Division of Afghanistan?

[Herat]

Dear Herat,
Your the type of person, I would hate to live alongside with or to have my kids around. I never liked ethno fascists and never will. You come into this forum and insult Pashtuns as if the non-Pashtuns have picked you as their spokesperson.

Neither side are perfect and neither side benefits of how the situation is in Afghanistan or tomorrow. The fact is Muslims will never have a peaceful country or be able to manage a country of their own unless they are stooges of the west. Name me one independent Muslim country today that is not influenced by the outside? If Pashtuns have gained from Britain in the past, presently non-Pashtuns have gained from the US and Nato nations. There is no difference between the past and present. All ethnic groups have become slaves of the west, which includes you.

So I ask all sides to stop your stupidity and try to come up with a peaceful solution for the population and come out of the fantasy world.

The only "ethno fascist" here is this flagrant hypocrite Smarty, who, on the one hand, does nothing in this forum except rage against the state of Pakistan, and, on the other, thinks we (non-Pashtuns) will accept a similar fate to your brethren in Pakistan.

This state of yours, Afghanistan, which you take pride in so is nothing more than the legacy of the great game of Britain and Russia, the Northern borders were negotiated by them. There is absolutely nothing that binds a Tajik from Badakshan to a Pashtun from Khost, anymore than there is anything that binds a Pashtun from Waziristan to a Punjabi in Rawalpindi. The only solution to all of this mess is the partition of Afghanistan (and Pakistan) and the establishment of ethic-states. You Pashtuns have every right to unite with your brethren across the border but we (non-Pashtuns) want nothing to do with it (are you seriously deluded enough to believe the non-Pashtuns will accept your Loy-Afghanistan?). Self-determination and independence do not typically come, especially in the craphole that is our region of the world, through peaceful means. It is you who is living in a fantasy world.

[Fish]

The only "ethno fascist" here is this flagrant hypocrite Smarty, who, on the one hand, does nothing in this forum except rage against the state of Pakistan, and, on the other, thinks we (non-Pashtuns) will accept a similar fate to your brethren in Pakistan.

This state of yours, Afghanistan, which you take pride in so is nothing more than the legacy of the great game of Britain and Russia, the Northern borders were negotiated by them. There is absolutely nothing that binds a Tajik from Badakshan to a Pashtun from Khost, anymore than there is anything that binds a Pashtun from Waziristan to a Punjabi in Rawalpindi. The only solution to all of this mess is the partition of Afghanistan (and Pakistan) and the establishment of ethic-states. You Pashtuns have every right to unite with your brethren across the border but we (non-Pashtuns) want nothing to do with it (are you seriously deluded enough to believe the non-Pashtuns will accept your Loy-Afghanistan?). Self-determination and independence do not typically come, especially in the craphole that is our region of the world, through peaceful means. It is you who is living in a fantasy world.

Dear Herat,
Who made you the spokesperson for non-Pashtuns? How do you know majority of them want no part with Afghanistan?

If Afghans whether Pashtuns or non-Pashtuns wanted to separate it would have happened long time ago, but it didn't because all sides want to live together as a nation side by side. Don't forget in the past 13 years non-Pashtuns have been running the country, it would have happened if they had wished for it.

Every Muslim country in the region is creation of the British and western work. Before you emotionally attach Afghans and Afghanistan go free Tajikistan from the Russian culture.

Foreigners like yourself who has no place in Afghanistan and among the population should stop the emotional attach and come out of your fantasy world. You can attack me and other Afghans, but the reality will stay the same the Afghans will live side by side and will unite.

[Herat]

Dear Herat,
Who made you the spokesperson for non-Pashtuns? How do you know majority of them want no part with Afghanistan?

If Afghans whether Pashtuns or non-Pashtuns wanted to separate it would have happened long time ago, but it didn't because all sides want to live together as a nation side by side. Don't forget in the past 13 years non-Pashtuns have been running the country, it would have happened if they had wished for it.

Every Muslim country in the region is creation of the British and western work. Before you emotionally attach Afghans and Afghanistan go free Tajikistan from the Russian culture.

Foreigners like yourself who has no place in Afghanistan and among the population should stop the emotional attach and come out of your fantasy world. You can attack me and other Afghans, but the reality will stay the same the Afghans will live side by side and will unite.

