US could punish Pakistan if no cooperation

[khushal]

Secondly, Russia and Iran are both supporting the Taliban insurgency, Iran more so than Russia. Difficult to deny this fact while the US military and intelligence states that Russia and Iran are backing the Taliban. In addition, the Ghani/Kabul regime also state that Russia/Iran are militarily backing the Taliban insurgency. Are the US and Ghani/Kabul regime lying?

Yes they are lying. Its all a ploy to convince Trump and Congress for more money for an irrational, costly, failed war effort.
There is no interest for Russia or Iran to support the Taliban. It seems more likely russia and Iran want improved relations with the Taliban so they wont support Central Asian insurgent groups. Russia and Iran know the US will leave one day but they want them to stay as long as possible.

[Insight]

Yes they are lying. Its all a ploy to convince Trump and Congress for more money for an irrational, costly, failed war effort.
There is no interest for Russia or Iran to support the Taliban. It seems more likely russia and Iran want improved relations with the Taliban so they wont support Central Asian insurgent groups. Russia and Iran know the US will leave one day but they want them to stay as long as possible.

I disagree. Iran and Russia do not want US to stay as long as possible for their own security reasons.

Just recall that Mullah Mansoor spent most of his time in Iran, and not in Pakistan.

Under Obama Admin, US was reluctant to admit that Iran was supporting the Taliban because it went against their wishes to align with Iran.

[khushal]

I disagree. Iran and Russia do not want US to stay as long as possible for their own security reasons.

That would be ideal for Iranian and Russian interests by using their two enemies in the region(the US and the Taliban) to fight each other for as long as possible.

Just recall that Mullah Mansoor spent most of his time in Iran, and not in Pakistan.

Under Obama Admin, US was reluctant to admit that Iran was supporting the Taliban because it went against their wishes to align with Iran.

Its all speculation. We don't know what that visit was for. Iran could have been the ones to tip the US drone attack on monsoor. We don't know. The majority of the conspiracy theorists blame the pakis.


Towards the end of the Obama years, Obama was wising up and was making speeches about how intervention and continuous war is counter productive to US interests.
Russia and Iranian support for the Taliban is a narrative of Warhawks. There is no proof, just statements from warhawks.

[toughpashtun]

Just because Mullah Mansoor had stayed in Iran does not mean that he was being supported by them.The Iranians may have been aware of his presence , but did not act against him for a greater interest or as part of a plan. These things are not so simple , you know.
On the other hand , I cannot say with certainty that Iran is not supporting the Taliban.

[Insight]

[QUOTE]

That would be ideal for Iranian and Russian interests by using their two enemies in the region(the US and the Taliban) to fight each other for as long as possible.

Im not too sure about this train of thought. Nations form alliances for various reasons.

Its all speculation. We don't know what that visit was for. Iran could have been the ones to tip the US drone attack on monsoor. We don't know. The majority of the conspiracy theorists blame the pakis.

Bro, to what end do we dismiss every single report about this, not just sourced from the Pentagon and the WH, but by reputable journals like the Daily Beast (who do their own research)? Regarding Russia, Russia and it's special Envoy, Zamir Kabulov themselves highlight the ISIS threat as a reason they have reached out to the Taliban. Does this prove or disprove that Russia is arming the Taliban? Russia is not going to admit to it.

Russia's interests coincide with Taliban's in fight against ISIS: agency cites diplomat | Reuters

Back to Iran.

Iran and the Afghan Taliban Teaming Up Against ISIS
There are a lot of articles out there about this. Can we dismiss every single article? That is a very high standard to hold reports to, and by such a standard all news can be dismissed in such a way. To a certain extent we can look at the situation and draw conclusions. Mullah Mansoor was killed on Pakistani soil, not on Iranian soil. The Pakistani airforce was informed well in advance about this US drone strike. Hence, it is not speculation but fact that Pakistan gave the green light for the drone strike. All drone strikes need to be cleared by the Pakistani military.

[khushal]

[QUOTE=Insight;812766]

Im not too sure about this train of thought. Nations form alliances for various reasons.






Bro, to what end do we dismiss every single report about this, not just sourced from the Pentagon and the WH, but by reputable journals like the Daily Beast (who do their own research)? Regarding Russia, Russia and it's special Envoy, Zamir Kabulov themselves highlight the ISIS threat as a reason they have reached out to the Taliban. Does this prove or disprove that Russia is arming the Taliban? Russia is not going to admit to it.

