Pakistan reaching to Ghani

[Azmal]

What is you guys think about Ghani and Pakistani's peace initiative? raheel sharif and ISI dir has been to Kabul more than 4 times ever since ghani came to office, do you think Ghani can trust pakis?

[Khostai]

NO, but talking and deplomacy is the only way, becuase Afghanistan does not have the military power to do something else.

[Bengal_Tiger]

What is you guys think about Ghani and Pakistani's peace initiative? raheel sharif and ISI dir has been to Kabul more than 4 times ever since ghani came to office, do you think Ghani can trust pakis?

Ghani would be foolish to trust the Pakistanis completely and he should have a plan B catering for any scenario in which they betray him or do a U-turn.

I'm just curious as to whether the Pakistanis are changing their behaviour due to Chinese pressure.

[Azmal]

NO, but talking and deplomacy is the only way, becuase Afghanistan does not have the military power to do something else.

Indeed, but taking for sake of talking will be meaningless--just as it was for past 13 years---ever wonder with Karzai is so bitter? Moreover the war between Afghanistan and Pakistan is that of intelligence war(cold war) and the strategic pact with US of A is a deterrent of hot war—so having or not having militarily power doesn’t matter.

[Azmal]

Ghani would be foolish to trust the Pakistanis completely and he should have a plan B catering for any scenario in which they betray him or do a U-turn.

I'm just curious as to whether the Pakistanis are changing their behaviour due to Chinese pressure.

For past 68 years--Pakistan policy has never changed regarding Afghanistan. I suggest people read Ali Jenah's speech regarding Qabahi(fata)--it was open declaration that Pakistan will continue British Raj forward policy regarding Afghanistan. Ghani will be a fool to trust Pakistanis, the only way out of for Afghanistan to take the war to Pakistan---which is very much doable---the influence Kabul has over Pashtonistan/Balochistan is unmatchable—with India $ and resource it is very winnable war.

[Kushan Prince]

I don't think any leader should trust Pakistan because they are notable for back-stabbing even their own people. China is only using them to excrete influence in Balochistan for Gwadar port, its a basically B2B proposition. I don't think Ghani trusts Pakistan at all, he has clearly taken initiative in his own hands of wiping terrorism out of Afghanistan in which the pakis started.

[Bengal_Tiger]

None of us can really say what is happening, I can just theorize.

1. Theory: Ghani is an intellectual with a western wife and more in to economic development and peace and results through dialogue and co-operation, rather than some savvy ex-war lord in to realpolitik.

Maybe this is why he is co-operating with Pakistan as opposed to Karzai's more sceptical policies towards Pakistan.


2. Theory: Maybe the Pakistanis have threatened him heavily including sending their own "mighty, super-duper nuclear-armed" (in their eyes) army in to Kunar and other areas.

Some Pakistani nationalists online even speak of using tactical nukes on parts of Afghanistan when they get worked up in a frenzy of rage against Afghans after Taliban attacks.

Remember Pakistan is a country which has committed genocide in the past, whose army is unrepentant over its genocide.





3. If Ghani can contain the Taliban and confine them to unimportant areas whilst the urban centres such as Kabul, Herat, Mazar e Sharif, Kandahar and elsewhere progress then in 10 years time there will be a wealthier and thus more powerful Afghanistan in a stronger position to deal with the Pakistanis.


We'll have to wait and see but one thing is clear, no one trusts the Pakistanis.

If however Pakistan does implode and the main support for the Taliban then dries away, Afghanistan is relatively safe.

[ComradePashtun]

Bengal Tiger,

Your first two theories are nit-witted. Sorry.

Right on with your third theory and it is what we see happening. If you observe Taliban are being hammered hard across Afghanistan, while virtually almost every one hates them right now.

Pakistan's rational of supporting the Taliban is proving to be a hollow one considering the cost it has paid and is yet to still pay. It has to have 150,000 of its troops mobilised to fight Taliban and maintain gains supposedly made for at least another 3 years whilst the country is almost bankrupt. The economy is in tatters and its international reputation tarnished. It has to, and so it goes for Afghanistan, can either cooperate for the good of both countries and the region at large, or both the countries will be mutually destroyed.