The answer is human nature, no one wants to be a marginalized minority, especially in their own home-land; that is why you Pashtuns detest Pakistan, why the "Ukrainian" Russians are separatists, why the Kurds everywhere want little to do with their host countries (all have been endeavouring for autonomy in their host countries for a long while now), and that is why ultimately the non-Pashtuns will want partition (Why are they voting for warlords like Abdullah? Why are the non-Pashtun warlords/leaders pushing for decentralisation?). This is a rather common argument -the vacuous inductive argument that balkanization will not happen since supposedly there has never been a separatist movement before. Well there has never been a Pashtun separatist movement in Pakistan either and the Kurds have been stuck in Iraq all this time despite the fact that in the 2005 referendum, 98% of Iraqi Kurds desired an independent Kurdistan as opposed to remaining with Iraq. The point is that the real world isn't so simple as a mere desire my friend.

After the Americans leave, the ethnic civil war will re-ignite along old lines -the Taliban vs the Northern Alliance- except this time the non-Pashtuns will join the NA en masse and even your nationalist Pashtuns may very well ally with the Taliban against them. But it won't stop the balkanization of your colonial-legacy state of Afghanistan because this time, the non-Pashtuns will not be competing for centralized rule, the evidence for this once again is the fact that they (via their leaders) have been endeavouring for decentralisation. You can call me a "foreigner" all you want but I visited "Afghanistan", or rather my native land of Herat, just under a year ago, and you can believe me or not I don't care, but all the Tajiks I talked to expect another civil war post NATO withdrawal, except this time, they all predict partition and if you ask them why, virtually all of them will give you the following answer: the non-Pashtuns will not accept Taliban rule again, no matter what the cost.

[khushal]

Mountain boy, have you not learned by now that presumptions about other people's position in a debate is not a wise thing to do? On the contrary, my view is that the only thing this western occupation did was cost 20k lives and a lot of squandered American money, all the while prolonging the inevitable disintegration of your failed colonial-legacy state (you must be proud of your grand-daddy Abdul Rahman Khan, may his name be obliterated that piece of cow-dung, who sold not only your own brethren across the border but also sealed our fate to your accursed land with a border to the North). I would have infinitely preferred and still prefer the Taliban government to this occupation, you see with the Taliban in power, it was only a matter of time before the non-Pashtuns would have recovered their will from the exhausting prior civil war to ignite yet another country wide civil war and finally deal the death blow to this cursed state. Instead we get 13 years of occupation that amounted to nothing but a prolonging of the inevitable. You should be thanking Britain and America for giving life-support to your state my friend, they gave your Afghanistan 13 extra years of life.

Your putting blame in the wrong place. The "Iron Emir" was but a sacrificial pawn in a chess game played by Russia and Britain. Afghanistan wasn't invaded to prevent partition as you seem to claim, it was invaded to prevent The Taliban exporting their revolution to unseat the "Iron Emirs" of the central Asian states.
The Taliban was a reaction to warlordism, chaos, and lawlessness.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/200...-kabul-taliban

As you can see hear, Tajikistan's "Iron Emir" would have been easily deposed since he rules the same way as people like Ax2 and friends.
http://books.google.com/books?id=s6l...rlords&f=false

People like President Rakhmonov who is protected by Russian troops, supported by Russian money to buy off warlords and Ax2 who basically is no different but uses American troops and American money don't really represent their people. They only exist because foreigners want them to exist. Their downfall have been predicted because their own people will not fight for them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...236_story.html

You seem to be under the impression that Tajiks can actually secede. That would be an extremely hard task my friend. There is no question the warlords are for it since for them it would be a way to consolidate power for themselves, but the real question is are the people for it. The reality is most people, whether they are Tajiks in the North or Pashtuns in Pakistan, don't really care what country they live in as long as their kids are being fed which is why me and you are living in the West because in the West are tummies are full, in reality we really don't care what country we live in as long as the main task can be fulfilled.

The fight in Afghanistan would be ideological and not ethnic as you claim. The fight would not be between Pashtun nationalist Ghani and Tajik nationalist Ax2. It would be between the Mullah and the Warlord. It would be between who can bring justice for the people in the most efficient manner whether that manner is strict and harsh or soft and liberal. Its what ever would work in Afghanistan.

