Tajiks Worldwide Community: How Obama Can Win Afghanistan With A Soft Partition and the Reverse McChrystal Strategy - Tajiks Worldwide Community

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox

Parsistani Icon : (04 January 2016 - 10:02 PM) Someone here?
parwana Icon : (30 April 2014 - 05:21 PM) Posted Image
Parsistani Icon : (22 July 2013 - 04:02 AM) good morning :)
Gul agha Icon : (03 May 2013 - 04:29 PM) Sohrab, Tajikam doesn't only consist of a forum. We have two major sections in this website. One is in Persian which is updated frequently and the other is in Persian (Cyrillic). Additionally, the English page is still running and has a vast amount of information on Tajiks and Persians.
Gul agha Icon : (03 May 2013 - 04:27 PM) http://www.facebook.com/Tajikamsite
Sohrab Icon : (01 May 2013 - 06:31 AM) Tajikam on facebook?
SHA DOKHT Icon : (01 May 2013 - 12:12 AM) Like our page on Facebook: https://www.facebook...541604162529143
Sohrab Icon : (29 March 2013 - 08:31 AM) H again, I thought the site would be closed, but it's still running.
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 10:17 AM) Tajikistan was inhabited by the races of Cyrus the great (Sultan skindar Zulqarnain). The achmaniend dynasty ruled the entire region for several thousnd years.Cyrus the great's son cymbasis(Combchia)with forces migrated to Balkh ancient Bactaria or Bakhtar. Sultan Sumus the desecndant of Cyrus the great faught war against Alaxander of Macdonia in Bakhtar current tajikistan.
this ruling class was inhabited in the areas, like Balkh,fargana,alai,Tajikistan,badakhshan,Kabul,Takhar,Tashkorogan,Khutan,kashkar,Swat,Kashmir,Peshawar, hashtnager,Dir, Bajour,Gilgit,for serveral thaousand years.
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 10:16 AM) hellow
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 10:00 AM) Tajikistan was inhabited by the races of Cyrus the great (Sultan skindar Zulqarnain). The achmaniend dynasty ruled the entire region for several thousnd years.Cyrus the great's son cymbasis(Combchia)with forces migrated to Balkh ancient Bactaria or Bakhtar. Sultan Sumus the desecndant of Cyrus the great faught war against Alaxander of Macdonia in Bakhtar current tajikistan.
this ruling class was inhabited in the areas, like Balkh,fargana,alai,Tajikistan,badakhshan,Kabul,Takhar,Tashkorogan,Khutan,kashkar,Swat,Kashmir,Peshawar, hashtnager,Dir, Bajour,Gilgit,for serveral thaousand years.
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 09:46 AM) hellow
Gabaro_glt Icon : (25 March 2013 - 10:48 AM) Asssssssssalam o Alaikum
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:22 AM) I would like to here something from a tajik brother/sister living in Tajikstan
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:20 AM) I have traced my ancestors migrated from Panj and Balkh ancient
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:19 AM) I am desendant of Sultan behram Gabari Tajik living in GilGit pakistan
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:17 AM) Salam to all brothers
Parsistani Icon : (01 June 2012 - 10:48 AM) we are on facebook. Tajikam on facebook
Parsistani Icon : (01 June 2012 - 10:47 AM) salam guys.
Azim-khan Icon : (19 May 2012 - 11:19 AM) salom bachaho )
Resize Shouts Area

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

How Obama Can Win Afghanistan With A Soft Partition and the Reverse McChrystal Strategy Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Khurasani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • Icon
30-July 07

