends there in 2014.

Obama and Karzai, leaders who have often been at odds in recent years, brought into sharper focus the American endgame for its longest war. Appearing after a series of morning meetings, the two outlined steps to wind down the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan over the next two years, a show of unity that excluded any talk of new ambiti....

Within the White House, some officials are pushing to keep a force as small as 2,500 past 2014, far lower than the 10,000 to 30,000 that some U.S. officials and NATO allies were discussing as recently as a year ago. And Obama’s positive public assessment Friday will likely make it far more difficult for military officials to make the case for a more gradual drawdown than the White House wants......

Obama announces reduced U.S. role in Afghanistan this spring - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/thefold/whats-hidden-below-afghanistan-soil/2013/01/11/9f6d928e-5c41-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_video.html

[ComradePashtun]

In simple 'yes' and 'no', no Afghanistan will not survive without no Western support. But with the present Western support the current political dispensation will survive while Afghanistan in every respect is going through a progressive transformation; politically, socially, as well as economically which despite some challenges most indications points to better future.

Security without a doubt is foremost and overarching issue for the country. But given the current level of support of maintaining and as we are building up our capabilities we can face the Taliban and by no means they can topple the government as many particularly virtual Taliban supporters and their cohorts in Pakistan wet dreams. On the other hand this threat can be neutralized in the longer term if it has to be it.

While peace and reconciliation and political settlement is the way to go about, unless the current strength of Taliban are supplemented spontaneously (obviously by ISI/Pakis) and strategically evolves in to something different then there is a way to deal with the security challenge as alluded to. But this also and very much depend on how the government redress certain and paramount issues. First of all the government, to much lesser extend in its civil wing but very importantly in the security sector should be made to look more inclusive and representative of all segments of the population, bring the right reforms to clean up corruption of all forms, and improve drastically its effectiveness and service delivery to its people. I have more reasons to be optimistic.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Given how weak she is, can Afghanistan survive without western support, given her hungry neighbors?

I look forward to a fruitful discussion.

It depends on what one means by "Afghanistan".

Does Afghanistan mean the persianized creation, given sustenance by the fiat of outside super powers, and the body politic wearing the mask and guise of plutocratic persianized "Afghans" who fled the Red Russian war machine abroad ---> the same cowards in zoot suits who beat their chests ferociously when their downtrodden rural brethren won that war and donned the title "Afghan lion"?

To be more explicit, do you mean the Afghanistan of Miss Hamid Karzai and Miss Ghani? and Miss Ameen Arsala?

Or do you mean the Afghanistan of the villages, gullies, mountain sides, green fields and Ahmad Shah Baba's "thash digaroona?"

Lets be logical here. Its a rather simple analysis and only a person based here in the US with roots there like ourselves can make some educated guesses.

Here are the facts:

- Every year since 2001 Karzai and his cronies demand the insurgency accept the constitution and every year they are rebuffed.
- Every year since 2001 Karzai and his cronies claim that the insurgency is near defeat
- In the same breath they turn around and demand weaponry to work against the "near defeated" insurgency
- Every month a few high level commanders get killed and yet attacks continue - even against high ranking officials like Asadullah Khalid - and the rest like Matiullah Khan live in virtual bunkers with their gilaam jamaan equivalents armed to the teeth to pretty much pulverize the population into submission
- If the aforementioned were true - Karzai would not have been desparate with his panties in a bunch to get face time with the "near defeated insurgency" that refused to talk to him and instead talked to the US- after all, why waste your breath on the "near defeated"?
- Every month new reports emanate about the mythical Afghan army being unable to mount effective operations save for one or two contrived stories of "bravery" that go unvideotaped but somehow get reported through intermediaries and then 3 days later a new story is released trying to rebut this.
- They supposedly coopted Pakistan's version of the disgruntled mullahs and they still cannot get Pakistan to abandon the protracted war of attrition and money making symbiosis Pakistan is using.

Here are some logical connections:
- Every month here in the US brings new economic challenges. This is still the wealthiest country in the world but the challenges are mounting. You and I both know that the words fiscal cliff, debt ceiing, market challenges, etc are becoming common place terminologies.
- This is hitting many aspects of American life. As an example - medicaid is beginning its massive clampdown of one sector of American life that has previously gone unchallenged - medical spending.
- The NIH budget has flatlined
- The Military budget for the first time is being challenged

Some more logical connections:
- No amount of embarrassment or potential for instability appears to shake the resolve of Pakistan to maintain its strategy. It offers up a few token sacrifices now and then but appears to keep the cards hidden.

Another historical matter:
- A war need not be won in 10 years or 5 years. The majority of the documents released by the Naval Academy indicate that the
insurgents recognize this is possibly a 50 year conflict. From those treasure trove of documents they are more concerned about "area under the curve" then simple absolute time points. They reason that they could probably have knocked out Karzai's government with better armaments in an efficient manner. Instead, they understand that with Korean era weaponry some funding sources that are hard to pinpoint and little to lose they can just go on and on in a war of attrition.

Why does the above matter?

Well Admin; there is a drug called levophed. When a body is in sepsis - the bacteria in teh blood stream release chemicles that cause cardiovascular collapse by dilating the blood vessels and making them leaky. When levophed is administered - the blood vessels clamp down keeping the body alive by maintaining the proper perfusion pressures artificially until the body is ready to maintain its own vessel tone.

Right now, the Persianized government of Afghanistan under Hamid Karzai is a body in sepsis and its people, even the ones in Wazir Akbar residential area, recognize this. They see the fluctuations in "vascular tone" when the levophed (the US Military) is taken away or the threat of taking it away occurs.

