Why the Failed U.S.-Taliban Talks Represent a Victory for India | Page 2 | World Defense

Why the Failed U.S.-Taliban Talks Represent a Victory for India

BATMAN

MEMBER
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
480
Reactions
474 5
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
As a short answer;
India, surely has been the only winning party in Afghanistan, not from today but from the day US invaded the country.

Circumstances, which make me believe so....
India not only is winning all of the reconstruction $.... directly or indirectly, but also have occupied a strategic position in the status quo.
India and Iran had been strategic partners against Pakistan, ever since shortly after Islamic revolution, while US installing an Afghan regime, which is nothing besides Indo /Iranian puppies, was surely going to be disaster recipe for Pakistan.
Now this was a dangerous situation for Pakistan from out right, which they fail to gauge correctly, but also for US in longer run, which they failed to gauge correctly.
So today, US is just a force sitting in safety zone of few KM^2 of a military city, stretching from Pak border to Qandahar city, which is not only a strategic location but also the best safety zone US can ever have any where on Afghan soil.
However this doesn't change the fact that even by sitting in safety zone, doesn't bring it's operational costs to zero and neither it's winning them any friends in Afghanistan.
What US need to ponder is why India has more friends in Kabul than Americans, while US is investing in reconstruction!
US committed a strategic mistake by letting Indians working against Pakistan under their umbrella, as in case of TTP etc..
Actually, i'm surprised how Pakistan's foreign office is even willing to talk to Americans, after loosing thousands of security personals... may be in Pakistan institutions under control of civilians are happy with the situation, where army is kept under-pressure... memo gate scandal, dawn leaks are examples and waiting some thing similar from current regime as well.

On the contrary, US.., if had chosen Pakistan as partner, at least they would have been better advised.
Well that's how strategic mistakes are recorded in history, and i don't see a quick correction course for US mistakes in Afghanistan.
Actually, i was surprised to see Pakistan's govt. agreeing to facilitate negotiations of US with native people.
It also hint that, the current regime of Afghanistan are bunch of foreigners and we are witness to the changing demography of Afghanistan, how it came about, no one knows. Anyhow, what is done is done.

In given circumstances, best possible scenario for US is to dismantle the govt. of foreign Indo /Iranian puppies and leave Afghanistan for good. This would be a first step on winning confidence back among the native people.

Why US want to stay put at all costs, will remain a mystery.

Second biggest looser obviously has been Pakistan, who lost precious lives, booming economy, general prosperity, civilized society, concept of nationhood, strategic allies, actually all of it.
Fencing the border has generally stabilized the situation related to militant attacks, which should have been further consolidated by the civilian regime through political process and diplomatic efforts of reaching out to UN on the issue of terrorism emanating from Afghan soil. Wherein they failed, despite having all the evidence.
Why... it's anyone's guess, my guess.... all that evidence connects US-Iran and India as partners in crime. Which may than lead to implicating all the three Isis evil, as well and who knows, where does the buck stops.
This is why all the 3 stated countries joined hand to influence the politics of Pakistan and there off it's foreign policy. There major success is stopping Pakistan from sharing intel. on Indo-Iran nexus in the regional instability, with strategic regional allies.
 
Last edited:

Shazam

MEMBER
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
88
Reactions
339 10
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The issue is that Russia will never be partner to the level China is, hence needs to be addressed adequately to be effectively neutralized.
Hi,

Pakistanis don't know how to approach the russians---. Pakistanis don't know how to approach the americans either---.

As the chinese don't know how to reach across the americans---for that reason we & the chinese are a match---.

Russians have not forgotten the 80's---. Pakistan can approach them but in the manner you approach a big brown grizzly---being respectable---cautious---holding back---understanding the power---respecting their uniqueness---and most of all---showing patience---not being too willing and open---.
I don't even think that Pakistan needs to approach Russians at all, rather display their definitive move into the Chinese corner, which happens to be Russian as well.

Just our corrective foreign policy will ensure gradual Russian trust in our definitive resolve to move away from the Americans.

Russians are definitely interested in Pakistan. In fact they are enticing Pakistan to look towards Russia as an alternative to weening itself away from the American influence.

Already our Army officers are being accepted in Russian military academies as a replacement of the US.

While the Russians are serious about a broader regional alliance, we still appear to be perplexed, portraying caution and trying to play smart which amounts to living in fools paradise if we think Russians are going to fall for it. There is simply no need for it. Turkish, GCC and Indian diplomacy is ample proof of how to go about handling Russians and Americans for their best interests.
 

Mingle

MEMBER
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
237
Reactions
300 1
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Why the Failed U.S.-Taliban Talks Represent a Victory for India
New Delhi has never recognized the Taliban as a legitimate political actor.


The highlights this week: Regional reactions to the end of the Afghan peace talks, an internet shutdown in Bangladesh, India’s failed moon landing, and the death of a protester in Kashmir.



