Afghan War End Game

Re: Pak US relationship - Afghan War End Game

You are yourself from Mardan, how can you talk about "current day Afghanistan"? What is your basis of this conclusion? Majority of Afghanistan has been under Taliban control, I don't see how there will be any political/economic or social sector transformation, unless you want to give credit to Taliban for that. As for "majority of Afghans" not liking Taliban, I don't see how that can be true, warlords joined Taliban when they saw no other power who could beat Taliban but now they do see US/NATO who can help them take over Afghanistan, so why those warlords do not join US/NATO? When they do join US/NATO then Taliban will automatically be a non-existent entity. Its not like Taliban army is/was 2-5 million strong.

There is Pakistan more than KP, FATA and Baluchistan where they can easily travel without an issue. BTW the "wars" in those areas are not engulfing 100% of those areas, whenever they want to go they can go, its only fraction of areas which are more unpredictable than others.

But we don't see "warlords", armed gangs taking over the streets either, much of the area is under writ of Pakistan government as much as you hate it but that is truth.

Re: Pak US relationship - Afghan War End Game

**KARACHI: ****For a nation that has lost nearly 40,000 lives to terrorism, it defies logic that Pakistan has yet to come up with its own national counter-terrorism strategy and policy.
**
But that may be a secondary step. Eleven years since the US-led ‘war on terror’ began, Islamabad has yet to figure out a consolidated narrative of the war.

**“We still haven’t figured out whether this is our war or America’s. It’s been 11 long years since 9/11 and the debate in Pakistan, unfortunately, still revolves around this theme,” **says Zafarullah Khan.

Khan, who recently retired after 34 years of service, feels more independent in speaking his mind. What he has to say holds much weight given that he has held key posts in the past, including that of the joint director-general Intelligence Bureau, director-general Federal Investigation Agency, Commandant Frontier Constabulary Peshawar and National Coordinator of the Counter-Terrorism Authority.
**
“How will this country make a counter-terrorism policy if nobody in the government is willing to empower an independent body that can formulate such a policy,”** he said.

**NACTA
**
The National Counter-Terrorism Authority (NACTA) was formed by the government in 2009, but continues to operate in a vacuum.
The federal-level civilian agency was supposed to draft the national counter-terrorism policy after taking input from all stakeholders and conducting research on various aspects of militancy in Pakistan.

However, the body remains ineffective because of internal wrangling on who would control NACTA.
“This important institution was made to suffer because the ministry of interior wanted to maintain direct control over NACTA, while all the federal intelligence agencies and provincial counter-terrorism departments wanted it to come under the direct control of the prime minister,” says former NACTA head Khan.

**Super body?
**
According to the current head of Nacta Khawaja Khalid Farooq, the body is meant to be an official platform for coordination among various investigation and intelligence agencies operating in the county, including the FIA, ISI, IB, etc.
“Our role is not that of a super body over other agencies, but only that of coordination,” Farooq said.
Coordination is one of the main impediments among various counter-terrorism units within the country. In the current scenario, the counter-terrorism effort is led by the military with the ISI acting as the lead agency. Police and other law-enforcement agencies have a secondary role.
There is little or just personal level coordination among officers operating in all four provinces of the country.

Another former NACTA head, Tariq Parvez, published a paper recently in which he pointed out that there is no existing platform for coordination between provincial police forces and intelligence agencies; and the civil and military counter-terrorism departments.
Khan proposed that apart from NACTA, there was a need for a ‘chief of inspectors general of police’ post that would sort out inter-provincial crime and administrative issues with all the four IGs of the provinces on a monthly basis.
Pending
Ousted prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had formed a subcommittee to review legislation regarding NACTA. The parliamentary committee on national security headed by Senator Raza Rabbani was called in to finalise the legislation.
According to a draft, it has been agreed that the premier would be the chairman of the body, while the ministry of interior would hold the vice chairman slot. This piece of legislation, however, remains pending at the ministry of interior for its recommendations.
Secretary Interior Siddiq Akbar’s office was contacted for updates on this front, however, they remained unforthcoming. Meanwhile, Interior Minister Rehman Malik did not respond to queries on this legislation either

Post 9/11: 35,000 lives later, Pakistan stills mulls counter-terror policy – The Express Tribune

Re: Pak US relationship - Afghan War End Game

in other news, US consulate vehicle was targeted in a bomb attack in Peshawar

18 injured and 2 people were killed :(

Re: Pak US relationship - Afghan War End Game

Finally, some sense ....."friendship based approach". That's exactly what I have been saying. Compete with India in building roads and school. But, for that to happen, Afghanistan need to believe, that Pakistan really wants to build roads for Afghanistan's' benefit not for some strategic reasons. Pakistan can start with playing double games (should come easy)with Taliban and the likes. Deliver Mullah Omar and the rest to Afghanistan. Give US the coordinates for Hakhani family. Convince Karzai that Pakistan wants peace this time. I think, Pakistan needs to put a lid on Pashtun problem, before it's too late. But, I doubt that can happen. This should have been done 10 years ago. Now, Pakistan more democratic, and has radicalized population (for most part). It it not going to be easy. If Taliban is defeated in Afghan (with or without the help of Pakistan), the backlash will be felt inside Pakistan. But, its worth the risk, if it happens then with the same speed, the local radical can be put down.

Re: Pak US relationship - Afghan War End Game

The Taliban

A shroud of anxiety hangs over the coming year in Afghanistan. It’s not only the country’s war-weary civilians who are beset with trepidation and uncertainty—even the Taliban are uncharacteristically worried. The people of Pakistan next door are bracing for trouble as well.

