'Pashtunistan' holds key to Obama mission

The link s at the bottom of the page. There is a recent media obsession with Pashtunistan/pakhtunistan which is not agood thing for Pakistan of course. The NATO/ISAF/UN.USA have alll failed in Afghanistan and now it has to look for a different aproach. If Obama listens to Pakistan and involves it in Afghnistan in a positive way then maybe things will improve. The coalition has been indiscriminate in taregting Afghan pashtuns and that will have to change too.

I am not surprised that they chose to eat at Cuckoo’s Cafe but that was a tremendous risk. Walking up the 5/6 flights of old narrow stairs is a bit of a risk indeed. Magnificient views both at night and day over Lahore too. Food is good too. There must have been some serious security here and that itself would have drawn attention.

Nice of him to order daal too. I love daal too!

‘Pashtunistan’ holds key to Obama mission
The mountainous borderlands where Afghanistan meets Pakistan have been described as a Grand Central Station for Islamic terrorists, a place where militants come and go and the Taliban trains its fighters. Now Barack Obama has made solving the ‘Af-Pak’ question a top priority. But could the battle to tame the Pashtun heartland become his Vietnam?

Jason Burke in London, Yama Omid in Kabul, Paul Harris in Washington, Saeed Shah in Islamabad and Gethin Chamberlain in Delhi
The Observer, Sunday 15 February 2009
Article history