Pakistan has a lot to gain from cooperating with Afghanistan and vis versa, than working against one another.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Bengal Tiger,

Your first two theories are nit-witted. Sorry.

Right on with your third theory and it is what we see happening. If you observe Taliban are being hammered hard across Afghanistan, while virtually almost every one hates them right now.

Pakistan's rational of supporting the Taliban is proving to be a hollow one considering the cost it has paid and is yet to still pay. It has to have 150,000 of its troops mobilised to fight Taliban and maintain gains supposedly made for at least another 3 years whilst the country is almost bankrupt. The economy is in tatters and its international reputation tarnished. It has to, and so it goes for Afghanistan, can either cooperate for the good of both countries and the region at large, or both the countries will be mutually destroyed.

Pakistan has a lot to gain from cooperating with Afghanistan and vis versa, than working against one another.

Comrade Pashtun I'm not saying I'm any sort of expert far from it, but since [MENTION=1444]Azmal[/MENTION] opened this thread to hear everyone's views, I thought I'd contribute.

1. Ghani's personality

Ghani has his own distinct personality, if his personality made no difference then people can vote for anyone be it Abdullah Abdullah, Ramzan Bashardost etc.

There has been a difference in policy post-Karzai, this is what Pakistanis themselves say contrasting Afghan policy differences since Ghani took over Karzai.

Can we say there's been a difference since Karzai?

If the answer is "yes", then the question is what is the reason.

Either external circumstances have changed, or it's Ghani's personality.

Ghani is an academic, in to economic development. Not an ex-warlord (not that Karzai was but Karzai wasn't an intellectual like Ghani)



2. Pakistani threats

Now I can accept this point being criticized or viewed as silly, that's fine.

However the Pakistanis were bombing the heck out of Kunar a while back.

That stopped.

They have kicked almost 1 million Pashtuns out of their homes in Waziristan and bombed it to a pulp.

They don't like Afghans who are officially foreigners whilst even the 1 million Pashtuns (Waziris/Mehsuds) kicked out of their homes in Waziristan are technically "Pakistani".



Waziristan bombed to pieces.

Maybe the Pakistani military used a carrot and stick policy with Ghani and the stick was possibly threats of massive bombardment of eastern Afghanistan.

It's not totally impossible.


3. The demise of the Taliban

The Taliban are weaker than before but still a major problem.

Apparently last year there were 10,000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan (roughly 200 a week i.e. under 30 a day).

5,000 soldiers dead last year.

The Taliban insurgency is increasing post-US "withdrawal" (10,000 US soldiers left in Afghanistan is not a withdrawal in my book).

Despite that, yes I'd say they're definitely less popular than before partly due to Afghan exposure to the outside world e.g. via satellite TV, internet, family abroad etc and also improved living standards.

They can be dealt with in the long run, but they are still a major problem and the government has to work hard to contain them.


We and other Muslims and all people around the world wish them the best.


* * * * * * *

A: 10,000 civilian casualties last year in Afghanistan, source (22% increase):

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=50111#.VOpEbvmsU1I

B: 5,000 Afghan soldiers (police and army) dead in 2014:

It has also been a bloody year for the Afghan National Army and Police, which lost nearly 5,000 men, a record.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/11420684/2014-was-the-deadliest-year-on-record-in-Afghanistan.html

[Azmal]

Bengal Tiger,

Your first two theories are nit-witted. Sorry.

Right on with your third theory and it is what we see happening. If you observe Taliban are being hammered hard across Afghanistan, while virtually almost every one hates them right now.

Pakistan's rational of supporting the Taliban is proving to be a hollow one considering the cost it has paid and is yet to still pay. It has to have 150,000 of its troops mobilised to fight Taliban and maintain gains supposedly made for at least another 3 years whilst the country is almost bankrupt. The economy is in tatters and its international reputation tarnished. It has to, and so it goes for Afghanistan, can either cooperate for the good of both countries and the region at large, or both the countries will be mutually destroyed.