To be sure, the Afghan insurgents unabashedly welcome the impending U.S. troop drawdown. Maybe now they can start to regroup and regain some of the momentum they’ve lost over the past three years. At the same time, however, they’re acutely aware that their ranks have been decimated, while the Americans have worked overtime to transform the Afghan National Army into a credible fighting force. The Taliban’s propaganda department keeps claiming that the ANA is a laughably hollow threat, unable to fill the vacuum left by the departing Western troops. But privately, the guerrillas in the field aren’t sure which side is stronger now.

The country’s civilians are likewise on edge—and not only over the danger of intensified fighting. They worry that the U.S. departure will threaten both their personal livelihoods and the Afghan economy as a whole. **According to the World Bank, roughly 97 percent of Afghanistan’s $18 billion GDP comes from foreign military and development aid and from spending by foreign forces. The West’s reduced involvement in the conflict will necessarily mean the end of many formerly lucrative contracts. Unemployment, already soaring, will grow still worse; capital flight will accelerate, and rising numbers of educated and talented Afghans will flee the country, whether legally or by employing people smugglers.

On top of everything else, there’s a rapidly growing threat of civil war. Afghans saw it happen 20 years ago: after the Soviet military pulled out, the pro-Kremlin regime in Kabul collapsed, and the West lost interest in Afghanistan. The country disintegrated into a bloody free-for-all among rival militias. Today, as the allies’ withdrawal gathers steam, powerful former warlords are hastening to rebuild and rearm the private armies they commanded during the 1990s, preparing to fight the Taliban—and quite likely each other—once again.
**
**Their militias now control large swaths of territory, particularly in northern Afghanistan. “We have to be ready to restart our resistance against the Taliban as the Americans go home,” says one northern militia commander, declining to be named. In the western province of Herat, the powerful former mujahideen leader Ismail Khan, formerly a kingpin in the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, is rearming his men. A senior Afghan government official describes the rearming of the warlords as “a dangerous cancer” and a prelude to civil war. “The private militias are speedily taking shape again,” he warns. “Next year they will be flexing their muscles even more.”

Many Afghans fear that as aid dollars and military contracts shrink, the resurrected warlords will move to grab as much of that wealth as possible, as fast as they can. “We’re in a civil war already, and the U.S. withdrawal will make it worse,” says Haji Ahmadzai, a well-to-do construction contractor. “The business community will be like raw meat in front of hungry dogs.” Many of his colleagues are thinking of emigrating, he says. “There is and will be a significant increase in the numbers of Afghans going to the West because of all this uncertainty,” he predicts. He personally feels so doubtful about the future that he has stopped investing in new projects and has put some of his businesses and buildings up for sale.**

In fact, Ahmadzai confesses, he’s considering whether to go, too. “If things don’t dramatically improve in 2013, I will shift to Dubai or Canada,” he says. It’s not an easy decision, he says; unlike millions of other Afghans, he has stayed in his home country through years of war and Taliban rule. “I’ve never left my country in my entire life,” he says. “But I fear that a civil war will endanger my life, my family, and property. The rich will be the first targets.” Since the U.S. and allied withdrawals began, his business has almost dried up. He owns five houses in the upscale, heavily guarded Kabul neighborhood of Wazir Akhbar Khan. At present, he says, he can find no takers for any of the properties, even though they had been bringing him monthly rents of $10,000 for each.

Longtime Taliban officials say their plan is only to hang on and hope for the best. “This will be a crucial and decisive period,” says a former cabinet minister from the toppled Taliban regime. “Our resistance will remain, but it may become harder than in the past two or three years to carry on. We have lost so many fighters, leaders, and commanders. No one knows what will happen next.” A senior Taliban intelligence official echoes his doubts. Where in winters past the insurgents have always predicted major advances for the coming year, he says the aim for 2013 is merely to keep the movement united and continue fighting. “Our strategy is to keep attacking, no matter if the attacks are large or small or skillful,” he says. “We have to stay intact and prove ourselves in 2013.”

That won’t be easy. “Even though we will keep attacking, we could lose more territorial influence and control in the north and south,” the former minister admits. He frankly wonders whether the Afghan guerrillas of today are capable of outfighting the numerically far superior and largely U.S.-trained ANA—particularly with Kabul’s forces continuing to enjoy support from overwhelming American firepower. “One big question is: can we expand our influence in areas where the ANA is taking over?” he says. Otherwise, more Afghans are likely to abandon the insurgency as a losing cause. “If the Afghan Army can hold its ground, that would be a huge moral victory for the Kabul regime.”

The biggest worry is the Taliban’s lack of leadership at the top, the former minister says. “In terms of running the insurgency, most of our current military commanders are weaker and poorer than the old guard of Mullah Obaidullah, Mullah Dadullah, and Mullah Baradar,” he complains. (The notoriously bloodthirsty Dadullah was the Taliban’s top military commander at the time of his death in action in 2007; Baradar, formerly Mullah Omar’s righthand man, has been imprisoned by Pakistani authorities since early 2010; and Obaidullah, once the Taliban’s third in command, died in a Pakistani jail that same year.) “The new top guys’ abilities and prestige just don’t compare,” says the ex-minister. “Everyone misses Baradar.”

Even more than that, the insurgents miss Mullah Omar himself. They’ve had no verifiable communications from their Amir-ul-Momineen (Leader of the Faithful) since he disappeared into the Kandahar mountains on the back of Baradar’s motorcycle in late 2001. Now Omar’s loyal followers can only pray that 2013 will be the year he finally makes his presence known, resumes full leadership responsibility, rallies his forces, and begins issuing orders once again. “This is the right time for Mullah Omar to show up,” says the former minister. “It’s getting very late for us.” In fact, he warns, many Taliban fighters are close to losing hope that Omar will ever come back. “But if he proves he’s alive and begins to lead, we will have a winning hand.”