Posted 01 December 2009 - 02:51 PM

Posted Image

Today, the Center for New Politics and Policy (CNPP) released its
recommendations to abate the Taliban insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan
with a new strategy paper called “Obama Can Win Afghanistan with Soft
Partition & the Reverse McChrystal Strategy” (RMS). The RMS report
highlights recommendations to halt the Taliban’s momentum, reconfigure
US/NATO force structure on the ground with 20,000 additional troops,
stabilize Afghanistan’s post-election government and maximize vital
reconstruction efforts to unleash Afghanistan’s state building efforts.
The Reverse McChrystal Strategy provides a framework for President Obama’s
efforts over the next 18 months to achieve his central goal of preventing
a Taliban takeover and denying al Queda a platform in Afghanistan to
launch attacks against the United States. The report was drafted by Senior
Fellow Webster Brooks, Director of Brooks Foreign Policy Review; the
international affairs arm of the Center for New Politics and Policy. The
following summary of the Reverse McCrystal Strategy was released on
November 19, 2009 in Washington, D.C.
The critical moment for President Obama to announce a decision on
America’s strategy to win the war in Afghanistan is fast approaching. In
the ongoing series of White House war councils, debate continues on
General Stanley McChrystal’s August report that stated “Failure to gain
the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12-18
months)….risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer
possible.” Over the next 18 months President Obama faces four critical
questions: 1) Developing a response to stem the Taliban’s growing
influence and putting the insurgency on the defensive, 2) Redeploying
U.S./NATO/ANA forces to tilt the battlefield in their favor, 3) Brokering
an agreement to form a power-sharing post-election government and 4)
Reorganizing state building and reconstruction efforts to create the
foundation needed to sustain Afghanistan. The Reverse McChrystal Strategy
(RMS) represents the best and most realistic strategy to achieve these
objectives in the next 18 months and prepare for the gradual withdrawal of
U.S. troops over the long run (3-4 years).

The centerpiece of the Reverse McChrystal Strategy calls for redeploying
U.S./NATO military and economic power to consolidate Northern, Central and
Western Afghanistan into a “maximum safety zone.” Securing these three
regions now where 65% of all Afghans live, and linking them to vital
reconstruction efforts is the most effective way to diminish the Taliban’s
momentum and solidify critical mass around the central government.
Supported by 20,000 additional American troops, U.S./NATO operations would
shift from conducting “clear, hold and build missions” inside the Taliban
dominated Pashtun belt to providing maximum security to Kabul and the 23
identified “median and low-risk” provinces where the Taliban’s presence is
minimal but spreading (see map). Recent Taliban advances outside the
Pashtun belt suggest that U.S. forces engaging their adversaries from
Kunduz in Northeastern Afghanistan to the southern province of Helmand are
overstretched and under resourced. General McChrystal’s request for 40,000
to 80,000 troops to pursue the elusive Taliban plays directly into the
Taliban’s hit and run strategy. Meanwhile, the Taliban continues to
maneuver and expand the battlefield, launching surprise offensives in new
areas. What is most important now for President Obama and the faltering
Afghan government is reversing the Taliban’s momentum by consolidating
order, safety and stability over a significant section of Afghanistan.
Demonstrating real progress and a model of a viable state is of the utmost
urgency. Securing Northern, Central and Western Afghanistan would not only
demonstrate tangible success, it would decisively impact the balance of
power on the ground.

The Reverse McChrystal Strategy also calls on U.S./NATO forces to scale
back forward operations for one year in the Pashtun belt where the Taliban
enjoys real support, superior battlefield knowledge and strategic depth
with supporting rear-guard bases in Pakistan. The tactical pullback in the
Pashtun belt would be done in conjunction with the mass redeployment to
Northern, Central and Western Afghanistan. A “demilitarized zone” and safe
transit corridors to-and-from the Pushtun-belt provinces would be
established for commercial purposes and safe passage. In addition, US/NATO
forces might continue the “limited use” of Drone attacks and Special
Forces operations on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border to interdict arms
shipments and infiltrating al Queda elements. Redoubled efforts in
cooperation with Pakistan’s government to destroy critical Taliban support
networks in Baluchistan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas is of
critical importance. Concurrent with these changes, Afghanistan’s
government would open discussions with Pashtun tribal leaders,
parliamentary officials and “willing” Taliban elements over a potential
framework for regional autonomy and other national reforms.