Russia's interests coincide with Taliban's in fight against ISIS: agency cites diplomat | Reuters

Back to Iran.

Iran and the Afghan Taliban Teaming Up Against ISIS
There are a lot of articles out there about this. Can we dismiss every single article? That is a very high standard to hold reports to, and by such a standard all news can be dismissed in such a way. To a certain extent we can look at the situation and draw conclusions. Mullah Mansoor was killed on Pakistani soil, not on Iranian soil. The Pakistani airforce was informed well in advance about this US drone strike. Hence, it is not speculation but fact that Pakistan gave the green light for the drone strike. All drone strikes need to be cleared by the Pakistani military.

Yes we can dismiss every single article because all those articles are quoting warhawks, they offer no real evidence. That is the warhawk narrative.
ISIS in Afghanistan are just disenfranchised former Taliban groups. The insurgency is not cohesive, it is fragmented and each group has their own emir fighting for different reasons. Some are common criminals who kidnap people for ransom, some hijack supply convoys and sell the goods on the black market, others are smugglers, etc. One day they are fighting each other, and another day they are fighting the ANA. They fight who ever is in their way.
Americans generals and soldiers, Defense corps, Afghan gov people, paki military officials are all involved in this money making scheme as explained here:
The Man Who Made Millions off the Afghan War | The New Yorker

There are thousands of Hikmats all over Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The corrupt officials in Afghan gov has no intention of winning the war, they want to keep the status quo and keep the money making scheme going as long as possible.


The paki military does not clear drone strikes, The US has told the paki military not to interfere in their drones flying over their territory. The US strikes as they wish.

[Firdousi]

[QUOTE=khushal;812768]

Yes we can dismiss every single article because all those articles are quoting warhawks, they offer no real evidence. That is the warhawk narrative.
ISIS in Afghanistan are just disenfranchised former Taliban groups. The insurgency is not cohesive, it is fragmented and each group has their own emir fighting for different reasons. Some are common criminals who kidnap people for ransom, some hijack supply convoys and sell the goods on the black market, others are smugglers, etc. One day they are fighting each other, and another day they are fighting the ANA. They fight who ever is in their way.
Americans generals and soldiers, Defense corps, Afghan gov people, paki military officials are all involved in this money making scheme as explained here:
The Man Who Made Millions off the Afghan War | The New Yorker

There are thousands of Hikmats all over Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The corrupt officials in Afghan gov has no intention of winning the war, they want to keep the status quo and keep the money making scheme going as long as possible.


The paki military does not clear drone strikes, The US has told the paki military not to interfere in their drones flying over their territory. The US strikes as they wish.

You are making very good points unfortunately I believe in vain. Insight is one of those typical emotional brain-dead Pakistanis who believe there is some sort of brotherhood involving Russia, China, Turkey and of course, Pakistan. Its all wishful thinking.

I must say I find hilarious how so many Pakistanis are eager to see a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. They fail to realize that unlike 1996, when there was no war in Pakistan, no there are several offshoots of their good terrorist operating within Pakistani territory, That means that if the Taliban win, Talibanism will spill over Pakistan and even over Central Asia, no matter how much Russia tries to woo the Taliban. Corrupt central asian dictatorships will fall sooner or later basically because most of them are useless AF.

[Firdousi]

Both Iran and Russia are playing a double game in Afghanistan. They need the government in order to keep the islamists at bay but they also fear a strong, successful and stable pro-American government next to them. They dislike the Taliban but they despise ISIS even more, so they need to team up with them in order to keep at bay the worst among the worst: Daesh. At the same time they hate and are suspicious of the American presence in their backyard, because they feel sandwiched but at the same time its good to keep Uncle Sam busy in endless, baseless and impossible to win conflict. Crazy double-game.

[Firdousi]

Bush tried this strategy and it did not work. It seems like the Generals just wanted to convince Trump this is a new strategy so he can sign off on it. Pakistan considers an India friendly gov in Kabul an existential threat so they can not move against the Taliban.

The US can not move against Pakistan. The Us military views the paki generals, who support the Taliban, are better than the alternative just like the paki military views the Taliban, whose certain factions attack the paki military, are better for Pakistan than the alternative.
This is a cycle that the paki elites, Afghan elites and US defense corporations while making money are happy with robbing the US Treasury and spilling the blood of US soldiers, Afghan soldiers, Paki soldiers and poor Afghan civilians.

