Karzai to visit India; Afghans look for enhanced defence ties

[khushal]

wrora, what exactly are you talking about? What you just said don't even relate to what I said... And you wrote all that out of nowhere, so I am not quite sure what you referring to either...

I think what he is saying is the so called pashtun nationalists in pakistan serve the pakistani states interests not afghansitan, that is why they did not condemn the shelling of Kunar or the border post incursion. They have always served the pakistani state interests and they always will..

Pashtuns by nature are not nationalists which is why Pashto language was never forced on anyone even though pashtuns ruled India longer than the Brits. Look at Tajiks in Tajikistan, Uzbeks in Uzbekistan who speak Russian and then compare them to Tajiks/Uzbeks in Afghanistan who speak their own native tongue.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Now Barakzai Mullah Saib will come and try to support Talal ---The guy has unwavering loyalty to Zial-ul-Haq the first amirul momineen before Mullah Omar...

I have no loyalty to either. I have repeatedly stated that enforcing Toramanism (i.e. secular marxism or secular democratic capitalism depending on the era in which you flip flopped) by Karzai or any leader is bound to fail. On a personal level I could care less if this current government stays in place as long as they give in to the aspirations of their people and dont enforce outsider isms on them that resulted in the mess in the first place.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Afghanistan is a SOVEREIGN country, Afghanistan never objects when Pakistan gets cozy with Israel, or its allies now does it? Recognize that Afghanistan and India being allies should NOT be Pakistan's concern, if one agrees that it should, then it implies Afghanistan is not sovereign. Afghanistan is NOT boxing Pakistan.

Caveat: The yous in this article are general and not to Admin

I can see that this is an emotionally charged topic here. Let me try this again. There is the emotional goal and then there is the reality of the situation my friend.

So what I find, and I think you are not guilty of this, but the other posters are... is emotional response and jingoism trumps calculation and historical fact every time on PF.

Let me illustrate by example:
There is the jingoistic Ann Coulter watching Mayonnaise sandwich eating American that truly thinks history initiated in 2001 and that all these brown people hate a super awesome place full of super awesome nice people for freedom and beer and democracy

Then there are your Ron Pauls who understand history and our role in it and also love America and want it to prosper but in a way that makes sense.

So when Ron says, at the republican convention: Hey guys maybe Iran has reason to be pissed at us since we deposed their democratic government and brutalized them with Savak and the Shah, and the crowd boos him:

Ron Paul OWNZ Giuliani in Debate. Uncut version. - YouTube[/URL]

Then Guliani pipes up and says the standard line.

I feel like its utterly idiotic for me to entertain our equivalents of Guliani here at PF who pretty much want to use a nonfact based approach and say NONfactual things about this Afghanistan Pakistan internation conflict.

Generally what these people want is for everyone here to keep repeating the following untruths or half truths without a historical discussion. Just the Guliani types want to make it seem that Paul loves America any less, the reality is that Paul probably loves the nation more and wants to save it.

These folks that use this approach want to paint this picture that anyone who tells the truth of this history is automatically in Pakistan's pockets or wants ill for Afghanistan which is the farthest thing from the truth.

Here are their innunedos and claims:

1) Pakistani Pashtuns are waiting in chains and as slaves to be freed by the Afghan National Army and Hamid Shah Karzai they will then work on removing urdo loan words from their dialect in Peshawar but await the help of the ANP and ANA.

2) Afghanistan was a doe eyed virgin and minding her own business when the big gorilla beat Panjaby establishment independently and uninstigated in any way decided on a strategic depth policy.

3) Afghanistan land claims legitimize repeating 1) and 2) over and over even if they arent true and even though when the Brits were on that land barely a sqeak or a peep was said by the Afghan government after Lord Roberts did his march of revenge and silenced it.

4) Karzai lives in a vacuum and can do what he wants without any reprecussions whatsoever and should be able to do so because when Karzai does something time and history stop.

5) Islamists want shariah for Afghanistan and not Pakistan.