[Herat]

Your putting blame in the wrong place. The "Iron Emir" was but a sacrificial pawn in a chess game played by Russia and Britain. Afghanistan wasn't invaded to prevent partition as you seem to claim, it was invaded to prevent The Taliban exporting their revolution to unseat the "Iron Emirs" of the central Asian states.
The Taliban was a reaction to warlordism, chaos, and lawlessness.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/200...-kabul-taliban

As you can see hear, Tajikistan's "Iron Emir" would have been easily deposed since he rules the same way as people like Ax2 and friends.
http://books.google.com/books?id=s6l...rlords&f=false

People like President Rakhmonov who is protected by Russian troops, supported by Russian money to buy off warlords and Ax2 who basically is no different but uses American troops and American money don't really represent their people. They only exist because foreigners want them to exist. Their downfall have been predicted because their own people will not fight for them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...236_story.html

You seem to be under the impression that Tajiks can actually secede. That would be an extremely hard task my friend. There is no question the warlords are for it since for them it would be a way to consolidate power for themselves, but the real question is are the people for it. The reality is most people, whether they are Tajiks in the North or Pashtuns in Pakistan, don't really care what country they live in as long as their kids are being fed which is why me and you are living in the West because in the West are tummies are full, in reality we really don't care what country we live in as long as the main task can be fulfilled.

The fight in Afghanistan would be ideological and not ethnic as you claim. The fight would not be between Pashtun nationalist Ghani and Tajik nationalist Ax2. It would be between the Mullah and the Warlord. It would be between who can bring justice for the people in the most efficient manner whether that manner is strict and harsh or soft and liberal. Its what ever would work in Afghanistan.

I never claimed or even implied that the intention of the US in invading Afghanistan was to prevent partition but merely that it was what we call in economics an "unintended consequence": the fact is that the non-Pashtuns will never accept Taliban rule, for the same reason Pashtuns will not accept non-Pashtun warlord rule, so it was not a stable political arrangement and hence civil war (which in fact was already under-way, Tajiks controlled the North-East even under their rule) was assured in the med-term. I am also aware of how the Taliban came to being but that does not change the fact that their rule, based on the way of life of the rural Pashtuns, is just not compatible with the way of life of the non-Pashtuns.

The question is not whether Tajiks want to willingly secede or not, it is a question of whether centralized rule in a country like Afghanistan which consists of diverse peoples with very different ways of life and interests can ever be a stable political arrangement. No Tajik I talked to in Afghanistan was interested in seceding for its own sake, but they all say they will not accept Taliban rule over them again and yes, they do seem to prefer their warlords (Abdullah got all those votes for a reason).

[Fish]

The answer is human nature, no one wants to be a marginalized minority, especially in their own home-land; that is why you Pashtuns detest Pakistan, why the "Ukrainian" Russians are separatists, why the Kurds everywhere want little to do with their host countries (all have been endeavouring for autonomy in their host countries for a long while now), and that is why ultimately the non-Pashtuns will want partition (Why are they voting for warlords like Abdullah? Why are the non-Pashtun warlords/leaders pushing for decentralisation?). This is a rather common argument -the vacuous inductive argument that balkanization will not happen since supposedly there has never been a separatist movement before. Well there has never been a Pashtun separatist movement in Pakistan either and the Kurds have been stuck in Iraq all this time despite the fact that in the 2005 referendum, 98% of Iraqi Kurds desired an independent Kurdistan as opposed to remaining with Iraq. The point is that the real world isn't so simple as a mere desire my friend.

After the Americans leave, the ethnic civil war will re-ignite along old lines -the Taliban vs the Northern Alliance- except this time the non-Pashtuns will join the NA en masse and even your nationalist Pashtuns may very well ally with the Taliban against them. But it won't stop the balkanization of your colonial-legacy state of Afghanistan because this time, the non-Pashtuns will not be competing for centralized rule, the evidence for this once again is the fact that they (via their leaders) have been endeavouring for decentralisation. You can call me a "foreigner" all you want but I visited "Afghanistan", or rather my native land of Herat, just under a year ago, and you can believe me or not I don't care, but all the Tajiks I talked to expect another civil war post NATO withdrawal, except this time, they all predict partition and if you ask them why, virtually all of them will give you the following answer: the non-Pashtuns will not accept Taliban rule again, no matter what the cost.

Dear Herat,

Your making your assumption not according to the ground reality but to a reality you have been living in and have been thought in the west.

Every human being has the right to live in peace and practice their religion, culture, tradition and etc freely as they wish. If you educate yourself with the world history and the regions history you will understand that empires have come and gone and every empire that has come has committed crime in variety ways. It will go back and forth whether we like it or not and this has been our weakness as Muslims.