Did Bush impose sanctions on Pakistani officials? Did Bush impose sanctions on the Pakistani military establishment? Did Bush cut the military and civil aid? Did Bush openly encouraged India to engage harder and deeper in Afghanistan? I doubt it. This new strategy is very aggressive with Pakistan.

[maneatinglizard]

This is not to say that Pakistan does not prostitute itself to survive, but times have changed.

Pakistan is not in the same situation it was in 7 years ago. Pakistan's ties with China have grown deeper, militarily and economically.

Secondly, Russia and Iran are both supporting the Taliban insurgency, Iran more so than Russia. Difficult to deny this fact while the US military and intelligence states that Russia and Iran are backing the Taliban. In addition, the Ghani/Kabul regime also state that Russia/Iran are militarily backing the Taliban insurgency. Are the US and Ghani/Kabul regime lying?

US general accuses Russia, Iran of boosting Taliban in Afghanistan | Fox News

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/asia/2016/12/08/Afghan-Senate-Iran-and-Russia-are-supporting-Taliban.html

Pakistan, China, Russia, and Iran are now all aligned with regards to Afghanistan. That is why US could only ask India to get more involved.

If Pakistan is made a State Sponsor of terrorism, whatever is left of the relationship will unravel. That means Pakistan would end all cooperation, and without that the war effort comes to a stop. I think the US especially with Trump in power, will label Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism.

China's economy is most likely no where near as strong as they purport. Their numbers are known to be highly exaggerated, and even the growth that we know they are undergoing is basically faked (tons of construction with little use). They're incurring debt at an unsustainable rate, and if they don't figure something out soon their economy will implode within a few years on its own. If India decides to play hardball, it'll implode even faster and more drastically. So Pakistan's alliance with China is nowhere near a sure thing (and let's not ignore that Pakistan is itself in a very precarious situation, economically, socially, and politically).

As for Russia and Iran, the others have already explained it well, but the idea that either is supporting the Taliban with any amount of seriousness is basically fiction. There may be some intelligence sharing or non-aggression treaties between them, but what the US and Afghan governments claim, that Iran is actually sending in commandos to fight alongside the Taliban, or that Russia is supplying them with weaponry, is a fairy tale designed to serve the interests of those governments (for the US it's to justify the ongoing war, and for Afghanistan it's to continue to present the Taliban as a foreign invader force that works with governments most Afghans hate).

I'm not sure why you brought China into this, but it most likely doesn't care too much as most of their plans in Asia ignore Afghanistan, and the Taliban have indicated that they'd allow ongoing Chinese investments to continue, so whoever wins in the end is okay for them. Of course, a Taliban win would almost definitely inspire and invigorate Islamic movements in surrounding areas, including the Xinjiang independence movements, which would ruin their New Silk Road plan, but China doesn't seem to be thinking that far in the future.

[khushal]

Did Bush impose sanctions on Pakistani officials? Did Bush impose sanctions on the Pakistani military establishment? Did Bush cut the military and civil aid? Did Bush openly encouraged India to engage harder and deeper in Afghanistan? I doubt it. This new strategy is very aggressive with Pakistan.

But its all talk. None of his threats are practical just like when he was threatening North Korea with his arms crossed "Fire and Fury."

Musharaf did everything the US asked and he brought his own country to the brink of civil war in the process and weakening the paki generals who are in realty US corp assets.
Putting sanctions on the Pakis = putting sanctions on the Afghan gov weakening their own assets, the paki generals and the afghan gov.

According the the theory of realism, Hegemonic powers create competing (uncooperative with each other) governments to insure influence over them. The problem with AfPak is that the Afghan gov is unable to compete with the Paki Army. Afghanistan weakness is that its much smaller, population wise and economically and more importantly it is landlocked so the Paki generals have leverage over it.

They were supposed to come up with a new strategy months ago but the reality is they have two options. Leave or keep wasting money and lives with no results. They fired anti globalist Steve Bannon and chose the second option.

[Firdousi]

But its all talk. None of his threats are practical just like when he was threatening North Korea with his arms crossed "Fire and Fury."

Musharaf did everything the US asked and he brought his own country to the brink of civil war in the process and weakening the paki generals who are in realty US corp assets.
Putting sanctions on the Pakis = putting sanctions on the Afghan gov weakening their own assets, the paki generals and the afghan gov.

According the the theory of realism, Hegemonic powers create competing uncooperative governments to insure influence over them. The problem with AfPak is that the Afghan gov is unable to compete with the Paki Army. Afghanistan weakness is that its much smaller, population wise and economically and more importantly it is landlocked so the Paki generals have leverage over it.