These are the Gulianisms that this crowd wants repeated again and again without a valid discussion and series of real world concessions.

In my opinion, yes, I WISH Afghanistan was an independent nation with a strong decisive leader who loved his people, their values, their religion and was also level headed and wanted his nation to succeed. I also wish that Afghanistan had land control of its former territories. I wish these things for the betterment of our people and because I take pride in our history.

BUT that doesnt mean that reality ceases to exist. Recognizing reality and admitting historical fact doesnt weaken an argument, it strengthens it and arms its advocates with knowledge. That knowledge is crucial to success because a level headed person knowing the real world and historical terrain can plan for historical reality. People who believe in unreality are bound to keep comitting the same errors.

So lets discuss these points from above

1) The closest thing I have seen to this claim is from the typical Afghan news networks like the Tolo and Pajwhok stories about FATA elders coming to Karzai to free them. Tolo and Pajwhok have been deemed suspect and unreliable and as unreliable as the Pakistani media outlets. Take for instance the story about the Afridi tribal elders. Its common knowledge that Afridi's run the biggest trucking networks in Pakistan and find their lot and resources there. To date, there is no real data to support the notion that they want to be governed by Karzai. Remember Pajwhok and Tolo are teh same news outlets that reported varying numbers up to 10 and sometimes 20 Pakistani constibularies dead on Afghanistan's border and we already discussed why that was unlikely and untenable. Even Pakistan's nationalist parties participate in their assembly and partake in coalition governance with these same Panjabies.

2) Already discussed in great detail:
http://www.pashtunforums.com/politic...1/wowra-37575/

3) Land claims are just that ... land claims. I say the same in the context of the Palestinian Israeli situation. People can talk and talk and debate Alan Dershowitz till the sun dont shine but that doenst change the power paradigm. Even if one debated the whole Israeli nation and got them to concede their wrongs etc there is just no way the Israelis will ever pack up and leave. Its utterly improbable for them to do so and doesnt make sense to assume that.

That being said, in this situation the historicity of these land claims and using the pseudo lawyerly language that these guys do makes them look foolish. They talk about Kings under durress, Hong Kong, etc etc. They forget about Telai and his selling out of Peshawar even before the durand line deals and they forget the subsequent silence on the matter up with some mild grumbling until British India dissolved.

So then the ethical thing to do is to leave it to the Pashtuns there to decide for themselves and not comment for them in an aggressive manner. If they agree with Shahbaz so be it... if they agree with Gadoonwal even better. But its their right and their fight.

4) The concept of sovereign nations is an interesting one. I tend to agree with Khushal on this. If a man cannot even get US special forces to leave Wardag with a direct order, how is he the head of a sovereign nation and how is he to decide for the nation? If a man cannot even access prisons on his own soil how is he the President of a soveriegn nation? If a man has a brother who steals from Kabul Central Bank to build houses in Dubai and also accepts Ghost Money to pay people off to not stop listening to him, how is he sovereign?

For that matter, lets talk a bit about how sovereign nations respond to things. By the above definition even Pakistan is not sovereign as its whole economy depends on the US.

But back when Kennedy was President, Che Guevara and his boys freed Cuba. The Russians were arming Cuba with missiles. That single act almost sent the whole world into the highest DEFCON levels. Why? Because even though Cuba was a dot on the map, the fact that America's arch rival would be near its borders with tipped missiles was enough to get Kennedy and the Americans fired up.

That is the response of nations and Kennedy force Krushev to the table by threatening World War 3 Nuclear style.

SO lets not be children and think that the Pakistan India conflict is irrelevent in Pakistan's thinking and that Afghanistan and Karzai specifically can do stupid things like this and not instigate a response.

Daud tried this and failed and so will Karzai because the former was much smarter than the latter.

And Toramana's statements are out of touch with reality regarding the gradient and power balance shifting.