While the RMS embraces General McChrystal’s call for a shift from
defeating the Taliban by force of arms to creating safe havens, it
reverses the battlefield deployment and political focus by winning the
hearts and minds of two-thirds of Afghanistan’s provinces first. It
optimizes opportunities to contain and undermine the Taliban by negating
the most compelling factor powering its surge; the prevailing state of
chaos across Afghanistan led by an incompetent and corrupt Karzai
government and criminal warlords.

By increasing troop levels, resetting US/NATO/ forces and tactically
pulling back in the Pashtun Belt, President Obama will gain valuable
breathing room to bring America’s allies on side, settle the post-election
political governmental crisis and train additional Afghan National Army
troops. Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah must find a way to work
together in a new coalition government. The effort to stabilize Northern,
Central and Western Afghanistan will require significant compromise
between Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras and Turkmen who were the core of the
Northern Alliance that helped topple the Taliban in 2001. Many of these
forces also supported Abdullah Abdullah in the first round of the
presidential elections. For better or worse, as a Pashtun, Hamid Karzai
can still be a valuable asset in talks with provincial leaders on
instituting various forms of autonomy in Pashtun communities. While the
character of the Taliban’s insurgency is Islamic-based, the Taliban has
remained a predominately ethnic-Pashtun movement. Increased autonomy may
create new vehicles and greater choice to incorporate Pashtun cultural,
religious and traditional practices into provincial governance structures,
thereby dispelling notions that only the Taliban can fulfill these
aspirations. The essential point of autonomy in the Pashtun belt is that
increased empowerment at the provincial level will afford Pashtun more
choices and resources to exert independence from the Taliban.

Critics of the Reverse McChrystal Strategy will undoubtedly claim that any
pullback-temporary or otherwise- from taking the fight to the Taliban is
tantamount to capitulation or surrender. But there is no purely military
solution to end the war in Afghanistan. The consensus view is that
sufficient damage must be inflicted on extremists Taliban elements to
create conditions that will compel moderate and wavering Taliban elements
to align themselves with the central government. By creating a safe and
viable Afghanistan state in Northern, Central and Western Afghanistan
supported by a majority of the Afghan people, the Taliban’s rationale that
they are the only force that can restore order will be severely
undermined. Containing the Taliban’s advances by a soft partition of the
Pashtun belt will halt their expansion and reverse their momentum.
Increased efforts with Pakistan to neutralize their rear-guard support
bases will bottle the Taliban up in a confined space. Offers of greater
autonomy and redefining their relationship to the Afghan government will
stimulate more debate among the Pashtun people about where their future
interests lie and further undercut support for the Taliban. The Reverse
McChrystal Strategy in its initial phase will significantly weaken the
Taliban militarily and drain its political support among the Pashtun
people. Moreover, RMS can accomplish all these achievements with the
lowest possible U.S./NATO casualty rates. With public opinion weakening in
America and Europe for the war, tangible success in stabilizing 65% of
Afghanistan today combined with minimum casualties is the formula to
sustain support for the cause in Afghanistan. If and when US/NATO forces
have to move decisively to fully re-engage militarily in the Pashtun belt
they would confront a far less formidable adversary.

Prosecuting unpopular wars against insurgencies that cannot be won
militarily is sometimes the burden of policing empire. There are no easy
options for President Obama in Afghanistan. What is required now is an
imaginative approach that breaks with conventional thinking. The Reverse
McChrystal Strategy offers both.

آتش بگير، تا كه بداني چه مي‌كشم
احساسِ سوختن، به تماشا نمي‌شود

#2 User is offline   Yalda Icon

  • Newbie
  • Pip
22-December 09

Posted 23 December 2009 - 01:41 PM

USA is in Afghanistan for their own interest and if through partition they can bring peace, then what reason will be left for them to stay in Afghanistan? they won't part Afghanistan that easily, first they 'll try to reach their goal and if they fail then they gonna leave Afghanistan in a huge mess so that all etnic fight again so partition is indeed best option. Pashtoens want Taliban and Tadjiks want Northern Alliance. I just hope after partition Hazaras and Uzbeks don't start to claim things as well. North is Mashahlah doing very well and once we 're out of war zone then we 'll become like old days again, and according to me that 'll only happen after our partition.