The reality is that as the US draws down - it may very well maintain a limited number of bases somewhere with a few drones to target some of its adversaries here and there and watch over nuclear armed Pakistan. So the economic realities will force a severe down titration of the levophed.

When that occurs it is going to spell 2 things for the short sighted technocrats in Kabul:

1) Their government will fall or be inverted to the point of not being recognizable and/or sustainable
2) Pakistan continues to reap the benefits in an indefinite fashion - it succours its sustaining economic lifesblood while aggressively pursuing its aims in this symbiosis. After all, why not? Before all of this they were getting American aid, but with this war they are getting enhanced American aid, military training, and arms. In the US, how often do the news media complain about the endemic corruption in Kabul and the money being wasted on Nation building. Yet not a whisper emanates from these same sources about all of the above being given to Pakistan. Heck just look at Rick Santorum the warhawks complaints about not using enough hard power on Afghans and about wasting too much soft power. When the issue of Pakistan was raised he quickly buried it and said Pakistan was considered different in his view.

Why is the fall of the Karzai regime the greater possibility (once again not happening today or tomorrow but at some point in the next decade or so)?

Here are the most important quotes to delineate the inevitable demise of the Afghan government under Karzai and why it will happen at some point.

"And when during the presidential debate campaign one heard Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama pledge to send two more US brigades to Afghanistan to 'finish the job' one had to wonder if either man or his senior advisors ever looked up a map of the country. There about 6,000 soldiers in two US combat brigades and probably only half of them ar combatants--shooters if you will. Afghanistan is as big as Texas and shares a 2,600 km border with Pakistan. The Taliban can use about a third of Pakistan's territory--the Pashtun tribal region--for safe haven, training, and launching operations against NATO forces...When then could the two senators have been thinking? Were they both ignorant of geographical facts? ... Or were they simply trying to put off delivering to voters the news that saving Washingtons Afghan nation building project would require 200,000 or more troops and then would still have only the slightest chance of succeeding?

"Then, too, we have conducted the Afghan war with startlingly cavalier disregard for geographic realities. It is a country that is as big as Texas... how many troops do the US and NATO have in Afghanistan to defeat an accelerating insurgency? About fifty thousand at this writing. Yes, no kidding, fifty thousand. And in that total there are contingents-- Germans and Danes, for example-- whose rules of engagement make their primary tasks school-building, police training, and well digging, not combat mean to kill insurgents. Even among the national contingents most aggressively fighting the Taliban... the number of support personal today must be a larger percentage of the total force than was the case with the 120,000 man contingent that the Soviet Union fielded.... It always has surprised me that no one in the US media ever asks the US secretary of defense of charman of the joint chiefs of staff what the 'tooth to nail' ratio is for US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, or in Iraq for that matter. I suspect that the actual number of combat troops that can be fielded on any given day is only the fraction of the fifty thousand man total and smaller than the reciprocal total for the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their allies."

- Michael Scheuer

So you guys are trying to tell me that 5000 guys in the green zone and a few country side bases and some drones are going to accomplish the above?

Heck no, the logistics themselves show this is a massively failing endeavor.

And at the end of the day... who cares if a government of corrupt zoot suit wearing kleptocrats with the softest hands imaginable ends up falling into history's dustbin?

Certainly not the average Afghan villager.

[ComradePashtun]

Some more logical connections:
- No amount of embarrassment or potential for instability appears to shake the resolve of Pakistan to maintain its strategy. It offers up a few token sacrifices now and then but appears to keep the cards hidden.

Why is the fall of the Karzai regime the greater possibility (once again not happening today or tomorrow but at some point in the next decade or so)?
. The Taliban can use about a third of Pakistan's territory--the Pashtun tribal region--for safe haven, training, and launching operations against NATO forces...[/U]

BA,

With all due respect, but you see things from your own unique perspective, I may complain about lack of objectivity in this regard. While one also has really investigate the basis of your argument based on which you posit your ideas and then come to your own desired subjective conclusion.

If I may ask you why do you call the current government "Persian creation"? I can strongly argue that despite anything and if you were here in Afghanistan you should come to realize that the country has the hallmarks of being intrinsically a Pashtun creation in all important respects. But I want to hear from you on your claim.

But seriously, lets base our answers within the limits of the question asked by Admin Khan.

There is a serious inconsistency in your arguments (so in how long will Karzai's government fall, did you say something like a decade) and your parody of the economic rhetoric and linking it to argument at hand, the issue of "a war has to be won in 10-15 years" [which is not a fact] which you think is sourced from the released U.S. naval military documents, and finally your favorite Michael Scheur's polemic which you reiterate as your's. So will exactly Karzai's government survive or not, it seems that you may well be best served to argue against it. Surely "at some point in the next decade" cannot be taken as a serious answer.

What makes you think that Taliban will continue with their resort to violence which at most cases is terror and havoc, for an end which ultimately is a political one? What is that political end that they want to achieve, the jury is already out and that is the Afghan people and majority are against Taliban whether you like it or not. Mind you Afghanistan has been at war for more than thirty years and the absolute and vast majority of people yearn for all out peace and tranquility and have no desire for prolonging it. That is factor in itself one must give utmost consideration that hopefully and inshallah there will be no war to the next decade. Perhaps by then Taliban might as well have become part of the government, Karzai retired by next year and who knows Mullah Saib Omar who wipes his aas with rough stone could also have become the president through free and fare elections.

All this aside, I do love your way of ransacking Karzai and his team of any credibility which you run them down through your own unique Afghan humor.

Can you please explain the above excerpts from your post, and also try to link them. Do Taliban in your view, once again if you may, more than anything also equal to Pakistani proxy?

[ComradePashtun]

BA,

In your view what is other civilised way of ending this war other fighting it out to an unknown outcome? Can we be a little more smarter?