Today you are blaming the Pashtuns, but who will you blame tomorrow if things get worse with your own country? The fact is everything will stay the same because Muslims are ruled by the west and today Ghani and Abdullah are fighting with other not for power but who should serve the Americans more and to become a sweet heart puppet.

Also if the people of Afghanistan had it their way they would have voted for the right person, but unfortunately Afghans as always have been robbed of their votes. If you think they voted for Abdullah and Ghani you need some serious thinking.

Also instead of using Kurds and others as an example, I asked you in my last reply you need to provide proof that Afghans prefer to have their country disintegrate regardless of what ethnicity they come from. Otherwise stop being the new Mullah Nasruddin.

[khushal]

I never claimed or even implied that the intention of the US in invading Afghanistan was to prevent partition but merely that it was what we call in economics an "unintended consequence": the fact is that the non-Pashtuns will never accept Taliban rule, for the same reason Pashtuns will not accept non-Pashtun warlord rule, so it was not a stable political arrangement and hence civil war (which in fact was already under-way, Tajiks controlled the North-East even under their rule) was assured in the med-term. I am also aware of how the Taliban came to being but that does not change the fact that their rule, based on the way of life of the rural Pashtuns, is just not compatible with the way of life of the non-Pashtuns.

The question is not whether Tajiks want to willingly secede or not, it is a question of whether centralized rule in a country like Afghanistan which consists of diverse peoples with very different ways of life and interests can ever be a stable political arrangement. No Tajik I talked to in Afghanistan was interested in seceding for its own sake, but they all say they will not accept Taliban rule over them again and yes, they do seem to prefer their warlords (Abdullah got all those votes for a reason).

Well Ghani got all those votes as well but you take away American troops and money, neither would stand a chance at survival let alone administer any part of afghanistan.
Ax2 gets all of his support from warlords who have created a panjab and Sindh like feudal power structure who have acquired most of the land and who ever live on their land basically serves their landlord so those votes are not really the opinion of the people, they are the opinion of the feudal warlords. This is why we never see any other party coming to power in Panjab or Sindh but we have witnessed it diverse parties coming to power in KP.
So this would be the case in the northern areas of Afghanistan as well unless those feudal warlords would be unseated. Since the northern feudal warlords are not fortunate enough to have powerful army like Pakistan has at their disposal, they would be easy to unseat. Real votes and real opinion would be to have their people fight for them.
But as long as stuff like this happens, I don't see a motive for the northern people to fight for their warlords.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/wo...9078.html?_r=0

What the current election tells us is the winner take all power structure(centralized rule) does not work with an illegitimate gov that has been installed by foreign powers. Karzai has kept the warlords intact and have decided that is the best way to administer the country, what he failed to realize was that the warlords would side along ethnic lines which makes centralized rule impossible in such an environment. In Afghanistan's past like in Iraq, centralized govs ruled with an iron fist ie Abdur Rahman and Saddam Husain. You cant rule them with democratic means because as you say people are naturally inclined to side along ethnic lines and the marginalization of the minority is almost guaranteed.

You are right, the way of life of rural Pashtuns differ than the north but that does not mean a country is bound to break apart. The American civil war is a good example where the industrial northerners lived much differently than the feudal southerners which is what sparked the American civil war. The country stayed together and its better for it. Lincoln is the most respected president this country has because of it. Unity iis much better than division.

What you should be promoting is marginalizing of the warlord because it is he who have destroyed the country, raped the country, sold the country and has brought the country to such the scenario we see it in today.

Separation is not going to bring the people more food to the table or more freedom and self determination to the society because as I have already provided the source in the above post, Tajikistan is riddled with criminal warlords who rule the country for their own benefit and not the people's benefit.

Ax2 is not the savior of Tajiks, that is like saying Nawaz Sharif is the savior of Panjab or Bhutto/Zadari is the savior of Sindh. They treat their people like slaves and use their people as cannon fodder to keep their power and wealth.