Back in the 60s and 70s Pakistan saw similar upheavel and internal turmoil to the point of disintegration. It was in fact exactly similar circumstances that egged Daud on to think that he was striking while the iron was hot. Boy was he wrong and Pakistan tightened its view rather than modified it. And mind you the Russian superpower had his back in an even more stringent fashion back then and it also armed India to the teeth.

Mike Scheuer understands all this and wrote an excellent piece in the Diplomat about the realities:
http://thediplomat.com/2010/08/30/th...ar-flashpoint/

Finally, Pakistan loves the status quo and loves it even more that Karzai does this stuff. Their whole economy rests on American largesse. The war ending and the payments for the supply ending is not in their favor. Now they got the perpetual cash cow. They can send expendable extremists away from their loved ones and the comfort of their families to die somewhere else and get paid handsomely and get their own goodies and killing machines. That is, the same power arms both nations.

5) This is a stupid assinine claim. The fact that I have to waste brain cells responding to this donkey logic is beyond me. To date, not a single Islamist or extremist has ever stated that Shariah is OK for Afghanistan and not for Pakistan. Reading through tons of open source data, there is not an iota of evidence to support that they view the world this way. If someone can produce a quote from the Quetta shura or any of the groups world round that says only Afghanistan or only Mali or only Egypt etc deserve Shariah law and not Pakistan then please do so or quit wasting my time with donkey talk.

The best evidences that these folks garner is some random statement of some random guy in Lahore who is a part of the establishment and is said in the context of strategic depth. That is not the same as these other folks.

To translate that though onto for instance the beliefs of insurgents is both dishonest and stupid.

That actually is what distinguished the globalists and made them CIA targets. Their view was defensive posturing ala Islamic doctrines and subsequently shariah and caliphate for all.

These folks do dumb crap like post a picture of Prince Abdullah grinding on Britney Spears and then claim: "Seeee they want Afghans to NOT dance with Britney while they do." forgetting that these insurgents and their links also targeted the Saudi royal family and the Bin Baz establishment.

--------------------------------------------------------------

So in summary the way forward is to realize the historical realities then and the ground level realities now. One needs to weigh the pros and cons and honestly declare things not couched in the pseudo lar and bar language. That is, once backed up against the wall many a lar and bar voice quites down and admits that the land grab will be necessary to have a country with water way access. If such is the case then it should be openly stated so a real paradigm can be constructed.

So now again, lets have the real discussion, if one wishes for the Afghan superstate (ie loya Afghanistan)

1) How the heck is someone as incompetent as Karzai going to get us there?
2) Where is anyone's proof in the data that the Kurd style sentiment exists in the form of armed movements to help it happen? If you dont have this ready then the iron is not hot to strike and the same mistake Daud made is being made yet again, strengthening the resolve of the military establishment across the border to do what it does.
3) Why not leave that struggle alone to Bangash, Mohmand, Wazir, Mahsud, etc etc etc. Historically these are their lands and they can make their own plays. I see nothing wrong ethically with Afghanistan allowing these tribe a backward operating base from which to fight a separation war should the sentiment arise.
4) Everyone be grown ups and admit that just as Kennedy and the Americans felt a certain way about Russia on its shores, national politics is bound to create teh same sentiment in Pakistan. If one wants to ignore that and try to balance it by accepting high level arms from India to replay the past, so be it but understand that it comes with the price of a bloody sustained war of attrition.
5) How is perpetuating misstruths and misrealities going to help? Is it that you are afraid a moral imperitive wont exist anymore for a land grab to access waterway? Once again, what a stupid reason to get mad at history. Rather endorse history and plan using that knowledge base.

[Talal]

Now Barakzai Mullah Saib will come and try to support Talal ---The guy has unwavering loyalty to Zial-ul-Haq the first amirul momineen before Mullah Omar...

Toramana I wonder what it is like to live in your world..are there two suns ? three moons ? do the cows swim with dolphins ?

Now as far as Barakzai and Khushal are concerned, I do not know their in-depth views but to my experience here I have never once seen them treat opposing point of views with disrespect unless they are provoked.

The key to having a discussion is to well have a discussion and not go attack the poster personally, you torpedo your own credibility most of the times.