The truth is that the Taliban’s problems go far deeper than Omar’s absence. The insurgents remain intent on killing their way back into power, rather than developing an economic and political platform that would be acceptable to most Afghans, who are heartily sick of corruption and carnage. The country’s voters are supposed to elect a new president in 2014; their Constitution prevents Hamid Karzai—an ethnic Pashtun, like the plurality of Afghanistan’s people and like almost every member of the Taliban—from running for a third term, and so far he has no obvious successor. “The Taliban have to draw up a map for Afghanistan’s future in 2013,” the former minister says. “Waiting until 2014 could be too late.”

But as feckless and sticky-fingered as President Karzai’s regime has been, the insurgents have failed until now to turn its flaws to their advantage. “There is a serious leadership vacuum, particularly among Pashtuns on Kabul’s side,” the former minister says. **“If the Taliban can change, become more open and flexible, we could win more popular support among Afghans.”

It may be too late for that. Long, painful experience has taught many Afghans—city dwellers especially—to hate and fear the Taliban. The group became a synonym for cruelty and intolerance during its years in power, and since then its roadside bombs and suicide attacks have slaughtered thousands of civilians. Many Afghans have endured more than enough of the Taliban’s brand of persuasion. Ahmadzai charges that the coalition is leaving its work unfinished. “U.S. and NATO forces came here to accomplish a mission—which they did not complete,” he complains. “And now they’re flying home, leaving us with a corrupt regime and a strong Taliban.”
**
The crowning irony is that Afghanistan’s fate in 2013 may very well be determined not by the Afghans themselves but by the Pakistanis next door.

**Most Afghans—including most Taliban—are convinced that the insurgency answers ultimately to Pakistan’s armed forces, particularly to the Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency. After all, Pakistan allegedly has powerful leverage over the Afghan guerrillas in the form of the safe havens and assistance that enable them to keep fighting. As a result, the Taliban fear that Pakistan might decide to betray them for its own reasons. “Our biggest worry for next year is not the ANA or U.S. forces. It is that Pakistan may stab us in the back, as it did in 2001,” says the senior Taliban intelligence officer. The insurgents have not forgotten Islamabad’s abrupt abandonment of Omar’s regime under American pressure after the 9/11 attacks.

For the Taliban, the fear is that Pakistan could try forcing them into a peace deal they can’t refuse. The insurgents are *deeply divided among themselves over whether to keep fighting or pursue a negotiated settlement. **At present the Qatar peace process seems to have gone nowhere since the Taliban suspended the talks last March. Nevertheless, the former minister says, a few Taliban representatives are still sitting in Qatar, awaiting further instructions. “The Taliban in Qatar are isolated and in an embarrassing situation,” he says. “They have to produce some fruit or close the office.” And yet there’s nothing they can do until Pakistan allows them to close shop or resume talking.

But other than the castaways in Qatar,** the insurgents are not completely at Pakistan’s mercy. In fact, they have made it clear that if Pakistan double-crosses them this time, they will retaliate, the Taliban intelligence officer says. “If Pakistan withdraws its support, as it did in 2001, we will not collapse as we did back then,” he warns. “We are much stronger now. We could join forces with the *Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan [who are fighting Pakistani security forces in the tribal areas and the country proper] and pose a great danger to Pakistan.”

And Islamabad already has plenty to worry about. In addition to the TTP, who have killed more than 3,000 members of the country’s security forces in the past several years, the people of Pakistan are suffering from grinding poverty, recurrent financial crises, and chronic short*ages of energy and clean water.** All three of the country’s most powerful men—President Asif Ali Zardari, Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, and Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry are due to retire in the next 12 months, and in that order. Neither Zardari nor Kayani wants to be at the mercy of the hard-nosed chief justice, but no one can say how either of them might try to protect himself.

Zardari has been plagued by unresolved corruption charges for more than 20 years, and Kayani now has his own legal headaches. The Army and the ISI have always operated with practically no legal interference, but now they’re facing a spate of lawsuits challenging their sweeping powers and their compulsions of arresting, detaining, disappearing, or eliminating just about anyone they regard as a national security risk. One lawsuit, brought by a former Army lawyer, Inam-ur-Raheem, even contests the legality of Kayani’s remaining in office, having reached the official retirement age. The Army doesn’t take kindly to outside interference in its matters. Recently, Raheem was beaten by a gang of thugs. It is implied that the beating emanated from his lawsuit. The military has denied any responsibility.

Still, Pakistani politics may give the Taliban at least a slight respite from their troubles—that is, those insurgents who make it through the first few months of 2013. National elections, due in May, will pit the deeply unpopular Zardari’s ruling Pakistan Peoples Party against his longtime archfoe, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, and the upstart politician and former cricket star Imran Khan. Neither of the latter two has much good to say about America’s conduct in AfPak or its counterterrorism programs, and both are publicly opposed to the Obama *administration’s escalating drone war over Pakistan’s tribal belt. But before *either one takes over, the Predators seem likely to be busier than ever. Expect street protests, flag-burnings, and a recruiting surge for the militants in the tribal areas. And keep your head down.

Re: Pak US relationship - Afghan War End Game

Real issues have been mentioned in the previous article, the US is bound to leave Afghanistan (albeit for a small presence) in 2014. The warlords in the North have started rearming to defend themselves from the taleban, hence increasing the possibility of a civil war within the country. The taleban have a strong presence (in the South and East), but its not really certain how they will fair against numerically stronger and US trained Afghan National Army. They have lost a lot of support among the general populace too due to their brutal tactics. The taleban are looking at Pakistan with suspicions as well, as they fear Pakistan could force them into sealing a deal with the Afghan government. They have threatened to retaliate (by joining hands with TTP) in case they feel Pakistan has abandoned them. It seems as if our policies have pushed us in a tight corner:

1) The civil war in Afghanistan is not in our favor as any dismemberment of Afghanistan could have negative repercussions for us. And to prevent the civil war its necessary for the Taleban enter the Afghan constitutional frame work.