[Herat]

Well Ghani got all those votes as well but you take away American troops and money, neither would stand a chance at survival let alone administer any part of afghanistan.
Ax2 gets all of his support from warlords who have created a panjab and Sindh like feudal power structure who have acquired most of the land and who ever live on their land basically serves their landlord so those votes are not really the opinion of the people, they are the opinion of the feudal warlords. This is why we never see any other party coming to power in Panjab or Sindh but we have witnessed it diverse parties coming to power in KP.
So this would be the case in the northern areas of Afghanistan as well unless those feudal warlords would be unseated. Since the northern feudal warlords are not fortunate enough to have powerful army like Pakistan has at their disposal, they would be easy to unseat. Real votes and real opinion would be to have their people fight for them.
But as long as stuff like this happens, I don't see a motive for the northern people to fight for their warlords.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/wo...9078.html?_r=0

What the current election tells us is the winner take all power structure(centralized rule) does not work with an illegitimate gov that has been installed by foreign powers. Karzai has kept the warlords intact and have decided that is the best way to administer the country, what he failed to realize was that the warlords would side along ethnic lines which makes centralized rule impossible in such an environment. In Afghanistan's past like in Iraq, centralized govs ruled with an iron fist ie Abdur Rahman and Saddam Husain. You cant rule them with democratic means because as you say people are naturally inclined to side along ethnic lines and the marginalization of the minority is almost guaranteed.

You are right, the way of life of rural Pashtuns differ than the north but that does not mean a country is bound to break apart. The American civil war is a good example where the industrial northerners lived much differently than the feudal southerners which is what sparked the American civil war. The country stayed together and its better for it. Lincoln is the most respected president this country has because of it. Unity iis much better than division.

What you should be promoting is marginalizing of the warlord because it is he who have destroyed the country, raped the country, sold the country and has brought the country to such the scenario we see it in today.

Separation is not going to bring the people more food to the table or more freedom and self determination to the society because as I have already provided the source in the above post, Tajikistan is riddled with criminal warlords who rule the country for their own benefit and not the people's benefit.

Ax2 is not the savior of Tajiks, that is like saying Nawaz Sharif is the savior of Panjab or Bhutto/Zadari is the savior of Sindh. They treat their people like slaves and use their people as cannon fodder to keep their power and wealth.

As far as I am concerned, the warlords are a convenient "means to an end", where the end is our independence. Nothing in life is free my friend, the fundamental interaction of economics as you might know is the trade-off: there are costs and benefits to everything and the way I see it, the long-run benefit of finally being free of this curse that is Afghanistan outweighs the costs of temporary warlord rule. Afghanistan is the epitome of a failed state and is the far greater failure in the region. By the way, Kazakhstan is now in the same league as Russia in social, political and economic terms; the truly wretched dictator of Turkmenistan died in 2006 and the new guy isn't so bad: Turkmenistan today is among the most rapidly growing states in the world, both in terms of GDP and HDI (it will soon be a second-world status country by HDI, Kazakhstan already is).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...an_development

Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are indeed farcical failures as you previously described, tough the later emerged from a devastating civil war not too long ago. Nevertheless, you and I both know that the most rudimentary pre-condition for growth and development is sustainable peace and stability. Both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are now stable states and political reform will inevitably come with time, do you know why? The answer is homogeneity, unlike Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are natural states: they are merely ethnic/kinship groups formalized in a nation state. Afghanistan, like Syria and Iraq, is not a state, it is just a forced geographic territory where different ethnic, tribal and religious groups compete for resources. And warlords do not exist in a vacuum, they thrive on war, poverty and instability hence why the more successful Central Asian states do not have a warlord problem. I am no fan of the non-Pashtun warlords but again, independence and self-determination have a price, we non-Pashtuns have no other military group to turn to. And once more: the idea that the non-Pashtuns will obediently accept Taliban rule again is as absurd as Pashtuns accepting non-Pashtun warlord rule, this fact remains invariant regardless of the criminality of the warlords. When the civil war begins again and the Taliban start making gains in non-Pashtun areas and enforcing their rule, trust me, the non-Pashtuns will mobilize this time, whether warlords fight them or not.

[khushal]

As far as I am concerned, the warlords are a convenient "means to an end", where the end is our independence. Nothing in life is free my friend, the fundamental interaction of economics as you might know is the trade-off: there are costs and benefits to everything and the way I see it, the long-run benefit of finally being free of this curse that is Afghanistan outweighs the costs of temporary warlord rule. Afghanistan is the epitome of a failed state and is the far greater failure in the region. By the way, Kazakhstan is now in the same league as Russia in social, political and economic terms; the truly wretched dictator of Turkmenistan died in 2006 and the new guy isn't so bad: Turkmenistan today is among the most rapidly growing states in the world, both in terms of GDP and HDI (it will soon be a second-world status country by HDI, Kazakhstan already is).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...an_development

not according to these reports:
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/68378
http://www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=45

http://www.economist.com/node/215418...0d4c3b12a5e227

The biggest instability facing the region’s dictators is the lack of any mechanism to succeed them

You see the "Iron Emirs" of the Central Asian Stans is the reason for instability to rise and a Taliban controlled Afghanistan would make matters worse for these "Iron Emirs."