[DSM0305]

Wrora, your repeating Dauds Khans failed Pashtunistan policy. What you said has been tried and it failed and it is the sole reason why afghansitan was destroyed. Karzai is a moron, ties with India should only be through trade like it is with China, there should be no military ties with it, this policy will only strengthen Karzais foes, the Taliban. The greatest victim of this policy will be Pashtuns on both sides of the Durand and the greatest victor would be India as I have already explained.

Pashtun nationalists like Toramana ANP interests lies with Pakistan, not Afghanistan and that is why they never sided with Daud Khan when he was practically begging them to break free and join their motherland. The so called baighyrat ANP pashtun nationalists played Daud Khan like a fiddle. They used his policy to get what they wanted from Panjab by threatening them to leave if they(panjab) don't reciprocate, they(ANP Pashtun nationalists) did this by Using Panjab and Daud against each other to get what they wanted from both sides. You guys are not learning from past mistakes.

Look at Switzerland which is a landlocked country like afghansitan. They made trade agreements with everyone but never made military agreements with anyone and no one bothered them including Hitler who invaded all his neighbors but left the Swiss alone.

Daoud khan didn't fail because of Pakistan, but due to intern conflict in Afghanistan. So basically the essence of Daoud khans failure was because of the cold war, which burned Afghanistan to the ground. Believe it or not, but if the path he took continued without getting inflicted a wound from the cold war, we would have had a united Pashtuns by now. What most people usually tend to forget is back then Pakistan encourage Islamic extremism to continue fighting against Daoud khan, but Daoud khan successfully suppressed the movement.
My main point here is, that Pakistan had no means or the power to inflict even remotely damage to Afghanistan. The main point remains, Pakistan have many ways to support insurgence in Afghanistan, but what they lack is the resources. Things turned badly back then because of the meaningless coups and the massive military equipment given to militants by USA. All Pakistan did was milking the situation and creating extreme religious movement in Afghanistan. This way they made sure that the durand line issue never came up again. Even when Taliban took power in Afghanistan, Pakistan used the perfect opportunity to make sure that durand line issue was settled once and for all, by trying to make Taliban sign it. Luckily the Taliban said there should be no border between Muslim countries.
Let not forget that the Afghan government even after Soviet left, held themselves standing for many years and only fell because of Dustums more or less betrayal. The fact remains that much less powerful government, fighting a much stronger force with most modern weapons and had many more fighters + much more support, held many years. Now the government is allot stronger and who is fighting less fighters with old weapons + less support. Also a point that shouldn't be left out is the fact that USA will continue its support for the Afghan government, unlike soviet union they will not fall anytime soon. So fighting any insurgence will be in expense of USA.
Pakistan at it best would only be able to make insurgence continue for a bit longer. Even that would inflict a deeper wound on Pakistan then Afghanistan. Basically Pakistan will be using its resources to support the same insurgence who they will fight themselves. So basically Pakistan will buy a knife then be stabbing itself, afterward buying medicine to heal it. It both very damaging and costly.
Another fact that we must not forget, when USA leaves Afghanistan. Insurgence will have no excuses to continue the fighting, nor will Pakistan have any excuses to give the insurgence. Fact remains that insurgence will decrease when USA leaves and Pakistan will have a hard time dealing with Afghanistan afterward.
Also India have nothing against Pashtuns, actually it is a matter of fact that India respect Pashtuns. So basically if India gain ground in this conflict, it would basically mean Pashtun will gain ground as well. Unlike other countries, India have given unconditional support to Afghanistan for a long time. Pashtuns will see nothing but gain by having a good relation with India.
Pakistan is history, India is future. If we want to go toward the future, we must have the support of someone who can lead us there.

[Shah-i-Kot]

India did not offer any aircraft, helicopters, or other forms of a modern military which Karzai was seeking due to the US/NATO not accommodating those requests of his.