Relaxing one evening last week at the Cuckoo’s Cafe, a rooftop restaurant in the heart of the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore, Barack Obama’s special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan seemed on the point of causing a major incident.
As ever in the region, there had been no warning. The weather was just right, a warm late winter evening. The view was even better - unmarred by the security subtly positioned on surrounding buildings. From his table, Richard Holbrooke, 67, the diplomat charged with calming what fellow members of the administration call the most dangerous place in the world, looked out over the giant Badshahi mosque and the imposing Lahore Fort, both more than 300 years old. Carefully invited politicians, writers, human rights activists and journalists from Lahore’s liberal elite chatted at tables around him.
It was not that Holbrooke did not enjoy the barbecued spicy kebabs, Lahore’s speciality, it was just he had one special request. He wanted daal, the plain lentil curry that is the humblest dish in South Asia. For such a distinguished guest, none had been prepared. “The bulldozer”, credited with negotiating an end to the war in the Balkans in the 1990s, usually gets his way and this time was no exception. Daal was soon on its way.
Tonight Holbrooke will land at the Palam air force base, adjacent to the main civilian airport in New Delhi. It will be the last stop on a journey that has led the diplomat across the broad swathe of territory stretching from central Afghanistan to Pakistan’s Indus river. Call it the central front of the global “war on terror”, the fulcrum of the “arc of crisis”, Pashtunistan or simply, in the most recent neologism, “AfPak”, no one doubts that this is the biggest foreign policy headache for Obama’s new team.
“The situation there grows more perilous every day,” Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the American joint chiefs of staff, told journalists earlier this month. Holbrooke reaches for the ultimate comparison: “It’s tougher than Iraq.”
First, there is the local situation. Since launching an offensive in 2006 the shifting alliance of insurgents which make up the Taliban in Afghanistan have established control - or at least denied government authority - over a large part of southern and eastern Afghanistan. British foreign secretary David Miliband last week spoke of a “stalemate” - something senior generals and security officials have known for some time.
Local Afghan forces are still far from able to take on the insurgents without assistance from the 73,000 Nato troops now in country. The government is corrupt and ineffective. Opium production has exploded. Across the border in Pakistan, despite continuing military operations, authorities seem unable to push the Islamic militants on to the defensive. And somewhere in the mess is al-Qaida, though few can say exactly where.
Then, there is the regional situation. There is little love lost between Pakistan, India and Afghanistan. The two former countries have been at loggerheads since splitting in the aftermath of independence from Britain. Kabul’s relationships with New Delhi are warm, a cause and consequence of their mutual animosity towards Islamabad.
“Both India and Pakistan would justify their involvement [in Afghanistan] as a deterrent against the other,” said Chietigj Bajpaee, South Asia analyst for the Control Risks group.
Finally, there is the global situation. “AfPak”, or more specifically the area dominated by the Pashtun tribes around the border mountains, has become the “grand central station” of global Islamic militancy, intelligence sources told the Observer. Young westerners head up to the tribal areas, the semi-autonomous zones which line the Pakistani side of the porous frontier, to visit makeshift al-Qaida training camps to learn how to blow up trains or planes back home. British intelligence track about 30 individuals of high risk through Pakistan each year. Others are known to be fighting with the Taliban against Nato troops.
It is this hideous puzzle that Holbrooke has been sent to sort out. If he can. “It is not too late. If they get the approach right and make an effort to really understand the problems, they can still do it,” said Hekmat Karzai of the Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies, Kabul.
Holbrooke will not do it alone, however. Obama has assembled a powerful team of new and old faces entirely to revamp the American “AfPak” strategy. On a global level, Hillary Clinton, the new secretary of state, will take charge. Holbrooke will work on the region and the political track. On the military side, David Petraeus, the general credited with turning Iraq around, is now tasked with winning Afghanistan too. He has been clear that engaging with the largely Pashtun tribes, who bear the brunt of the fighting and provide most of the support for the insurgents, is an essential part of his strategy. As those tribes stretch across the border into Pakistan - a frontier which they cross more or less at will - Petraeus has focused on Afghanistan’ s neighbour too.
The complexity of the problems is forcing what UK diplomats call a “recalibration” of objectives. The Americans are more blunt. Defence secretary Robert Gates said the aim is not to build a “central Asian Valhalla”. Creating a liberal, democratic and prosperous Afghanistan has been, at the very least, postponed.
"We have certainly pulled back from the aims of a nice, happy, Scandinavian- style democracy,’ said Steve Cohen, at the Brookings Institution policy research centre, Washington.
The priority now is stabilisation. “There is a recognition that before… nation building, you have to clear the ground,” said Seth Jones, of the US-based Rand Corporation thinktank. For Waliullah Rahmani, of the Centre for Strategic Studies, Kabul, “until Afghanistan is stabilised, you can’t have good governance, development or democracy.”
First stop on Holbrooke’s “listen and learn tour” was Pakistan. As he travelled, the militants sowed death. In Peshawar, the Pakistani frontier city, last Wednesday a member of the provincial parliament was killed by a roadside bomb, the first elected politician to die in the current violence. The same day, Afghan Taliban launched an attack on government buildings in Kabul which involved eight suicide bombers and killed 28. The Afghan government blamed it on Islamabad’s spies.
In Pakistan, those Holbrooke met were impressed by the envoy’s apparent desire to hear what Pakistanis had to say. In Lahore, Jugnu Mohsin, a newspaper publisher, described how when told how Lahore was once known as a tolerant city where all religions thrived, Holbrooke, who backpacked through the region as a young man, wanted to know if it had become more conservative.
“He wanted to know about the Badshahi (mosque), who built it. He was interested in the culture and history of the place,” said Mohsin. “He was basically there to learn, to inform himself, not to tell us what was what.”
Others agreed, though pointed out that Holbrooke’s open mind might have revealed a lack of detailed knowledge. "He is candid… and not given to the pro-India fixation of the Bush administration, " said Ikram Sehgal, an analyst who briefed Holbrooke on the security concerns of Pakistani businessmen. “We’ve turned a real corner.”