There was an economics article that I posted not too long ago that stated the Saudis love to see Iraq destabilized(supports ISIS) and also Turkmenistan(Supports Taliban) because stability in those countries would marginalize Saudis own influence which derives from Oil. They do not want to see another Oil producer power house.

Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are indeed farcical failures as you previously described, tough the later emerged from a devastating civil war not too long ago. Nevertheless, you and I both know that the most rudimentary pre-condition for growth and development is sustainable peace and stability. Both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are now stable states and political reform will inevitably come with time, do you know why? The answer is homogeneity, unlike Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are natural states: they are merely ethnic/kinship groups formalized in a nation state. Afghanistan, like Syria and Iraq, is not a state, it is just a forced geographic territory where different ethnic, tribal and religious groups compete for resources. And warlords do not exist in a vacuum, they thrive on war, poverty and instability hence why the more successful Central Asian states do not have a warlord problem. I am no fan of the non-Pashtun warlords but again, independence and self-determination have a price, we non-Pashtuns have no other military group to turn to. And once more: the idea that the non-Pashtuns will obediently accept Taliban rule again is as absurd as Pashtuns accepting non-Pashtun warlord rule, this fact remains invariant regardless of the criminality of the warlords. When the civil war begins again and the Taliban start making gains in non-Pashtun areas and enforcing their rule, trust me, the non-Pashtuns will mobilize this time, whether warlords fight them or not.

Tajikistan was the first country to go to war with itself after the Soviet Unions collapse and it is the most ethnic homogenous state that came out from the Former SU. The reason was the people had enough of dictatorship and governments enforcing policies that their people did not agree with.
The Central Asian states are still evolving from the collapse of the dictatorial SU and with the technological advancements with social media that has put information at the fingertips of everyone, it is only a matter of time that people are going to take it to the streets and demand more for themselves.

The dictator and the warlords are a dying breed, Thanks to technological advancements in social media, it is becoming harder and harder to fool all of the people.

Oh and about your comment about non Pashtun not accepting Taliban rule, it depends what the Taliban does. One thing is for certain, the Taliban of today is not the Taliban of the late 90's. They are making a strong effort to attract other ethnic groups and are slowly succeeding:
http://www.cigionline.org/sites/defa...an_Paper_5.pdf

[Herat]

not according to these reports:
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/68378
http://www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=45

http://www.economist.com/node/215418...0d4c3b12a5e227


You see the "Iron Emirs" of the Central Asian Stans is the reason for instability to rise and a Taliban controlled Afghanistan would make matters worse for these "Iron Emirs."

There was an economics article that I posted not too long ago that stated the Saudis love to see Iraq destabilized(supports ISIS) and also Turkmenistan(Supports Taliban) because stability in those countries would marginalize Saudis own influence which derives from Oil. They do not want to see another Oil producer power house.



Tajikistan was the first country to go to war with itself after the Soviet Unions collapse and it is the most ethnic homogenous state that came out from the Former SU. The reason was the people had enough of dictatorship and governments enforcing policies that their people did not agree with.
The Central Asian states are still evolving from the collapse of the dictatorial SU and with the technological advancements with social media that has put information at the fingertips of everyone, it is only a matter of time that people are going to take it to the streets and demand more for themselves.

The dictator and the warlords are a dying breed, Thanks to technological advancements in social media, it is becoming harder and harder to fool all of the people.

Oh and about your comment about non Pashtun not accepting Taliban rule, it depends what the Taliban does. One thing is for certain, the Taliban of today is not the Taliban of the late 90's. They are making a strong effort to attract other ethnic groups and are slowly succeeding:
http://www.cigionline.org/sites/defa...an_Paper_5.pdf

The Tajikistan Islamic Renaissance Party endorsed Ahmad Shah Massoud in our civil war. There are Islamist "leaders" in Afghanistan (e.g. Ismail Khan), I don't see any of them joining the Taliban any time soon, the opposite in fact.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1114008
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-924019.html

