AfPak Policy and Pakistan
 

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"][SIZE="4"][B][U] 1) AfPak Policy:[/U][/B]
US has announced AfPak policy for afghanistan and Pakistan. Some of us consider this strategy a positive move and others take it otherwise.
Members are invited to pin point its negatives and positives if any.


[B][U]2) Talks with Taliban:
[/U][/B]Recently US is engaged in covert talks: Back-channel talks with the Afghan Taliban through ‘neutral players’. They are trying to negotiate peace with Taliban and they have reintegration as well as reconciliation strategies. US Gen Stanley McChrystal even has access to a $1.5bn Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund to provide ‘incentives’ to militants to put down their arms. Thus, the question now should be whether or not talks can work.

Pakistan wants the reintegration to include all Taliban, including their top leadership, but the US desires to limit the process to mid-level Taliban and foot soldiers. Washington and Islamabad also have divergent views on who should lead the process.

The Saudis, who in 2008 sponsored talks between Taliban and the Karzai government, currently appear to be reluctant to exercise their influence over the Taliban.

Loya Jirga (peace council) sometime in next month for which President Karzai has publicly invited the Taliban to attend. President Hamid Karzai has already invited the Taliban to a peace jirga and UN representatives reportedly met members of the Quetta shura in Dubai to discuss the possibility of direct talks.

Keeping in view the above developments you are required to express your opinion whether US is moving in right direction on right time or not? What will be the implications for Pakistan and Afghanistan after these talks?

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

In Afghanistan, history is repeating itself.US exit from afghanistan after the fall of soviet union and the recent developments are more or less the same.after US exit, afghanistan will again become an arena for the neighbouring countries to fight for their interests.first afghans were fighting with US but after the exit they will start fighting each other.for time being,we r seeing the same set up as it was in the 90s.emboldened talibans will never enter in a set up planned by US.so again pak n india will battling each other for the hold on afghanistan.well US exit will not affect afghanistan much.if afghans r not fighting with a foreign intruder,they will fight with each other with foreign backing.conditions in afghanistan will remain as it is as a war torn country.

Thanks a million Saba for your participation. What do you think what should be the strategy then to solve this situation? We have objection over their War on terrorism. We were crying when they indulged in tense war and we demanded time and again that back out from Iraq and Afghanistan. When they announced their schedule to switch out from Iraq, we were happy with that Obama's move. They have announced their intentions to exit from Afghanistan but we are not happy with that decision. What are the grounds on the basis of which we are opposing the same idea which we ourselves floated in past (to switch out from region)?

Do we have changed our priorities or we are afraid of aftermaths of this whole war?

well pakistan does not want an exit of US from afghanistan.us departure will have some disastrous impacts on pak.it will become very difficult for pak to contain the emboldened talibans as they will definitely see themselves as victors.this whole scenario will increase extremism n militirisation n ofcourse destruction of our soceity.n surely this will attract other extremist elements to our country to wage a war against gov.
well there are only two options of dealing with militants.
Either they should be totally eleminated or assimilated in the soceity.well assimilation is also not an easy job coz militants find it very difficult to mix up with ordinary people.usually,a state create militias of such elements which is paid by gov.
Now the only remedy for the afghan problem lies in a Broad Based government in which talibans should get their due share.US is devising that plan.but to make this plan effective,US presence in afghanistan is necessary.this plan could only be realised into reality if USA n Pakistan sincerely endorse it.n that gov should have a backing of all the stake holders i.e..Pak,india,china n Iran.otherwise a destablised n un bridled afghanistan poses a huge threat to the regional security esp of pak.A militant's job is to fight...either they r fighting with each other or with foreign elements.so their attention n energies should b diverted to the nation building.well work on a national gov in afghanistan is in progress.letz keep our fingers crossed coz nw the future of pakistans stabililty is linked with the stability of afghanistan.

We were of the view that increasing frequency of suicide bombing and other terrorist activities in our country are the results of American presence in Afghanistan. Our current fear of sever consequences in the absence of America in Afghanistan is negating our earlier claim. Which one is right?

We can't bulldoze all those terrorist practically, so eradication is not possible through war. By allowing them to participate and rule Afghanistan we are not certain whether they will be working in positive direction or they will be misusing that power in negative direction and gaining more power and strength for future terrorist activities.