2) If the taleban feel that Pakistan is forcing them to a negotiated settlement, they would retaliate for that as well.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont do. The result of raising proxies.

Re: Pak US relationship - Afghan War End Game

The war on terror, something we have never seen before and maybe never see it again. War started in Afghanistan (1979) ended officially in 1986 when US left the area defeating USSR. The current phase began in October 2001 in the wake of 911. US unleashed all its military might on Afghanistan to defeat those which itself created. The result card after 12 years is that they are still present in Afghanistan, and have spread to Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Mali, Somalia and Sudan. When will this war end?

The ‘war on terror’ - by design - can never end | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Last month, outgoing pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson gave a speech at the Oxford Union and said that the War on Terror must, at some point, come to an end:

**
"Now that efforts by the US military against al-Qaida are in their 12th year, we must also ask ourselves: How will this conflict end? . . . . ‘War’ must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs. We must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the ‘new normal.’ Peace must be regarded as the norm toward which the human race continually strives. . . .

“There will come a tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al-Qaida and its affiliates have been killed or captured, and the group is no longer able to attempt or launch a strategic attack against the United States, that al-Qaida will be effectively destroyed.”

**
On Thursday night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow interviewed Johnson, and before doing so, she opined as follows:

“When does this thing we are in now end? And if it does not have an end — and I’m not speaking as a lawyer here, I am just speaking as a citizen who feels morally accountable for my country’s actions — if it does not have an end, then morally speaking it does not seem like it is a war. And then, our country is killing people and locking them up outside the traditional judicial system in a way I think we maybe cannot be forgiven for.”

It is precisely the intrinsic endlessness of this so-called “war” that is its most corrupting and menacing attribute, for the reasons Maddow explained. But despite the happy talk from Johnson, it is not ending soon. By its very terms, it cannot. And all one has to do is look at the words and actions of the Obama administration to know this.

In October, the Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported that the administration was instituting a “disposition matrix” to determine how terrorism suspects will be disposed of, all based on this fact: “among senior Obama administration officials, there is broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade.” As Miller puts it: “That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism.”

The polices adopted by the Obama administration just over the last couple of years leave no doubt that they are accelerating, not winding down, the war apparatus that has been relentlessly strengthened over the last decade. In the name of the War on Terror, the current president has diluted decades-old Miranda warnings; codified a new scheme of indefinite detention on US soil; plotted to relocate Guantanamo to Illinois; increased secrecy, repression and release-restrictions at the camp; minted a new theory of presidential assassination powers even for US citizens; renewed the Bush/Cheney warrantless eavesdropping framework for another five years, as well as the Patriot Act, without a single reform; and just signed into law all new restrictions on the release of indefinitely held detainees.

Does that sound to you like a government anticipating the end of the War on Terror any time soon? Or does it sound like one working feverishly to make their terrorism-justified powers of detention, surveillance, killing and secrecy permanent? About all of this, the ACLU’s Executive Director, Anthony Romero, provided the answer on Thursday: “President Obama has utterly failed the first test of his second term, even before inauguration day. His signature means indefinite detention without charge or trial, as well as the illegal military commissions, will be extended.”

There’s a good reason US officials are assuming the “War on Terror” will persist indefinitely: namely, their actions ensure that this occurs. **The New York Times’ Matthew Rosenberg this morning examines what the US government seems to regard as the strange phenomenon of Afghan soldiers attacking US troops with increasing frequency, and in doing so, discovers a shocking reality: people end up disliking those who occupy and bomb their country:

"Such insider attacks, by Afghan security forces on their Western allies, became ‘the signature violence of 2012’, in the words of one former American official. The surge in attacks has provided the clearest sign yet that Afghan resentment of foreigners is becoming unmanageable, and American officials have expressed worries about its disruptive effects on the training mission that is the core of the American withdrawal plan for 2014. . . .

"But behind it all, many senior coalition and Afghan officials are now concluding that after nearly 12 years of war, the view of foreigners held by many Afghans has come to mirror that of the Taliban. Hope has turned into hatred, and some will find a reason to act on those feelings.
**
**
“‘A great percentage of the insider attacks have the enemy narrative — the narrative that the infidels have to be driven out — somewhere inside of them, but they aren’t directed by the enemy,’ said a senior coalition officer, who asked not to be identified because of Afghan and American sensitivities about the attacks.”**

In other words, more than a decade of occupying and brutalizing that country has turned large swaths of the population into the “Taliban”, to the extent that the “Taliban” means: Afghans willing to use violence to force the US and its allies out of their country. As always, the US - through the very policies of aggression and militarism justified in the name of terrorism - is creating the very “terrorists” those polices are supposedly designed to combat. It’s a pure and perfect system of self-perpetuation.

**Exactly the same thing is happening in Yemen, where nothing is more effective at driving Yemenis into the arms of al-Qaida than the rapidly escalated drone attacks under Obama. This morning, the Times reported that US air strikes in Yemen are carried out in close cooperation with the air force of Saudi Arabia, which will only exacerbate that problem. Indeed, virtually every person accused of plotting to target the US with terrorist attacks in last several years has expressly cited increasing US violence, aggression and militarism in the Muslim world as the cause.
**

There’s no question that this “war” will continue indefinitely. There is no question that US actions are the cause of that, the gasoline that fuels the fire. The only question - and it’s becoming less of a question for me all the time - is whether this endless war is the intended result of US actions or just an unwanted miscalculation.