[ډګروال]

India did not offer any aircraft, helicopters, or other forms of a modern military which Karzai was seeking due to the US/NATO not accommodating those requests of his.

and why wouldnt they ?
you think they will help Afghanistan?
they just want to keep Afghanistan as a sort of puppet ,influece the foreign affairs ,military and economy.

what is your thoughts about the indian military hospital built in tajikistan?
India airlifts military hospital to Tajikistan to strengthen geo-strategic footprint in Central Asia - Times Of India

[Shah-i-Kot]

and why wouldnt they ?
you think they will help Afghanistan?
they just want to keep Afghanistan as a sort of puppet ,influece the foreign affairs ,military and economy.

what is your thoughts about the indian military hospital built in tajikistan?
India airlifts military hospital to Tajikistan to strengthen geo-strategic footprint in Central Asia - Times Of India

No, that was my point. I dont think most of ther neighbors want Afghanistan post-2014 (US/NATO withdrawal) to have an airforce (Pakistan and Iran especially). The US/NATO for all its talk of building up an Afghan Airforce have now simply refused Karzai's request for F-16 jets. India seems to have followed that line too. Karzai's whole strategic balancing act has failed. I would not be suprised though if China steps in for the peace process and also to help build an Afghan Airforce (for its own reasons of mineral contracts).

The point is no nation will ever do anything for another nation.

[khushal]

Daoud khan didn't fail because of Pakistan, but due to intern conflict in Afghanistan. So basically the essence of Daoud khans failure was because of the cold war, which burned Afghanistan to the ground.
Believe it or not, but if the path he took continued without getting inflicted a wound from the cold war, we would have had a united Pashtuns by now. What most people usually tend to forget is back then Pakistan encourage Islamic extremism to continue fighting against Daoud khan, but Daoud khan successfully suppressed the movement.
My main point here is, that Pakistan had no means or the power to inflict even remotely damage to Afghanistan. The main point remains, Pakistan have many ways to support insurgence in Afghanistan, but what they lack is the resources. Things turned badly back then because of the meaningless coups and the massive military equipment given to militants by USA.

All Pakistan did was milking the situation and creating extreme religious movement in Afghanistan. This way they made sure that the durand line issue never came up again. Even when Taliban took power in Afghanistan, Pakistan used the perfect opportunity to make sure that durand line issue was settled once and for all, by trying to make Taliban sign it.
Luckily the Taliban said there should be no border between Muslim countries.

You are not looking at the big picture. When Afghanistan started its pashtunistan policy, this made afghanistan depend on the soviet union to a point where it was more like a satalite state of the soviets. When Daud tried to break free from its dependence when he realized that the pashtunistan policy was a failure and was ready to come to an agreement with paksitan, the order was given from Moscow to assassinate him.
The reason the so called militants were supplied by the US was because the pashtunistan policy had made afghanistan a soviet influenced country which made it an enemy of the US. That is why it is important to be neutral. A neutral policy prevents your soil to be used as a battle ground for other powers and it is the main reason the swiss and afghanistan were left alone during both WW1 and WW2.

Let not forget that the Afghan government even after Soviet left, held themselves standing for many years and only fell because of Dustums more or less betrayal. The fact remains that much less powerful government, fighting a much stronger force with most modern weapons and had many more fighters + much more support, held many years. Now the government is allot stronger and who is fighting less fighters with old weapons + less support. Also a point that shouldn't be left out is the fact that USA will continue its support for the Afghan government, unlike soviet union they will not fall anytime soon. So fighting any insurgence will be in expense of USA.

This is completely false. The main reason Najib fell because Soviet Aid stopped, not because of Dostom. Dostom was just a side effect of the Aid stopping. Todays afghanistan is much weaker than Najib afghanistan and its enemies are much stronger than najibs enemies. The Soviets had a bigger motivation to support Najib than the Americans have in supporting Karzai because afghansitan was in the soviets backyard and anything happeneing so close to them had direct impact on the soviets while america is not in the region so its much easier for america to not care.

