America must give the south to the Taliban

[Zarawar]

Not very rational, it's either the entire country or nothing.

We as Afghans shouldn't let our brothers and sisters in North be under an occupation while we enjoy the so called "Islamic Emarate" in the South.

That is kind of like letting a part of your family suffer/ and while you are signing contracts with the West.

[Zarawar]

Opinion: A de facto partition for Afghanistan - Robert D. Blackwill - POLITICO.com

DAWN.COM | Front Page | Former US envoy calls for Afghanistan

Here, former US Envoy calls for Afghanistan's partition.

I don't even think it's good publicizing news like this. End of the day the ones that are FOR the partition benefits from it.

[Zarawar]

But its clear that many in the south want an emirate while the north opposes it.

Singa warsara wako? We want Pashto they want Dari.

Wrora da sakhtdareez Nationalism/secularism de da maghzo na wabasa.

Da Dari jabo gard nasal kho sa kharab na dai, amdase laka da mozh yow sha islami tareekh ham laree.

Pa da pashtano ke de dase "teet" khalaq shta chey pa Tajiko ba shokor wabasey.

Da wos pa Shamal der der sakht moqawmat rawan dai..

Don't fall for the ABC media, for them its not black and white.

They tend to pretend neutral, where as they are not.

[Zarawar]

wrora zma pa maghzo ke nationalism dagha sey nasta che za kuffar shoro kam. Is me demanding equality consider nationalism to you wrora?

khwad sta trust me I am aware wror gula, In my brief years in New York University I have studied many ethnic groups and I agree and dont think of me as someone who falls prey for everything I hear.

Zarawar graana I want to see Pashto on the rise and Pashtuns to not be insulted, I flied to Kandahar via Aryana Airlines and all the announcements were in Dari, how can this be possible in a Pashtun Majority nation?

Nice to meet you wrora.

Khair dars kho pa nan wakht ke har Afghan zwan wayee Alhamdulilah.

If pashtu is on decline, that doesn't mean you can hold the Tajiks responsible for it. More than half of the Kabul natives are Pashtun by blood, and non of them know a word of "Pashtu".
Equal rights doesn't mean bashing and generalizing about an entire race of Million that have been Afghans for centuries, and follow the same sect of Islam we do.
Let's not fell for "da angrezano daseesey"
We are not going any where with this.

[Zarawar]

Zarawar jaan,
No one is bashing ordinary Tajiks or Uzbeks. We are upset with politicians who are giving us dirt of the deal.

How does it make you feel that Pashto is on a such rapid decline? Of course we cant blame Tajiks that is silly but can we have for our improvement?

Jasmine khorey,
I'm trying to defend the partition of Afghanistan.
Read carefully, I doubt a devoted Afghan wants this.
They have very cruel and low terms and symbols for those type of people.
One of the reasons why the previous kings moved Hazaras or split them was because they never trusted them, they could still stand up any day and try to split Afghanistan.
Infact, partition of Afghanistan would be giving them (hazaras) a hand and helping their cause.

[pukhtana]

I am against the partition because it's not fair. Afghanistan was the land of Pashtuns in which Tajiks and Uzbeks also lived along with us.

just like how Tajiks have Tajikistan, Pashtuns(Afghans) have Afghanistan. Why should we divide our land for Tajiks when they have a country named after them?

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Lar au bar Afghans should disregard this garbage. This is just a way of dividing Afghanistan (a failed attempt)...either it is one or no go. That is what they wanted to do before. No go.

[Dawezai]

Robert Dean Blackwill is Bush's man. The guy, being preoccupied with India, hardly knows anything about Afghanistan. Have a look at the options/suggestions he has:

1) It can stay the course with the failing COIN strategy or even “double down” on the U.S. commitment — despite the lack of intrinsic U.S. vital national interests tied to Afghanistan.



2) It can seek other ways to entice the Afghan Taliban to end violence and enter into a coalition government. Karzai now seems to be pursuing this, but his efforts cannot alter the grim realities on the Pashtun battlefield or the enemy’s sustained intransigence. As Panetta says, why negotiate if you believe you are winning?




3) It can try to save parts of Pashtun Afghanistan, locale by locale — in an ink-blot strategy — fighting in some areas and acquiescing in others. But this would mean continuing major U.S. and NATO casualties in the south. It would also allow the Taliban — like the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese — to concentrate its forces, ink blot by ink blot, among a sympathetic or intimidated local Pashtun population. In any case, it only delays the inevitable when U.S. forces depart.




4) It can opt, as Vice President Joe Biden reportedly counseled before Obama’s surge decision, not to fight the Taliban in the countryside. It can, instead, defend Kabul and Kandahar (epicenter of the Pashtuns and the Taliban’s spiritual birthplace), intensify efforts to lure Taliban who can be bought with money or political power and work with local warlords rather than the central government.