It’s increasingly hard to make the case that it’s the latter. The US has long known, and its own studies have emphatically concluded, that “terrorism” is motivated not by a “hatred of our freedoms” but by US policy and aggression in the Muslim world. This causal connection is not news to the US government. Despite this - or, more accurately, because of it - they continue with these policies.

One of the most difficult endeavors is to divine the motives of other people (divining our own motives is difficult enough). That becomes even more difficult when attempting to discern the motives not of a single actor but a collection of individuals with different motives and interests (“the US government”).

But what one can say for certain is that there is zero reason for US officials to want an end to the war on terror, and numerous and significant reasons why they would want it to continue. It’s always been the case that the power of political officials is at its greatest, its most unrestrained, in a state of war. Cicero, two thousand years ago, warned that “In times of war, the law falls silent” (Inter arma enim silent leges). John Jay, in Federalist No. 4, warned that as a result of that truth, “nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it . . . for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to agg*****ze or support their particular families or partisans.”

If you were a US leader, or an official of the National Security State, or a beneficiary of the private military and surveillance industries, why would you possibly want the war on terror to end? That would be the worst thing that could happen. It’s that war that generates limitless power, impenetrable secrecy, an unquestioning citizenry, and massive profit.

Just this week, a federal judge ruled that the Obama administration need not respond to the New York Times and the ACLU’s mere request to disclose the government’s legal rationale for why the President believes he can target US citizens for assassination without due process. Even while recognizing how perverse her own ruling was - “The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me” and it imposes “a veritable Catch-22” - the federal judge nonetheless explained that federal courts have constructed such a protective shield around the US government in the name of terrorism that it amounts to an unfettered license to violate even the most basic rights: “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret” (emphasis added).

Why would anyone in the US government or its owners have any interest in putting an end to this sham bonanza of power and profit called “the war on terror”? Johnson is right that there must be an end to this war imminently, and Maddow is right that the failure to do so will render all the due-process-free and lawless killing and imprisoning and invading and bombing morally indefensible and historically unforgivable.

But the notion that the US government is even entertaining putting an end to any of this is a pipe dream, and the belief that they even want to is fantasy. They’re preparing for more endless war; their actions are fueling that war; and they continue to reap untold benefits from its continuation. Only outside compulsion, from citizens, can make an end to all of this possible.

Re: Pak US relationship - Afghan War End Game

Pakistani and Afghan ulema conference is due in a few days, but it seems as if both sides have reservations. The Afghans want to get a fatwa against suicide bombings, and dont seem keen to include Afghan taleban in the conference. Where as Pakistan would want the Afghan taleban a part of this peace plan. Peace in Afghanistan would guarantee peace in Pakistan! Lets see how things pan out.

Pakistan smells a rat in Kabul nominations - thenews.com.pk

**The nomination of five Pakistani Ulema by the Kabul government, under ‘specific’ guidelines from Washington, has been categorically rejected by the Pakistani authorities and prominent religious parties on the plea that they are likely to take sides with the Afghan and American establishment in disregard of the ground realities rooted in the aspirations of Afghan people or the segments representing the popular will, to a greater or lesser degree.

‘The News’ has learnt from dependable sources that the Ulema whose names were sent to Pakistan for the proposed Afghan Ulema Conference belonged to Karachi, Multan and Islamabad. These nominations came when Islamabad pushed Kabul not to delay the convening of Afghan Ulema Conference efforts for which started in November and did not progress until January. How could then the main objective of ensuring peace in the region be achieved when the pace was so slow? The sources see hanky panky both in the slow pace and the manner in which things are being handled and doubt the intentions of both the Kabul and Washington regimes and consider all their moves as attempts to lend further support to the Karzai administration.

In order to expedite the process, Pakistan had recently nominated its five-member committee to promote the peace process but their names did not please the foreign powers as, according to the latter, the Pak nominees were “more outspoken and held specific views about the Afghan Taliban”.

During the same period, a parallel development has reinforced the viewpoint that Kabul and its allies or sponsors in the West want to bulldoze the conference to show to the world that they are seriously desirous of peace on the conditions acceptable to the Afghan people but they are simultaneously trying to keep the Afghan Taliban out of the peace process, the sources revealed further.**

The parallel development, according to sources, is a fresh communication between Mulla Mohammad Omar and some prominent religious parties of Pakistan followed by meetings, during the last week, between the representatives of Afghan Taliban and Pakistan’s religious parties. According to the information available with The News, the Afghan Taliban representatives met senior office-bearers of Pakistan’s JI, JUI- F, JUI- S and Pakistan Ulema Council.

The obvious message, apart from other points, was to beware of surreptitious moves aimed at the Afghan Taliban’s ouster. Even the ‘guarded, specified’ nominations were discussed in these meetings that were basically aimed at fulfilling the Kabul government’s designs as well as of its backers in foreign capitals. This move has been strongly criticized by Pakistan’s religious parties including the JI, JUI- F, JUI- S and Pakistan Ulema Council.

As a result of these meetings, Pakistan’s religious parties unanimously supported the idea of including the Afghan Taliban in the proposed conference. The sources further revealed that the Kabul government, guided by some foreign powers, is playing a double game as is also evidenced from the fact that it has not yet finalized and conveyed the conference’s agenda to Pakistan despite the latter’s insistence (till the beginning of the current month).
**
According to sources, the purpose of the conference, as declared by the conference organizers, is obtaining ‘Fatawaa’ (edicts) from Islamic scholars against suicide bombings that are ‘Haram’ (forbidden) in religion. **Pakistan’s religious parties don’t have any objection to any peace moves but the precondition attached to it is that of ensuring their (peace moves) conformity with true Islamic injunctions. However, if the actual goal of the so-called peace conference is favouring or endorsing Karzai government without participation of the Afghan Taliban, then it would be just counterproductive, say Pakistan’s main religious parties that were sent communication by Mulla Omar, through satellite systems and other channels and also through the representatives of Afghan Taliban.