Pakistan at it best would only be able to make insurgence continue for a bit longer. Even that would inflict a deeper wound on Pakistan then Afghanistan. Basically Pakistan will be using its resources to support the same insurgence who they will fight themselves. So basically Pakistan will buy a knife then be stabbing itself, afterward buying medicine to heal it. It both very damaging and costly.
Another fact that we must not forget, when USA leaves Afghanistan. Insurgence will have no excuses to continue the fighting, nor will Pakistan have any excuses to give the insurgence. Fact remains that insurgence will decrease when USA leaves and Pakistan will have a hard time dealing with Afghanistan afterward.

Dont underestimate pakistan. Afghansitan is a landlocked country and paksitan controls the supply lines to afghansitan, even the US cant fight in afghansitan without pakistans consent. Daud thought the Soviets had his back so he did not really need the supply lines from pakistan which is why he implemented the pashtunistan policy. I understand why he did it because a superpower like the soviets had his back, but it is extremely naive to think afghansitan can do it without a powerful northern neighbor that could supply it with everything it needs. Daud had that, Karzai does not. Karzai is in a much weaker position than Daud was. Dam Karzai is such a Dumbshyt.

Also India have nothing against Pashtuns, actually it is a matter of fact that India respect Pashtuns. So basically if India gain ground in this conflict, it would basically mean Pashtun will gain ground as well. Unlike other countries, India have given unconditional support to Afghanistan for a long time. Pashtuns will see nothing but gain by having a good relation with India.
Pakistan is history, India is future. If we want to go toward the future, we must have the support of someone who can lead us there.

Ya OK. That is why they supported Najib who killed 1 million pashtuns and they supported Masood who destroyed afghanistan.

[DSM0305]

You are not looking at the big picture. When Afghanistan started its pashtunistan policy, this made afghanistan depend on the soviet union to a point where it was more like a satalite state of the soviets. When Daud tried to break free from its dependence when he realized that the pashtunistan policy was a failure and was ready to come to an agreement with paksitan, the order was given from Moscow to assassinate him.

brother lets get the fact right. Moscow did not order the assassination of Daud, the (afghan)communistic party did it by themselves. Second of all, Daud never came to agreement with Pakistan.
You have to understand Afghanistan weren't satellite state or even considered that way. Daud used Soviets to increase Pashtun influence by separating Pashtuns from Pakistan, but after Pashtuns themselves in the other side of durrand line denied that opportunity. He eventually decided decrease the relation with Soviets and join the winning side. And this way increase/maintain Pashtun influence (back then 80% of the government was Pashtun dominated, banks and other importance was also Pashtun dominated)
Everything changed after the coups. And Pakistani, saudi and American support to insurgence.

The reason the so called militants were supplied by the US was because the pashtunistan policy had made afghanistan a soviet influenced country which made it an enemy of the US. That is why it is important to be neutral. A neutral policy prevents your soil to be used as a battle ground for other powers and it is the main reason the swiss and afghanistan were left alone during both WW1 and WW2.

Again lets get fact right and dont mix things op. We were left alone in WW1 and 2 because it didn't include us. What you are saying is the same as ''Germany didnt get attacked by afghan forced under anglo-afghan war because they were neutral'' My point is world war had nothing to do with Afghanistan. It was a European war where a few none European countries got involved.

Back then everyone had to have a good relation with either Soviets or USA. USA only focused on helping a certain European countries and didn't care about Asia(that why china became communists), which lead Afghanistan no choice but having a partnership with Soviets.

Dauds policy had nothing to do with USA involvement in Afghanistan(it was the opposite actually). After communistic coups against Daud that the civil war started. USA saw opportunity to hurt Soviets and get revenge for Vietnam. Pakistan saw opportunity to decrease Pashtun influence and make Afghanistan kneel.
Basically under Dauds policy there wasn't problems and everything was under control. Neither superpowers had any say in Afghanistan.