5) It can initiate rapid withdrawal of all American forces, which would produce a strategic calamity for the United States. For it could lead, first, to all-out Afghan civil war; then, to the Taliban’s probable conquest of the entire country. Since Afghanistan’s neighbors would very likely be drawn in, it could ultimately destabilize the entire region.

6) Or it can adopt new U.S. policy goals for Afghanistan that, realistically, have a better chance of succeeding. This means accepting a de facto partition, enforced by U.S. and NATO air power and special forces, the Afghan army and international partners.

The article has too many flaws. He gives six policy options but [deliberately] misses the most important one which should go as,

7) The international community should strive hard to rebuild Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police and should give them the task of dealing with terrorism. The international forces should safeguard the Afghan borders and make sure no terrorist, and help for them, come from other countries. [When the writer himself has admitted that the Taliban are supported by Pakistan, why should he not propose that] the international community should pressurise Pakistan to stop supporting terrorism in Afghanistan!

[erlangner]

Basically it is a try to divide Afghanistan. I dont know if it can happens. I think if did not happen till now then difficult to be happened in near future.

[Toramana]

Our Afghan sentiments aside, what Robert Blackwell suggested is the most rational solution to the crisis in Afghanistan. Yes, Tajaks love Afghanistan but only the one in which their language and culture dominate and in which they hold political sway. They would never love an Afghanistan where the Pashtun majority has it due status.

Some friends have mentioned the period when the Taleban ruled and rejoice as how the minorities didn't go for sessation despite the Taleban oppression. They are reminded that the regional and global powers were not ready for a partion at that time (the regional/global legitamacy) but now the failure to resurrect the Afghan state has made the key players to accept the partition as one of the options.

[Toramana]

"The Revenge of Geography" by Robert D. Kaplan

Of course, the worst nightmare on the subcontinent is Pakistan, whose dysfunction is directly the result of its utter lack of geographic logic. The Indus should be a border of sorts, but Pakistan sits astride both its banks, just as the fertile and teeming Punjab plain is bisected by the India-Pakistan border. Only the Thar Desert and the swamps to its south act as natural frontiers between Pakistan and India. And though these are formidable barriers, they are insufficient to frame a state composed of disparate, geographically based, ethnic groups—Punjabis, Sindhis, Baluchis, and Pashtuns—for whom Islam has provided insufficient glue to hold them together. All the other groups in Pakistan hate the Punjabis and the army they control, just as the groups in the former Yugoslavia hated the Serbs and the army they controlled. Pakistan’s raison d’être is that it supposedly provides a homeland for subcontinental Muslims, but 154 million of them, almost the same number as the entire population of Pakistan, live over the border in India.

To the west, the crags and canyons of Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province, bordering Afghanistan, are utterly porous. Of all the times I crossed the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, I never did so legally. In reality, the two countries are inseparable. On both sides live the Pashtuns. The wide belt of territory between the Hindu Kush mountains and the Indus River is really Pashtunistan, an entity that threatens to emerge were Pakistan to fall apart. That would, in turn, lead to the dissolution of Afghanistan.

The Taliban constitute merely the latest incarnation of Pashtun nationalism. Indeed, much of the fighting in Afghanistan today occurs in Pashtunistan: southern and eastern Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. The north of Afghanistan, beyond the Hindu Kush, has seen less fighting and is in the midst of reconstruction and the forging of closer links to the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, inhabited by the same ethnic groups that populate northern Afghanistan. Here is the ultimate world of Mackinder, of mountains and men, where the facts of geography are asserted daily, to the chagrin of U.S.-led forces—and of India, whose own destiny and borders are hostage to what plays out in the vicinity of the 20,000-foot wall of the Hindu Kush.

[khyaal]

Our Afghan sentiments aside, what Robert Blackwell suggested is the most rational solution to the crisis in Afghanistan. Yes, Tajaks love Afghanistan but only the one in which their language and culture dominate and in which they hold political sway. They would never love an Afghanistan where the Pashtun majority has it due status.

Some friends have mentioned the period when the Taleban ruled and rejoice as how the minorities didn't go for sessation despite the Taleban oppression. They are reminded that the regional and global powers were not ready for a partion at that time (the regional/global legitamacy) but now the failure to resurrect the Afghan state has made the key players to accept the partition as one of the options.

But these are sentiments which count, and make and change ground realities. All afghan crisis started with the Pakistani sponsored sponsored militancy back in 1978 after the Saur Revolution and in which the whole world was behind Pakistan to destabilize afghanistan. Even the present state of militancy is a Pakistani sponsored with Taliban and Hizb e Islami behind it. So how could the two be working for Pashtun/afghan nationalism where we already know the agenda of the two groups?