The News has further learnt that the principled stand taken by independent scholars (not the nominated ones) also enjoys the support (the sources say ‘endorsement’) of many diplomats from European Union countries as well as from Islamic countries. It is also known by now that some of these diplomats met the Pakistan Ulema Council chairman and other religious parties’ representatives to ascertain as to what went wrong with the conference’s plan. When they came to know that neither any agenda had been made public (for ulterior motives, obviously) nor willingness shown to invite the Afghan Taliban, they (the diplomats) accepted the plea of Pakistani Ulema/parties rejecting the pro-Karzai or pro-Washington moot.

Other well-informed sources inside Pakistan government offices, have also disclosed that both the Foreign Office and Ministry of Religious Affairs have, of late, established contact with the Pakistan Ulema Council with the idea of getting proper and timely input from the country’s Ulema vis-à-vis the Afghan Ulema Conference. The declared objective is making it viable and successful.

Re: Pak US relationship - Afghan War End Game

Pakistan, Afghan, UK leaders urge Taliban

LONDON: Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai vowed Monday to achieve a peace settlement for Afghanistan within six months, after talks hosted by Britain.

The three leaders also said they supported the opening of an office in Qatar for the Afghan Taliban to hold talks.

“All sides agreed on the urgency of this work and committed themselves to take all necessary measures to achieve the goal of a peace settlement over the next six months,” they said in a joint statement issued by Cameron’s office.

The three leaders also called on the Taliban “to take those steps necessary to open an office and to enter into dialogue”.

“President Karzai, president Zardari and the prime minister affirmed that they supported the opening of an office in Doha for the purpose of negotiations between the Taliban and the High Peace Council of Afghanistan as part of an Afghan-led peace process,” the statement said.

“All sides… committed themselves to take all necessary measures to achieve the goal of a peace settlement over the next six months,” said the statement released by British Prime Minister David Cameron’s office.

The British PM is hosting the Afghan and Pakistani leaders at a summit at his Chequers country retreat near London.

The talks are aimed at boosting cooperation in cementing an Afghan peace and reconciliation process amid growing fears that civil war could erupt when international troops leave Afghanistan in 2014.

Re: Pak US relationship - Afghan War End Game

Dont know if we should laugh or cry. Karzai is saying today that Pakistan faces more terrorism as compared to Afghanistan, as the army and people of the country are being attacked daily. Yeh waqt bhi aana tha, thanks to out incompetent government and military.

Re: Pak US relationship - Afghan War End Game

First phase of Nato withdrawal from Afghanistan begins | Pakistan | DAWN.COM

Fazl in Doha for talks with Afghan Taliban: JUI-F | Pakistan | DAWN.COM

US General Dunford takes charge of Nato in Afghanistan | World | DAWN.COM

Re: Afghan War End Game

What a beautiful little bictory - It is the kind of bictory that puts the vijay of Nam & NoKo to shame... Wah wah beautiful little pashtuns oops taliban and their good little spanking I mean centuries old spanking.. First it was the brits twice then Russkies and now the grand terrorist.. The result below.

Now just wait and and see half-a$$ spins of spin doctors..LOL..!

Afghan endgame: US withdraws military equipment via Pakistan

By Our Correspondent

Published: February 10, 2013

Pakistan allows US to use its land route for withdrawal of military equipment from Afghanistan. PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD: The United States has started withdrawing military equipment from Afghanistan and a first convoy of containers crossed the Torkham border point headed to Karachi for shipment, said an official of the cargo company on Sunday.

Re: Afghan War End Game

During the Vietnam War, Sen. George Aiken, a Vermont Republican, was famous for suggesting that we declare victory and go home. :D

President Obama seems to be pursuing a version of this strategy in Afghanistan. At least that is the inference one can draw from his claims of success at a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Friday in which the two leaders unveiled an acceleration of the timetable for U.S. troops to step back from combat.

The shadow over Pakistan

Interesting points raised by Ayaz Amir. Pakistan army supported taleban (in Afghanistan) for achieving strategic depth, has that been reversed due to our follies?

The shadow over Pakistan - Ayaz Amir

The Soviet pullout from Afghanistan in 1989 was a triumph for our military establishment. The ISI and the Zia regime, while not solely responsible for that outcome, had helped bring it about. But the American pullout from Afghanistan, now underway and to be completed in about a year’s time, far from being any kind of triumph looks set to be a disaster…one for which we are wholly unprepared.

Afghanistan in 1989 was a simpler proposition, the highs and lows of it etched in black and white. Afghanistan in 2013 is a place infinitely more complicated and dangerous…not just for itself but for us as well.

This is because of one vital difference. Afghanistan then was a country contained within its borders. Afghanistan now, to our misfortune, is stretched across the Durand Line. Ask yourself two simple questions: (1) Are the Taliban based in Fata more loyal to Mullah Omar or to the state of Pakistan? (2) Is North Waziristan, in real terms, more a part of Pakistan or Afghanistan?

When the American pullout is complete these facts will become starker. Does anyone in his right mind think that in a year from now Amir Hakeemullah Mehsud – amir of the semi-independent Islamic Emirate of North Waziristan – will come down from the mountains and lay down his arms before the army command in Rawalpindi?

The Afghan ‘mujahideen’ in 1989 exulted over the circumstance that they had defeated one superpower. Now they can lay claim to a far bigger triumph. Forget about the Afghan Taliban. Does any fool think that when the Americans have drunk fully from their cup of humiliation, the Pakistani Taliban will be in a more penitent mood, ready to settle for modest or moderate terms with the hapless representatives of the Pakistani state? What world of fantasy and make-believe are we living in?