This is completely false. The main reason Najib fell because Soviet Aid stopped, not because of Dostom. Dostom was just a side effect of the Aid stopping. Todays afghanistan is much weaker than Najib afghanistan and its enemies are much stronger than najibs enemies. The Soviets had a bigger motivation to support Najib than the Americans have in supporting Karzai because afghansitan was in the soviets backyard and anything happeneing so close to them had direct impact on the soviets while america is not in the region so its much easier for america to not care.

Let me put in this way for you.
- How many troops did the Afghan government had back then and how many does it have now.
- How many insurgence did the Afghan government have back then, and how many does it have now.
- How much support did the mujahadeen have back then, and how much does they have now.
- How many weapons did the mujahadeen have back then, and how many do they have now.

All I can say to you is, the answers are simple, you just simply don't want to accept them.
Also I want to add up. Back then Soviet supported it simply because they were afraid of USA. Now USA's pride is on the line. If Afghanistan fails, it will be marked in the history. And they will never be able to intervene in foreign affairs again. The huge difference is also afghans themselves. Afghans simply know if this opportunity fails, they will be put into the dark ages. The Afghans simply knows better now and know the aftermath of failure.

Dont underestimate pakistan. Afghansitan is a landlocked country and paksitan controls the supply lines to afghansitan, even the US cant fight in afghansitan without pakistans consent. Daud thought the Soviets had his back so he did not really need the supply lines from pakistan which is why he implemented the pashtunistan policy. I understand why he did it because a superpower like the soviets had his back, but it is extremely naive to think afghansitan can do it without a powerful northern neighbor that could supply it with everything it needs. Daud had that, Karzai does not. Karzai is in a much weaker position than Daud was. Dam Karzai is such a Dumbshyt.

You have to understand Pakistan is nothing. I literally mean they are nothing.
- They have no world scale influence.
- They have internal conflict.
- Every ethnicity is oppressed in Pakistan and Punjabis are sole rulers there.
- They have to many enemies around them.
- They are standing only because of USA's support.
- If they close any supply lines USA will stop its support. And they will face the wrath of Pashtun in large scale.

We have to understand USA is the sole world power and have decide to get Afghanistan back in it feet. Actually not only have USA decided to help Afghanistan, but literally all the strongest and richest countries have decided to help.

So basically, unless Afghanistan and Pakistan go into a full scale war, the supply lines will be kept open.

Ya OK. That is why they supported Najib who killed 1 million pashtuns and they supported Masood who destroyed afghanistan.

Now again we need to get facts right. First of all, not only Pashtuns died under soviet war. Second of all it wasn't Najib who killed them.
All these million Afghans who got killed was Communists, Pakistan, Saudi and USA's responsible for. The questions is who had the majority responsibility. In that case Pakistan wins a gold medal. Lets review the events and understand why Pakistan wins a gold medal.
- Pakistan delivered weapons to insurgence
- Pakistan turned Pashtuns to extremists
- Pakistan made sure a Pashtun dominated government wont success

Now tell me, who represented Pashtuns under the civil war, Hektmatyr? Taliban? Now tell me what kind of hope will these kind of extreme groups bring to Pashtuns...

Now think for a moment if Pakistan didn't turn all of them into extremists. The fact is it would have probably been somebody who wanted to increase Pashtuns influence in Afghanistan. Afghanistan have politally been dominated by Pashtuns since always, and history would basically have been repeated again. Pashtuns back in power and all other ethnicity back where they always have been...
That is something Pakistan don't want and isn't in their interest, so they of course couldn't allow that. Turning Pashtuns into mindless extreme group would benefit Pakistan allot more. An extremist wouldn't care about ethnic/national interest and that is exactly what Pakistan needs.
In the other hand a normal Pashtun will care about ethnic/national interest. Which brings us to another point. Pashtuns interest is naturally benefiting Indian interest and that why India will always be in support of a stable Afghan government. That is also why India is a natural ally of Pashtuns.
Independent strong Pashtuns will make neighboring countries tremble in fear, that includes Pakistan and Iran. That is why Pakistan is trying so hard to suppress Pashtuns and India is trying so hard to support Afghanistan.