Washington has poured an estimated $1bn a year in military aid into Pakistan since 2001 and is worried that it is not getting value for money. There are also persistent question marks over the Pakistan security establishment’ s possible support of some Taliban elements.
Indians make frequent accusations. "We have no illusions in India that Pakistan is a major player in Afghanistan, " says MK Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat. “Pakistan estimates that at some point the US will withdraw … [so] it can’t let the Taliban go out of its hands.”
Islamabad denies this, accusing New Delhi of joining with Kabul to foment violence amid separatists in Pakistan’s south-west province of Balochistan and of spying from two consulates they have established along the border. “The Pakistanis have real concerns about Indian activities such as road construction or building the national parliament,” said Jones of the Rand Corporation.
Holbrooke was taken on an aerial tour of the restive Pashtun tribal areas, flying by helicopter over Waziristan, the epicentre of militancy, to see the rugged and remote terrain. Yesterday, a missile fired from an American drone destroyed a house and at least 20 Taliban fighters in areas the envoy flew over, the latest in a series of highly controversial strikes.
Holbrooke stopped in the Khyber Pass, a key supply route for troops in Afghanistan and under attack in recent months, for a briefing with local commanders. Impressed, local observers pointed out that neither Pakistan’s president, Asif Zardari, nor prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, have dared to do the same. Holbrooke had met both in Islamabad.
Then it was on to Lahore for meetings with former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif - who said Holbrooke had admitted that there had been “mistakes” in past US policy - and the rooftop dinner.
Then Holbrooke was on the move again to a frozen, snowy Kabul. The gritty, depressing, grey weather reflected the mood of the visit. Not only is it widely recognised that the Afghan project is in deep trouble but the Obama team believe President Hamid Karzai is at least in part responsible. Relations have deteriorated badly since the halcyon days when the Afghan tribal leader seemed the perfect man to lead his country. Obama himself is said to regard Karzai as unreliable and ineffective. Hillary Clinton has called his country a “narco-state” .
Holbrooke arrived last Thursday and did not see the Afghan president until yesterday. Kabul was quiet - on account of the weather, power cuts and a national holiday celebrating the anniversary of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country 20 years ago.
Obama has long promised to put 30,000 more US troops into Afghanistan as part of a wide-ranging review of American policy and the first soldiers are expected to arrive before late spring. John Nagl, a senior fellow at the Centre for a New American Security, in Washington, believes the US commitment could eventually rise to 100,000 troops.
“The immediate problem is to stop the bleeding. The 30,000 troops is a tourniquet … [but] that is all we have,” he said. "If Obama is a two-term president then by the end of his time in office there may only be marine embassy guards in Iraq. But there will still be tens of thousands of US troops in Afghanistan. "
There is also the matter of Afghanistan’ s coming elections, already postponed once. Some experts believe the polls might solve America’s “Karzai problem”. “Karzai will either improve his performance or he will be ex-president Karzai. That is the wonderful thing about elections,” said Nagl.
Diplomats in European capitals fret about a weakened, re-elected Karazi with no real mandate. Sultan Ahmad Bahin, an Afghan government spokesman, said that Holbrooke had reassured the Afghan government of continuing American co-operation and of the new focus that Obama will bring.
Few locals showed much interest in the visit. “He’s going to do what for us? These people just go backwards and forwards for nothing,” said Karim, 34, a shopkeeper. “The Taliban have been killing us for seven years now.”
For Bashir, a Kabul taxi driver, the Americans would leave. “The Soviets couldn’t stay in our country. How can the Americans stay?” he asked.
A preoccupation for Obama and the Europeans is domestic public support for the war in Afghanistan. White House strategists believe it will hold up much better than the conflict in Iraq. “The polling has been very supportive. Iraq was a phony war but al-Qaida really is in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” said Cohen.
That makes the job of persuading Americans that the war needs to be fought much easier. It is not hard to point out the genuine threats of a region where there are thousands of Islamic militants, nuclear weapons and where the 9/11 plot was hatched. “The main task will be to persuade the allies, especially the Europeans,” said Cohen.
Finally on to New Delhi, where Holbrooke will step into a diplomatic atmosphere poisoned by November’s Mumbai terrorist attacks. India holds Pakistan responsible for the three-day siege which left 179 people dead and many more injured. Relations with Islamabad are at their lowest ebb since the two nuclear-armed neighbours nearly went to war over Kashmir in 2001 and 2002.
Bajpaee, the analyst, argues that Holbrooke’s best hope is to convince India to take a step back in Afghanistan to calm Pakistani concerns. Delhi may just be happy to let the US turn the screws on Islamabad. The Indians say they intend simply to “listen” to Holbrooke. The envoy too is going to be listening. The encounter may be much quieter than “the bulldozer” likes.
Divided Pashtun Nation
Which nation with homogenous ethnic make-up, a common language, religion and values is not a nation? The answer: Pashtunistan.
The Pashtuns, of whom there are now an estimated 40 million spread from south-western Afghanistan through to central Pakistan, (plus communities in cities such as Karachi and abroad in the UK), were divided on lines drawn by Sir Mortimer Durand in 1893, when he separated the British Indian Raj and the Kingdom of Afghanistan.
Throughout the 19th century the Pashtun tribes fought ferociously, following their honour code of revenge. In Afghanistan, they dominated the emerging state.
But it was not all war. Pashtun culture, particularly poetry and a famous love of flowers, also flourished.
In the post-colonial era, an educated elite campaigned for a nation state but with little popular support. In the past decade, Pashtun identity has fused with more global, radical Islamic strands. Experts, however, warn against b*****ng current violence a ‘Pashtun insurgency’.
The Pashtun world
• The world population of Pashtuns is estimated at 42 million, and they make up the majority of the population of modern-day Afghanistan.
• Pashtun tradition asserts they are descended from Afghana, grandson of King Saul of Israel, though most scholars believe it more likely they arose from an intermingling of ancient Aryans from the north or west with subsequent invaders.
• Pashtuns are predominantly Sunni Muslim.
• The largest population of Pashtuns is said to be in the Pakistani city of Karachi.
• Pashtun culture rests on “Pashtunwali” , a legal and moral code that determines social order and responsibilities based on values such as honour (namuz), solidarity (nang), hospitality, mutual support, shame and revenge.