Please comment. Other members are also requested to help us out to construct a workable plann.

well in Swat,pak army used the method of total elimination..means to destroy top brass n 1st,2nd n 3rd tier leadership of talibans.in doing so the recruits become so weak to rise again.army succeeded there n cleared swat.
The current circumstances in pak are the results of decades of nurturing n feeding talibans n extremists n abundance of arms n amu.sectarian violence n rising in fundamentalism was slowly swallowing our soceity.US presence in Afghanistan just speed up the process.aftr US war,this monster of talibanization got out of control of the agencies.always common man bear the burnt of establishment policies.we cant put all the blame on US alone.who will question our security establishment who consider these talibans as an "ASSET".
In afghanistan,policy of war or elimination never succeeded.yes of course, a national gov in afghanistan could b a success if all the stake holders of the regions back such set up.this reconciliation process is not just between the ethnic groups of afghanistan,it will actually b a compromise between US,Pak,India,Iran,china n russia.well at this stage ,main question is what US should do.the future of afghanistan is uncertain n no one(even US) knows what will happen.also ,pressure on india is also mounting to resume talks with pak.so a workable solution of afghanistan i.e...a national gov could b sorted out.
following article is useful in this regard.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05iht-edgorbachev.html?scp=1&sq=article%20by%20mikhail%20gorbachev&st=cse[/url]

Very effective response from Saba. Do you think Obama will be continuing with his current policies in Afghanistan because he is having domestic pressure to quit from Afghanistan.

saba sattar wrote:
[QUOTE]Either they should be totally eleminated or assimilated in the soceity.well assimilation is also not an easy job coz militants find it very difficult to mix up with ordinary people.usually,a state create militias of such elements which is paid by gov.[/QUOTE]

I think that is the mistake our government has thoroughly repeated. State creates a militia to overcome a militia and then the state created militia becomes a thread to the government. ISI created Talibans to overcome mehsud and other groups and then the results are quite open to every body. In the same way Sufi Muhammad and Fazlullah were state backed Talibans before the start of Swat Dispute.

irshadsod , you wrote:
[QUOTE]
By allowing them to participate and rule Afghanistan we are not certain whether they will be working in positive direction or they will be misusing that power in negative direction and gaining more power and strength for future terrorist activities.[/QUOTE]


Taliban used to run Afghanistan prior to the American attack. They never invited any one to tell them how to rule. If today they are terrorists and are on rampage, that is just to make USA out of their country. If that issue is solved, they would never waste their lives i terrorism... Nobody gives his life without any prestigious cause.
SO if USA quits, there is no need to be worried. Even Pkistani Taliban would seize to act, for their cause is also same.
Repression has never given any long living solution, so would be the case of Afghanistan and Taliban...

[B]@ obaid[/B]......well u ve presented a very naive n wishful thinking.afghan situation iz much more complex than u think.first of all talibanz were created for so called "jihad"to fight russia by pak n us.well i think u dont knw abt afghanz,they 2nt spend a shngle day without fighting.well one more thing...talibanz got hold of afghanistan only coz of the full backing of pak n saudi arabia nt of their own.the moment pak left thm,they couldnt hold 4 long.n until swat operation,military est gave thm ful backing.

Well....after the us exit,thingz will not b very peaceful n normal.aftr us,pak, india,iran,china n russia will b engagd in da tussle to increase their influence.talibanz are mere puppets.thn again civil war ll b startd.to avoid this,us iz trying to engage these countries to formulate a workable formula in the form of national gov.n...policies by establishmnt dnt based on sentiments rathr on ground realities.

[B] @ irsad[/B]...well yes there iz an immense pressure on Obama 4 da exit.but obamaz stance has greatly changed aftr christmas day bombing plot.nw US may not entirely exit frm Afg but can retain sm of itz troops there to over look the developmnts.

US is booking huge losses in terms of their economic cost and approving budget deficits due to these War on Terror activities. Corporate giants of US are not in mood to bear this loss any more. Business lobby is strong in US and that lobby runs the state directly or indirectly. Obama won't be in a position to sustain that pressure. He has to bow down the demands of that lobby. The thing which is making this exit move pending is the safe exit and taking prudent measures to tackle any untoward aftermaths of this war. That is why they are trying to take all the stakeholders into decision making process so that in the absence of US these stakeholders can own and operate this region.