They were supposed to come up with a new strategy months ago but the reality is they have two options. Leave or keep wasting money and lives with no results. They fired anti globalist Steve Bannon and chose the second option.

We don't know yet if its talk or we gonna witness some real action. Its soon to reach such conclusions. There are huge differences between NK and Pakistan. Nuclear deterrence and NK neighbors hesitation when it comes to engage in serious moves against NK are key to keep USA at bay, after all NK is a threat to SK and Japan, but not to the USA (except for the soldiers deployed in that region). But imposing sanctions on Pakistan, conducting surgical strikes and raids within its territory are nothing new. It can be accomplished.

I don't think USA wants a weak government in Afghanistan. I believe USA since the Marshall Plan had this successful "state-building" strategy that worked very well in many places around the world, thats why most of America´s allies are actually the most advanced countries in the world even when they were enemies not long time ago (Germany, Japan, etc). In Afghanistan and Iraq USA tried to build strong and stable governments but many factors played against it: regional rivalries, local corrupt uneducated fools who sucked dry all the aid (warlords, jihadis, mafias, all these American "technocrats", etc), and so on. We can not blame all the miseries of Afghanistan on America, Afghans hold a huge part of blame when it comes to the current failure of our country.

Afghanistan being landlocked means nothing right now regarding its relationship with Pakistan. Since 2001 we have become independent to some degree and we don't rely economically on Pakistan anymore. Pakistan had the border closed for months and nothing happened. The times were Pakistan could use its ports and borders as leverage over Afghanistan like they did with Daud Khan are gone. I do agree that we are weaker and can not win the war against Pakistan. Our disgusting corrupt failed establishment should reach an understanding with the disgusting corrupt Paki military establishment after all Pakis got some legit concerns that must be addressed.

[Insight]

[QUOTE=khushal;812768]

Yes we can dismiss every single article because all those articles are quoting warhawks, they offer no real evidence. That is the warhawk narrative.
ISIS in Afghanistan are just disenfranchised former Taliban groups. The insurgency is not cohesive, it is fragmented and each group has their own emir fighting for different reasons. Some are common criminals who kidnap people for ransom, some hijack supply convoys and sell the goods on the black market, others are smugglers, etc. One day they are fighting each other, and another day they are fighting the ANA. They fight who ever is in their way.
Americans generals and soldiers, Defense corps, Afghan gov people, paki military officials are all involved in this money making scheme as explained here:
The Man Who Made Millions off the Afghan War | The New Yorker

There are thousands of Hikmats all over Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The corrupt officials in Afghan gov has no intention of winning the war, they want to keep the status quo and keep the money making scheme going as long as possible.


The paki military does not clear drone strikes, The US has told the paki military not to interfere in their drones flying over their territory. The US strikes as they wish.

Well, we just disagree on whether or not Iran backs the Afghan insurgency.
The Pakistan military does clear drone strikes. After the US airstrikes on Salala checkpost in 2011 that resulted in Pakistani troop losses, Pakistan closed it's airspace for months to US drones/and even logistical planes. This went along with Pakistan closing the NATO supply routes.

There is no dispute that Pakistan prostitutes itself, however, even in that regard they still have leverage. Pakistan does exert it's leverage when it sees fit. When Pakistan closed the NATO supply routes, it cost US an extra billion US dollars to use the Northern Distribution network.

[Insight]

You are making very good points unfortunately I believe in vain. Insight is one of those typical emotional brain-dead Pakistanis who believe there is some sort of brotherhood involving Russia, China, Turkey and of course, Pakistan. Its all wishful thinking.

I must say I find hilarious how so many Pakistanis are eager to see a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. They fail to realize that unlike 1996, when there was no war in Pakistan, no there are several offshoots of their good terrorist operating within Pakistani territory, That means that if the Taliban win, Talibanism will spill over Pakistan and even over Central Asia, no matter how much Russia tries to woo the Taliban. Corrupt central asian dictatorships will fall sooner or later basically because most of them are useless AF.

^ That is called emotional thinking right there LOL

Well on one hand, you exaggerate Pakistan's interference in Afghanistan and show them to wield almost total control over the Afghan insurgency, and then at the same time you downplay Pakistan as insignificant and that the Taliban insurgency will never have victory in Afghanistan.

You are just a Persian wannabe recycling the same Saleh/Abdullah Abdullah talking points. It is overdone

Make up your mind, and then you can discuss. You sound like a broken radio

[Insight]

Trump will definitely label Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism in my opinion