What’s Next for the Region After Afghan Talks Declared “Dead”

When U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters on Monday that the peace talks with the Taliban were “dead,” it would have been fair to wonder if there may be a reversal at some point. After all, one issue that Trump’s White House has shown consistency on is its desire to bring U.S. troops back home—and there is wide consensus that a rushed withdrawal without sustained peace could backfire.


The Taliban responded to Trump’s weekend tweets calling off a proposed Camp David summit on Afghanistan with its own message on Twitter, making clear that it had all the time in the world: “The Islamic Emirate has a solid and unwavering policy,” wrote spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid (translated in full by FP). “We called for dialogue 20 years ago and maintain the same stance today. And we believe the United States shall return to this position as well.”


Internal differences. Plans to host the Afghan insurgent group at Camp David divided Trump’s national security team, as FP’s reporting has shown, and confirmed Tuesday with the resignation of National Security Advisor John Bolton. Bolton had been opposed to talking to the Taliban, in stark opposition to the stance of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who appeared on all five major Sunday talk shows and said “you often have to deal with some pretty bad actors” to negotiate peace. But even Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham told the Washington Post, “We dodged a bullet here.”


And in a somewhat rare occurrence, nine former U.S. officials with experience in Afghanistan—including five former ambassadors to the country—described how the talks went against core U.S. values in a post on the Atlantic Council website. “Whether or not the United States wants or is willing to keep some forces engaged, we should not undercut the legitimate government in Afghanistan by keeping them out of negotiations,” they wrote.


Regional fallout. Pakistan, often blamed for violence and instability in Afghanistan, had become a crucial go-between for the Afghan talks given its ability to help bring the Taliban to the table. The collapse of negotiations will give Pakistan pause, but it is likely to remain an important arbiter in Afghanistan as Prime Minister Imran Khan’s government seeks to tighten ties with Trump’s White House.


Officials in India, meanwhile, are likely to be sighing with relief—for now—as they look ahead to Afghanistan’s presidential elections later this month. New Delhi, which is seen as having close ties with Kabul’s civilian leaders, is the only major regional capital that refuses to officially recognize the Taliban as a legitimate political actor. It has viewed the U.S.-led talks as a potential disaster.


Gautam Mukhopadhaya, who served as India’s ambassador to Afghanistan, wrote in an email that the collapse of negotiations “will at least pull Afghanistan from the brink of a disaster foretold—for the moment.” He added, “India should support the Afghan elections in principle as an exercise of Afghan sovereignty and the basis of an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, Afghan-controlled peace process.”


Election worries. As shown below, one consistent trend is that Afghans increasingly fear for their personal safety, despite the enduring the presence of troops. If the presidential election goes ahead this month, millions will once again have to decide whether to participate—even at the cost of their lives.





September is UNGA time. Before we move on to other stories: a plug for our annual pop-up newsletter, U.N. Brief, delivered from Sept. 23-27 as world leaders convene in New York for the 74th U.N. General Assembly. Sign up for exclusive daily scoops and analysis from diplomatic reporters Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer here.



What We’re Following

Kashmir simmers.
Over a month after New Delhi revoked Kashmir’s special status, tensions in the region are as high as ever. Indian officials confirmed the first death of a protester in the region last Wednesday, and a Pakistani military spokesman warned that India was “sowing the seeds of war” in Kashmir. Over the weekend, India’s national security advisor accused Pakistan of aiding about 230 militants trying to infiltrate Indian-administered Kashmir. The same day, Pakistani police arrested at least 22 demonstrators for clashing with officials during a pro-Kashmiri independence protest near Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani-administered Kashmir.


[Read Yashraj Sharma’s dispatch from inside Indian-administered Kashmir, where thousands of detainees are locked in makeshift jails.]


Can’t hear you now. South Asia is facing another internet shutdown, this time in Bangladesh. Last Tuesday, Dhaka partially cut off mobile data services—including 3G and 4G—to about a million Rohingyas living in refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar. The move comes after failed efforts this month to begin repatriating the refugees back to Myanmar and amid a purported rise in crime in the camps.


Tightening the Belt and Road. Faced with a major financial crisis, Pakistan may be slowing projects launched in the country as part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Beyond the fact that Pakistan already owes tens of billions of dollars to China—cash it can’t afford to repay—the country could also be trying to improve ties with the United States.


Hard landing. In July, India launched Chandrayaan-2, a large space orbiter whose Vikram lander was supposed to touch down on the moon last Friday, making India the fourth country to achieve the feat. Unfortunately, over the weekend Vikram lost contact with its earth-bound operators and presumably crashed. On Monday, officials from the Indian Space Research Organization confirmed that they had located the landing module on the lunar surface, although it is unclear how much damage it has sustained.

Ultimately US has to talk with Talibs and I believe it will very soon back on track. US wants to get out not interested to stay in Afghanistan another 20yrs so they will talk or unilateral pull is also possible
 

Top