Pakistan has a lot to gain from cooperating with Afghanistan and vis versa, than working against one another.

Off course Pakistan will gain the most with peace cooperation, first it will vilify Afghanistan--bring it to same level as Pakistan--a terrorism sponsoring country. It will legitimize its proxy—Taliban, and can also cash in with uncle Sam---they are already demanding a civilian nuclear deal like India from US of A in return for their corporation. What Afghanistan will gain is even of war---even which will be at mercy of Pakistan—what is the grantee Afghanistan have?
In my opinion Pakistan’s corporation is only short term, Pakistan as a failed state need a cash cow to milk the west and Taliban is exactly that. Plus the raise of Kabul will in fact rejuvenate Pashton nationalism---specially the demand for Pashtonistan—which Pakis thought was dead.
I just hope Kabul does not fold all our cards in order to win the trust of Pakis—at the end what Mullah Fazrullah did to Pakis, no nationalist or da pashtonistan zumong groups/party were able to do in past 67 years.

[Azmal]

I don't think any leader should trust Pakistan because they are notable for back-stabbing even their own people. China is only using them to excrete influence in Balochistan for Gwadar port, its a basically B2B proposition. I don't think Ghani trusts Pakistan at all, he has clearly taken initiative in his own hands of wiping terrorism out of Afghanistan in which the pakis started.

Looking at it from world prospective, regional powers, super powers and their interest/conflict—Pakistan/China VS India and raise of Iran—Shiaism va Suadi/Wahabism, and more assertive Russia—what is the best Ghani can hope for? Peace?
In my opinion the war in Afghanistan is over, the raise of ISIS in region is meant to advance to Central Asia---the question is can Kabul outdo Islamabad to manage the Islamist on behave of west---just as Islamabad been doing for past 40 years—or once again the job will be outsources to Punjos.

[Azmal]

Comrade Pashtun I'm not saying I'm any sort of expert far from it, but since @Azmal opened this thread to hear everyone's views, I thought I'd contribute.

1. Ghani's personality

Ghani has his own distinct personality, if his personality made no difference then people can vote for anyone be it Abdullah Abdullah, Ramzan Bashardost etc.

There has been a difference in policy post-Karzai, this is what Pakistanis themselves say contrasting Afghan policy differences since Ghani took over Karzai.

Can we say there's been a difference since Karzai?

If the answer is "yes", then the question is what is the reason.

Either external circumstances have changed, or it's Ghani's personality.

Ghani is an academic, in to economic development. Not an ex-warlord (not that Karzai was but Karzai wasn't an intellectual like Ghani)



2. Pakistani threats

Now I can accept this point being criticized or viewed as silly, that's fine.

However the Pakistanis were bombing the heck out of Kunar a while back.

That stopped.

They have kicked almost 1 million Pashtuns out of their homes in Waziristan and bombed it to a pulp.

They don't like Afghans who are officially foreigners whilst even the 1 million Pashtuns (Waziris/Mehsuds) kicked out of their homes in Waziristan are technically "Pakistani".



Waziristan bombed to pieces.

Maybe the Pakistani military used a carrot and stick policy with Ghani and the stick was possibly threats of massive bombardment of eastern Afghanistan.

It's not totally impossible.


3. The demise of the Taliban

The Taliban are weaker than before but still a major problem.

Apparently last year there were 10,000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan (roughly 200 a week i.e. under 30 a day).

5,000 soldiers dead last year.

The Taliban insurgency is increasing post-US "withdrawal" (10,000 US soldiers left in Afghanistan is not a withdrawal in my book).

Despite that, yes I'd say they're definitely less popular than before partly due to Afghan exposure to the outside world e.g. via satellite TV, internet, family abroad etc and also improved living standards.

They can be dealt with in the long run, but they are still a major problem and the government has to work hard to contain them.