In the end, ethnic loyalties will always triumph over religious ones for a majority of people: non-Pashtuns have their own Islamist fanatics and groups but most of them do not join the Taliban. A salient exception seems to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which, unlike the Taliban, really is a minority militant group (it has never enjoyed more than a few thousand members). The "Iron Emirs" certainly stand to lose from regional instability but a Taliban style sharia group just isn't going to be happening in Central Asia my friend, those populations aren't rural Pashtuns (in fact, they are far less religious than the non-Pashtuns of Afghanistan, courtesy of the Soviet Union attempting to beat the religiosity out of them for some decades).
You are right, how the non-Pashtuns respond to the Taliban will depend on what they do this time: if they leave them alone as far as the rule of law is concerned, I do think the Taliban have a shot at re-conquering all of Afghanistan again. If they attempt to enforce the rural Pashtunwali-Islam mix, I don't think they are going to have much luck this time.

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

[MENTION=17960]Herat[/MENTION]

Do you really think the pesian of iran consider tajik as persians?I really doubt as even hazara are ethnic persian and we know what sort of treatment they got in Iran.

Anyway in iran it is more about Shiasm than ethnicity.

[Herat]

@Herat

Do you really think the pesian of iran consider tajik as persians?I really doubt as even hazara are ethnic persian and we know what sort of treatment they got in Iran.

Anyway in iran it is more about Shiasm than ethnicity.

I explained this to Badlun in that other thread, ethnic and religious divides are a relative thing: you see, when there is no one around, the Sunni-Shiite difference between us or the ethnic one between the Iranians and the Hazara does indeed divide. But now throw in Pashtuns in the equation, tell me, what do you think will happen then? Ill tell you what happened, Iran supported the Northern Alliance and it will support Tajiks and Hazaras again in any future Afghan civil war.

I have never claimed that we can or would even want to join Iran (naturally we want to establish closer ties with our ethnic brethren in both Iran and Tajikistan but that is a very different thing). However, the different ethnics of Afghanistan have different ways of life and fundamentally incompatible political interests, and so we can't live together anymore hence the need for partition and in our case, the creation of OUR OWN STATE (once again, I have never claimed that we will be joining Iran or Tajikistan). Afghanistan does not work and will never work, this is a fact and will remain a fact, Iran and Tajikistan have no bearing on it.

[khushal]

I explained this to Badlun in that other thread, ethnic and religious divides are a relative thing: you see, when there is no one around, the Sunni-Shiite difference between us or the ethnic one between the Iranians and the Hazara does indeed divide. But now throw in Pashtuns in the equation, tell me, what do you think will happen then? Ill tell you what happened, Iran supported the Northern Alliance and it will support Tajiks and Hazaras again in any future Afghan civil war.

I have never claimed that we can or would even want to join Iran (naturally we want to establish closer ties with our ethnic brethren in both Iran and Tajikistan but that is a very different thing). However, the different ethnics of Afghanistan have different ways of life and fundamentally incompatible political interests, and so we can't live together anymore hence the need for partition and in our case, the creation of OUR OWN STATE (once again, I have never claimed that we will be joining Iran or Tajikistan). Afghanistan does not work and will never work, this is a fact and will remain a fact, Iran and Tajikistan have no bearing on it.

1) The reason Iran detest the Pashtuns so much is because they are historic rivals. Ethnically Pashtuns and Tajiks are closer to the ethnic groups in Iran but Iran would support Hazara over anyone else in Afghanistan who are a completely different ethnic group. Iran is playing a balancing act in Afghanistan, they are supporting and trying to unite a force that can counter Pashtuns in the country to gain political influence for their own benefit and security. They are not supporting Tajiks and Hazaras because they are closer to them ethnically.
Its the same when America supported the Majuhadeen even though ethnically they had not ethnic commonality nor ideological. It was to counter their arch enemy, the SU.

2) Tajiks and Hazras don't really care about Iran. Iran treated both like shyt when they refuged there. Both groups were happier in the pashtunlands of Pakistan. Tajiks and Hazaras have always depended on routes that go through Pashtun lands for trade. Tajiks and Hazaras have in the past decade built diverse trading routes to their respective regions to prevent Pashtuns from blockading them even though Karzai tried to block every attempt at doing so.
Even if a completely different race for example Ugandaians had the region called Iran, they would still build trade and relations so they don't depend on one group. Its always better to built diverse trade and relations so that one group wont control you. It has nothing to do with ethnicity.