We can fit that old proverb to our circumstances: with friends like the United States who needs enemies? The Americans made life difficult for us by coming to Afghanistan in 2011. They will make life more difficult for us by leaving the job they came to do not just half-done but utterly undone. The Taliban before were just an Afghan phenomenon, a curiosity to be observed from afar. Thanks to our American friends they are now just as much a Pakistani phenomenon.

And we will have to deal with this phenomenon not in the remote future but in a year’s time. When President Obama first said that American troops would be out by 2014, it seemed such a distant date. Now it’s upon us and, far from being prepared, we are seeing to it that we bury our heads deeper into the sand, with sundry paladins saying we must talk peace with the Taliban without being at all clear what this would entail.

Forget for a moment the modalities of peace talks, whether in the mountains or Doha or wherever. Can the knights proposing talks with the Taliban just spell out the terms of a likely settlement? We need some clarity here, not woolly statements…specific outlines of a settlement that would be good for Pakistan. If capable of this clarity, they should not waste a minute. If not, then perhaps it would be best not to b*****sh olive branches which can only encourage the Taliban and confuse our own forces risking their lives in the killing fields of Fata.

There has been no greater apologist for the Taliban than Imran Khan. Yet when he wanted to march to North Waziristan the Taliban would not allow him. Maulana Fazlur Rehman is a self-appointed mediator for talks with the Taliban. Yet the Taliban, in so many words, have made it clear they want to have nothing to do with him.

Do we take the Taliban to be a bunch of kids? They have been fighting the Pakistan army and air force for the last so many years. Having held out for so long will they settle for any kind of lollipops when, across the Hindukush mountains, vindication is so close at hand for their brethren under Mullah Omar from whom they derive their inspiration? And from whom besides inspiration they will derive more physical strength once the Americans are out of Afghanistan.

Are we in a position to dictate terms or negotiate from a position of strength? Quite apart from the balance of military forces, is there any internal cohesion on our side? If there are elements in Pakistani society hostile to the Taliban, there is no shortage of elements sympathetic to them. The Taliban suffer from no such confusion. We need no videos from the Taliban spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan, to tell us that they are united in their aim: the recasting of the Pakistani state along lines prescribed by their own version of Islam.
What Swat was under Mullah Fazlullah, what North Waziristan is under Hakeemullah Mehsud, what the Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan will be under Mullah Omar, is what they would like the whole of Pakistan to be. And don’t forget that their support network in the form of friendly seminaries and friendly religious parties is now spread across Pakistan.

The MQM may have its own sins to answer for but it is not crying wolf when it says that spreading areas of Karachi are now Taliban-dominated, with their own jirgas to settle local disputes. Indeed, the Taliban are stepping into the shoes of the Awami National Party. And the MQM while not without its own power will, in times to come, be no match for these veterans of multiple jihads.

So the dynamics of the national situation are changing and we remain blissfully unaware. This is strategic depth in reverse; not Afghanistan our depth but Pakistan with its religious parties and Taliban sympathisers becoming, oh scary thought, an extension of Afghanistan. Does this sound too apocalyptic? But then could anyone have imagined in 2001 that in a few years’ time North Waziristan would become a no-go area where our military boots would fear to tread? Or that the spectre of Vietnam would come to haunt Afghanistan?
Afghanistan is only living up to its reputation of being the graveyard of empires. But who told us to play with fire there? Now it’s just not our fingers that are being burnt but much more.

Come to think of it, through our folly we are reversing 200 years of history. Once upon a time most of the territories now comprising Pakistan were part of the kingdom of Kabul. Then on these territories Maharajah Ranjit Singh established his kingdom and, as a measure of his power, wrested Peshawar from Afghan hands. With the Maharajah’s death his kingdom fell on evil days and it was not long before it was defeated and then annexed by the British.

Of this tangled skein we are the luckless inheritors, successors of course to the British but, at a remove, successors also to the kingdom of Maharajah Ranjit Singh. His was a secular kingdom but let’s not get into that minefield here. More to the point, he kept the Afghans at a distance. We have been less successful than him in our Afghan policy. Our military commanders talk strangely of training Afghan troops. Our own house in disorder, we have the hubris to offer free advice to others.

And as the Americans prepare to leave, forget all the hogwash about their continued interest in our affairs. A skeletal relationship will of course survive but we will be largely on our own, with the rupee in free-fall and the Taliban on the march, in spirit if not otherwise. This about sums up our predicament.

That is why 2013 is so crucial for us, for the governing arrangement that emerges from the coming elections will be the stewards of our discontent when the Americans are out and the Taliban are dreaming of duplicating in Pakistan their victory that side of the Durand Line.

And will we be prepared for all this?

Email: [email protected]

Re: Afghan War End Game

Pakistan in contact with Afghan Taliban, former Northern Alliance | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

End of the Afghan war: possibilities and pitfalls — I: Pakistan in contact with Afghan Taliban, former Northern Alliance

KARACHI: As the United States withdraws from Afghanistan for the second time, Pakistan is looking for a role in Afghan politics once again. This time, though, it’s putting its eggs in more than one basket.

Reports of Islamabad attempting to control proxies in Afghanistan are nothing new. For decades Pakistan has been involved in power politics next door, from supporting the mujahideen against the Soviets and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Taliban against the Northern Alliance to allowing Mullah Omar’s presence in Pakistan and arresting Afghan Taliban who could have facilitated intra-Afghan reconciliation talks.

But conversations with senior Pakistani security officials and security and foreign policy analysts indicate that as the Western withdrawal from Afghanistan draws closer, direct and more active contact has been established not just with the Mullah Omar-led Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network, but also with members of the former Northern Alliance.

These contacts are a last-minute bid to prevent even more instability this side of the border and seem designed to indicate to the Taliban and the United States that Pakistan supports an intra-Afghan rather than a fundamentalist Islamist government in Kabul.