http://www.guardian .co.uk/world/ 2009/feb/ 15/afghanistan- pakistan- obama

Re: 'Pashtunistan' holds key to Obama mission

We need to sort the Indians out of Afghanistan. Reestablish an alliance with Iran. Make the Durand line a soft border.

Border is already soft. America may have noted "revenge" nature of pashtuns, so r making beghairat governament to do operation against its own people so that paxtuns start hating pakistan. they r making paxtuns realized that there blood is thinner than water in pakistan.

all of us should realized tht america is playing game wid us.
loyalty wil b short lived if life of people remain like in hell

What make you think it will stay soft? It will be the last nail in the coffin of Pakistan if Gov of Pakistan go one step back from their current stand regarding Durand Line !

I mean soft border not for the Americans to attack us. I mean politically and in terms of travel and trading. Of course the Pakistani government is working for America. Pakistani Army has been turned into rent a soldier, used to kill fellow Muslims.

America has ALWAYS played a game with us. They are no different from the British colonists who wanted to control the world. Only difference is that we have many more watan faroosh Pakistan is working with the Americans.

I respect Iran for standing up for their nationhood. Even if their policies are wrong, at least they have self-respect.

I don't that you have to worry about the border being an issue. The majority of Pakhtuns have always been patriotic Pakistanis and will remain that way. What we need to do is stabilize Afghanistan: kick out India and work with Iran. After that we can open up travel, trade links across the soft border. Soft border does not mean the end of Pakistan sovereignty in the area but instead the reduction of controls.

Besides with the Americans regularly doing cross border attacks, where is the Pakistani state?

I doubt it, majority of Pukhtoon want Pukhtoonstan same goes for Sindhi's & Baluchistan !

Only drones attacks are coming from America with the support of Pakistan state. Only once American/Nato forces tries to come on the Pakistan territory and they were pushed back by Pak Army with heavy casualties. Its recorded history, don't undermine the state of Pakistan as nothing, we might have big problems but also we have solutions too. Its just that time is not right, period !

Drone attacks have only killed known terrorists... Nothing worng with that.

These people are guilty of murder and deserve to die, either at the hands of Pak Army, or the US drones.

Think of all the lives saved because these terrorists are dead.

If you sincerely believe that the majority of Pakhtuns want Pakhtunistan, then we have bigger issues than the state of the border.

Do you really think that the drone attacks would stop if the Pakistani state did not support it? Let us not forget the arm twisting that Musharraf received immediately after 9/11. When were the American/NATO pushed back with heavy casualties? if you are referring to the instance where the FC and tribals started firing, it just proves my point.

Its not the drone attacks that are the problems but rather the fact that Pakistani sovereignty is being trampled. I despise the American attacks as much as the militants taking over Swat. If we had not signed off on the Amriki GWOT so enthusiastically, perhaps we wouldn't be such a predicament.

I certianly hope not, but the pro Pakhtunistan Pashtuns certainly are loud... Type Pakhtunistan on Youtube and read some of the comments left by Pashtuns for an eye opener.

That was a problem for me in the begining... But then when I saw how many poor people were being killed in suicide attacks and how ineffective the Pak Army was in dealing with some of the big name terrorists, I suddenly changed my mind.
Pakistan sovreignty is being violated every day by these militants and their foreign Jihadi buddies. They have turned the country into a hell hole.
I think if the Pak govt is incapable of dealing with this problem then by all means, let the people who caused this mess in the first place clean it up.