[Smarty]

I explained this to Badlun in that other thread, ethnic and religious divides are a relative thing: you see, when there is no one around, the Sunni-Shiite difference between us or the ethnic one between the Iranians and the Hazara does indeed divide. But now throw in Pashtuns in the equation, tell me, what do you think will happen then? Ill tell you what happened, Iran supported the Northern Alliance and it will support Tajiks and Hazaras again in any future Afghan civil war.

I have never claimed that we can or would even want to join Iran (naturally we want to establish closer ties with our ethnic brethren in both Iran and Tajikistan but that is a very different thing). However, the different ethnics of Afghanistan have different ways of life and fundamentally incompatible political interests, and so we can't live together anymore hence the need for partition and in our case, the creation of OUR OWN STATE (once again, I have never claimed that we will be joining Iran or Tajikistan). Afghanistan does not work and will never work, this is a fact and will remain a fact, Iran and Tajikistan have no bearing on it.

In such country, tajiks will become a dominating majority while uzbeks and hazaras would be resentful minorities.

[Herat]

1) The reason Iran detest the Pashtuns so much is because they are historic rivals. Ethnically Pashtuns and Tajiks are closer to the ethnic groups in Iran but Iran would support Hazara over anyone else in Afghanistan who are a completely different ethnic group. Iran is playing a balancing act in Afghanistan, they are supporting and trying to unite a force that can counter Pashtuns in the country to gain political influence for their own benefit and security. They are not supporting Tajiks and Hazaras because they are closer to them ethnically.
Its the same when America supported the Majuhadeen even though ethnically they had not ethnic commonality nor ideological. It was to counter their arch enemy, the SU.

2) Tajiks and Hazras don't really care about Iran. Iran treated both like shyt when they refuged there. Both groups were happier in the pashtunlands of Pakistan. Tajiks and Hazaras have always depended on routes that go through Pashtun lands for trade. Tajiks and Hazaras have in the past decade built diverse trading routes to their respective regions to prevent Pashtuns from blockading them even though Karzai tried to block every attempt at doing so.
Even if a completely different race for example Ugandaians had the region called Iran, they would still build trade and relations so they don't depend on one group. Its always better to built diverse trade and relations so that one group wont control you. It has nothing to do with ethnicity.

This is a chicken or egg problem: historical development is not so arbitrary, especially with regard to ethnic issues (why is it that group rivalries most commonly have ethnic basis?). And I never claimed that Iran supports us on altruistic drives but the reason it is in their interest to support us over you Pashtuns has historic, religious and ethnic basis. Iran is also currently a Shiite theocracy and their foreign policy does seem to reflect that; however, that won't last forever -especially considering that very soon the Sunni Arabs are going to end their game in Syria and Iraq at least but very likely, if a Sunni Arab theocracy comes into being, Irans Shiite game in the Middle East is about to come to an end. I strongly believe that the reconciliation, not in a single state but in the escalating growth of social, economic and political ties, of the Persian peoples (Iran, Northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan) is an inevitable event of this century. And I welcome it, why shouldn't I? I do not claim that the state of Iran as it is is an inherently friendly one to us but its peoples are our ethnic kin; you Pashtuns desire to reconcile with your ethnic brethren across the border, why are we not allowed to do the same (yes I know we are far more distant as compared to you Pashtuns but nevertheless, we are ethnic brethren)?

In such country, tajiks will become a dominating majority while uzbeks and hazaras would be resentful minorities.

An idea from economics comes in handy once again: marginal utility. Intelligent people do not think and endeavour in terms of unrealistic absolutes; its not so much about magically solving the ethnic problem in Afghanistan as significantly ameliorating it. Currently, there are 4 significant competing ethnic groups in the failed colonial-legacy state of Afghanistan, partition will remove one giant one (Pashtuns) from the game, that is one less competitor gone, that means a significant reduction in the intensity of political/economic ethnic zero-sum games.
Moreover, the Hazara do not have anywhere near as much enmity and incompatibility, historical and modern, with us Tajiks as they do with you Pashtuns. I believe it would be wise for us to give both the Hazara and the Uzbeks regional autonomy; in fact, I personally support Hazara independence but I don't think such a mini-state will be economically viable hence the non-Pashtun state will be a federal state. The difference is that you Pashtuns will never allow us autonomy because you know it will mean disintegration of your failed colonial-legacy state.
By the way, tell me, do you plan on giving the Baloch their own state? Or does regard for minorities only concern you insofar as they serve your Pashtun ethnic interests, you hypocrite?