The conversations revealed that the Pakistani military now prefers a coalition government in Kabul to Taliban rule, making communication with multiple groups essential preparation for the uncertain post-2014 political scenario. A Taliban administration is considered a risky option carrying the potential for both civil war in Afghanistan and new safe havens there for Pakistani militants, and the best-case scenario is seen as being a loose federation of autonomous regions with a coalition set-up at the centre.

That thinking would indicate a move away from the state’s policy of banking on the Taliban as the primary, if unreliable, ally in Afghanistan. “The shift came about when it became clear that 2014 was a genuine deadline,” says former foreign secretary Najmuddin Shaikh.

But direct contact with multiple Afghan groups has not openly been admitted to despite increased public activity on the reconciliation front, including Pakistan’s release of Taliban prisoners and the Chequers summit last week where the Pakistani and Afghan presidents and military and intelligence chiefs indicated a six-month timeframe for a “peace settlement” but provided no further details about a desired political outcome.

And while in public the Taliban have said they are only willing to talk to the United States, Pakistani security officials tell Dawn the insurgents are open to talking to the northern, non-Pakhtun leaders, their traditional rivals, as the Western withdrawal draws closer.

Pakistan’s outreach, which adds to the publicly known reconciliation efforts facilitated to various degrees by several countries including the Afghan government, the United States, Germany, Japan and France, is unlikely to sit well with President Karzai.
These separate strands of talks came about, according to Mr Shaikh, because international donors and Isaf members were eager to “get out with some honour” long before the US decided it made sense to talk to the Taliban. But he points out that Mr Karzai has felt sidelined by these efforts and wants his government to be considered the sole Afghan interlocutor.

In Pakistan, though, domestic instability has changed views, says Moeed Yusuf, South Asia adviser at the United States Institute of Peace, a Washington-based think tank. The security establishment “wants to get the Taliban back into Afghanistan in an inclusive reconciliation and power-sharing process,” he says. “They don’t want to attack Taliban sanctuaries or give the Taliban power. This has been the policy for some time, and other countries are now moving closer to Pakistan’s game plan.”

The Pakistani strategy is in part driven by the belief that both the Taliban and the northern leaders remain formidable groups.
Pakistani intelligence estimates that the Afghan Taliban are a well-organised force of 40,000-50,000 fighters grouped into militant, political and finance wings with significant funding from the narcotics trade and extortion along transport routes in their areas.

But the northern leaders are also financially strong and highly motivated, controlling a wide expanse of land and commanding the support of several different ethnic groups. Leaving the two to divvy up power in Afghanistan would be a recipe for another bloody civil war.

According to Pakistani security officials, December’s intra-Afghan talks outside Paris — which included representatives from the Taliban, the government, and, significantly, members of the former Northern Alliance — were particularly important in terms of demonstrated Taliban willingness to consider a coalition and put forward specific demands related to such a set-up.

It remains, unclear, though, how Mullah Omar’s status in the eyes of the Taliban as Amirul Momineen, the leader of the Muslim ummah, could be reconciled with a power-sharing system.

Other well-known challenges remain, including the extent to which various factions and commanders within the Taliban, including Mullah Omar, agree on talks, let alone the notion of sharing power. They are also unlikely to accept even the residual American presence in Afghanistan that Washington and Kabul are negotiating. And the long-standing rivalry between the Taliban and the former Northern Alliance could scuttle any power-sharing agreement. For this reason, Pakistan’s preferred post-2014 scenario also includes a complete American withdrawal and a regional understanding in which neighbours, particularly Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, agree not to play favourites in Afghanistan.

In one example of the fears about rivals next door, the security establishment appears to believe that Iran has spread its influence beyond the Persian-speaking Herat region and is simultaneously supporting the Taliban with arms, safe havens and support for the narcotics trade as a way to get America out of the region, maintain its own influence in Afghanistan and contain that of Pakistan, which it sees as being too accommodating of American demands.

Journalist and Afghanistan expert Ahmed Rashid cautions that talk of a coalition set-up is premature. “The Pakistani military is now interested in a power-sharing arrangement in Afghanistan. But the talks are very far from anything like that,” he says, adding that they are still at the stage of trying to agree on confidence building measures. He also points to significant roadblocks and open questions. “The Taliban say they won’t talk to Karzai. They are opposed to a residual US force. And what about the upcoming elections? Can power-sharing be worked out before then?”

Pakistan may be interested in a coalition government next door, but whether the Taliban are interested in sharing power is another matter altogether. And if they aren’t, the consequences for Pakistan’s security situation could be disastrous.

Re: Afghan War End Game

Nato troops in Afghanistan ‘in a similar situation to failed Soviet invasion’ - Telegraph

Re: Afghan War End Game

So what the f... is new about this, This is something that was obvious from day one.

*Nato troops in Afghanistan find themselves in a similar situation to the failed Soviet invasion and are also waging a campaign which is "unwinnable in military terms", * - 12 long years and the a-wipes just realize that...LOL...

The question now is..

  1. How long is the monkey karjai going to last (hint Najeebullah)
  2. What spin is west going to give to this humiliation
  3. When nailed - whom are they gona blame for their failures (Hints :D )

Re: Afghan War End Game

I wont speculate, but it seems as if Najeeb's army was more professional and better trained as compared to the present army (which would be dependent on foreign aid for a long time). Lets see how long they can hold, but one thing is for sure for a peaceful Pakistan we need a peaceful Afghanistan.

Re: Afghan War End Game

Absolutely - and don't expect any so long the grand daddy of all terrorist is in A-Stan and the drug pushers and terrorist from the Northern Alliance are down South.

Re: Afghan War End Game

interesting article

Afghanistan: What Pakistan Wants by Anatol Lieven | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books