I dont absolve the US govt for its failed policies, but these terrorists have no right targeting the Marriot or the workers in Wah Cant etc.
Its a bitter pill to swallow, but perhaps we should view these not as a violation of sovreignty, but help in confronting a problem that not within our means to contain.

Incidently, it was rather gratifying to me as well as the relative of the victims of the Marriot blast to learn that one of these drones killed the SOB that was behind the attack recently.

And again, international politics are disgusting, but pragmatism tends to triumph. And in the case of Afghanistan in 2001, what could Pakistan do?

Re: 'Pashtunistan' holds key to Obama mission

And lets not forget that FATA has become not only a hot bed for Local Talibs and foreigners fighting in Afghanistan, but also for Punjabi and other terrorists who are hell bent on killing ever Shia they can find.
The Pak Army obviously cant fix the problem, atleast not on its own...

As an ethnic Pakhtun I am offended that we have to constantly prove our loyalty to the state when the successive non-Pakhtun governments have willing signed away Pakistani sovereignty willingly.

is the Pakhtun alienation increasing absolutely. but i would go as far to say that the majority wants independents - If that ever becomes the case, Pakistan could never stop it.

Similarly lets not forget that the tribes in FATA are themselves victims of US, Pakistani, and Taliban terror. The fact that tribal hierarchies have been displaced and probably for the first time ever FATA refugees had crossed over to Afghanistan. the best shot for FATA is to 1. Continue empowering the tribes 2. Peace deals stopping attacks on Pakistani soil 3. Pushing them toward Afghanistan (where they should be fighting anyway).

I dont know about Pakistani terror... But thats a seperate issue.

Option one would be great, but the Taliban arent willing to share power.. Recall the suicide bombing on the Shura aswell the as the kidnapping and murder of tribal elders... So I dont know how empowerment in this case is even possible.

Second option is also next to impossible as there is a great deal of international pressure to stop FATA from being used as a safe haven, or a launching pad.
Pakistan is, and this has to be admitted, being used as a safe haven for international terrorists. There is no way Pakistan can ignore this, at the risk of being labeled a pariah.
Lets also not forget that this FATA safe haven is also used against Pakistan itself. As a reporter recently noted, secterian terrorists tend to be most active in Pakistan when they have a safe haven from which to operate.

As for the third option.. I think thats what the Pak, NATO and US are all trying to do. Im sure the US would perfer these people would all just cross over to fight in Afghanistan and stay there instead of hiding in FATA.
The whole point of drone attacks is to push the militants out of FATA and into Afghanistan preferably.

*I dont know about Pakistani terror... But thats a seperate issue. *

Pakistani terror is defined as Israeli style tactics and the "so called" errant attacks on the civilians of FATA. You hear these things on the news, I saw them last winter with my own eyes.

**
Option one would be great, but the Taliban arent willing to share power.. Recall the suicide bombing on the Shura aswell the as the kidnapping and murder of tribal elders... So I dont know how empowerment in this case is even possible.
**

You can hardly describe the Taliban as a monolith, just like the tribes of FATA. The relationships between one valley to another are far stark than you can imagine. The Shura bombing had a lot more to do internal disagreements rather than some coordinated Taliban strategy.

**
Second option is also next to impossible as there is a great deal of international pressure to stop FATA from being used as a safe haven, or a launching pad.
Pakistan is, and this has to be admitted, being used as a safe haven for international terrorists. There is no way Pakistan can ignore this, at the risk of being labeled a pariah.
Lets also not forget that this FATA safe haven is also used against Pakistan itself. As a reporter recently noted, secterian terrorists tend to be most active in Pakistan when they have a safe haven from which to operate.
**

Last I checked there was peace deal in Swat. Sure they collapse, but they also spare the civilian carnage of the past. Pakistan gets blamed for "either doing to too little or noting at all" despite bearing the brunt of this senseless conflict. What is it worth to invite trouble?

**
As for the third option.. I think thats what the Pak, NATO and US are all trying to do. Im sure the US would perfer these people would all just cross over to fight in Afghanistan and stay there instead of hiding in FATA.
The whole point of drone attacks is to push the militants out of FATA and into Afghanistan preferably.**

I doubt that the US wants to take on the militants when it has been pursuing "peace deals" and buying off moderate Talibs for the past 3 years. If we recall the spectacular attack on teh prison in Qandahar or last years spring offensive, I cna assure you that there many more Americans coming home in body bags.