We and other Muslims and all people around the world wish them the best.


* * * * * * *

A: 10,000 civilian casualties last year in Afghanistan, source (22% increase):

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...1#.VOpEbvmsU1I


B: 5,000 Afghan soldiers (police and army) dead in 2014:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ghanistan.html

Karzi was more a tribal leader then a president, while Ghani has the characteristic of a true leader--nonetheless he has a lot in his plate—only time will tell how capable he is.

[Toramana]

Azmal, my friend I know that royalists always have sought foreign patrons in order to win back power lost to competitors, I hope you have the level of selflessness to see the bigger picture. No power would like to allow its client regime to be self-sufficient and would always support alternate groups in order to maintain pressure on the regime that is dependent on it.

That is why the central afghan govt was weakened through Abdullah-Ghani compromise.

That is why talks with Taleban are taking place in the puppet state of Qatar with backing from Pakistan. That simply means one thing; Pakistan's position on Afghanistan has been given space to. The strategy is simple; use Taleban and Pakistan against afghans should they defy orders.

So you have Pakistan+Taleban on one side and Afghans on the other; and the patronizing power is sitting on top of both. Divide and rule.

As for Ghani, many afghans after the emotional flow of elections are now considering ghani to be an agent that has come to power to fulfill an agenda; although, I may not believe this, his whole family except for his wife is still living abroad.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Azmal, my friend I know that royalists always have sought foreign patrons in order to win back power lost to competitors, I hope you have the level of selflessness to see the bigger picture. No power would like to allow its client regime to be self-sufficient and would always support alternate groups in order to maintain pressure on the regime that is dependent on it.

That is why the central afghan govt was weakened through Abdullah-Ghani compromise.

That is why talks with Taleban are taking place in the puppet state of Qatar with backing from Pakistan. That simply means one thing; Pakistan's position on Afghanistan has been given space to. The strategy is simple; use Taleban and Pakistan against afghans should it defy orders.

So you have Pakistan+Taleban on one side and Afghans on the other; and the patronizing power is sitting on top of both. Divide and rule.

As for Ghani, many afghans after the emotional flow of elections are now considering ghani to be an agent that has come to power to fulfill an agenda; although, I may not believe this, his whole family except for his wife is still living abroad.

Toramana Lala,

What do you think of Afghanistan's relative improvement in terms of living standards and economic development.

Doesn't this make people (with more education, exposure to the outside world e.g. internet) less susceptible to backwards Taliban ideas, i.e. in other words it's highly unlikely the Taliban will ever regain full power (i.e. control of the big cities)?

Also what are your opinions on China possibly telling the Pakistanis to cut down on support for radicals and militants e.g. Taliban? As well as their general increase in involvement in Afghanistan.

[Toramana]

Toramana Lala,

What do you think of Afghanistan's relative improvement in terms of living standards and economic development.

Doesn't this make people (with more education, exposure to the outside world e.g. internet) less susceptible to backwards Taliban ideas, i.e. in other words it's highly unlikely the Taliban will ever regain full power (i.e. control of the big cities)?

Also what are your opinions on China possibly telling the Pakistanis to cut down on support for radicals and militants e.g. Taliban? As well as their general increase in involvement in Afghanistan.

Bengal-Tiger, you are right in saying that there is a lot of social development that has occurred in Afghanistan and Taleban's political credibility and popularity is at the lowest level. But they are still problematic and can hinder security and political consolidation in certain areas.

But all this is fragile until Afghans play their cards carefully to free themselves of the dependence-trap.

I am of the firm belief that Taleban would not be laid off and those that want to correct the behavior of Afghan govt should it go out of control would continue to keep the terrorist infrastructure one form or another. They can be valuable asset in Afghanistan as well as in Central Asia and China western border region.

As for China, it is playing kind of auxiliary role. The talks are taking place in Qatar and we know about Qatar what is its role in the overall game. Qatar link also shows who is defining the larger framework for the talks.