#3 User is offline   Khurasani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • Icon
30-July 07

Posted 26 December 2009 - 12:07 PM

آتش بگير، تا كه بداني چه مي‌كشم
احساسِ سوختن، به تماشا نمي‌شود

#4 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Research Group
22-May 07

Posted 26 December 2009 - 12:58 PM

On another forum I just found the following quotations:


The region not only has strategical importance (natural land-bridge between Iran and China, the two regional powers), it can also be united in a single, smaller political unit under the de facto protection of Iran and China.

Stability in this region is much more important than in the Pashtun south which does not have any important natural resources. That's why Obama is sending another 40,000 soldiers - it's not about the Pashtuns, it's about securing the north! That is also the reason why Americans do not try to "Pashtunize" the army.

Divide Afghanistan and give Pashtuns their "Pashtunistan". The northern regions should be united as "Khorasan", then licenses should be sold to China, Iran, Russia and Western nations (like in Dubai). Let foreign workers flood into the country (like the UAE where natives are only 10% of the population).

All of that will not be possible with Pashtuns. They are the problem, nobody else.

Currently, Gen. Atta and his Tajik forces (as well as his Hazara and Uzbek allies) control the entire region where massive oil fields are suspected. This region should be protected - against Karzai's corrupt gripp and against Pashtun Taliban.


"Nations do not have friends, they only have interests" - Charles de Gaulle (1890–1970)

Americans are in Afghanistan, because they have distinct interests. Al-Kaida ist just one of many, harassing Iran and China is another, seeking control of Central Asia another.

Do you really believe that the American army - the most advanced in the world - is not able to take out some Arab and Pashtun terrorists?! They needed only 3 weeks to expel the Taliban from the entire northern plain and from all major cities, yet, in the past 8 years, there has not been any serious attempt to destroy the Taliban bases. And even if you take a look at the number of American losses, it's very small - most are victims of suicide attacks, almost no losses in direct combat.

Keeping the Taliban alive serves American interests: the Taliban are a natural enemy of Iran, and by keeping them alive, the Americans are telling Iran that they still have "their Taliban option" (quoting Khaak). Iran, too, has interests and influence: Hizbullah in Libanon, various Hazara and Shia militant paties in Afghanistan, Shia separatist groups in the Arab world.

The Taliban are just a toy ... they are the slaves of the slaves of the slaves. No matter what they do: in one or another way, they serve higher interests:

- small arms and the military lobby in various countries selling arms to the Taliban
- the drug mafia
- higher military and economic strategy of Americans, Europeans, Iran, India and China

Pashtuns are predetermined to be such slaves: they are and have always been backward, uneducated, aggressive. They fight without even knowing why and what they are fighting for.

You see, there is not an "Afghan people". The only and only real "Afghans" are the Pashtuns. They comprise, at best, somewhat less than 50% of the population, most likely something like 40%. They are mostly located in the south, they are divided into many clans and subclans and families, many of them are at war with each other since centuries. They believe in a primitive system of revenge and aggression. A while ago, Hamid Karzai's 18-year-old cousin was murdered by another family member because of a family feud that began 30 years ago. This is Pashtun nature and culture.

Just take a look at this form (or any other talking platform in the net): it's always the same: Pashtuns vs. Non-Pashtuns. Here is not a single Non-Pashtuns who supports a Pashtun or vice versa. So why forcefully keeping together something that is not meant to stay together?!

The case of the other ethnic groups is different: most of them are rural and sedentary. They are not as aggressive as Pashtuns, they only go to if its needed (for example the case of the famous Panjsher people who remained undefeated in all battles, but never made an attempt to conquer others in the region). While Pashtuns beat their women, burn them alive and spit acid in their faces, women in the Non-Pashtuns societies - in varying degrees - enjoy a moderate and "modern" life, in Hazara regions more than others.

A civil war in Afghanistan is ALWAYS a proxy-war for others: the region has exceptional strategical importance. Otherwise, the land is a mess of local warlords ruling their small kingdoms and fiefdoms. Such a situation is not acceptable to anyone, because the region - especially the north - has significant natural resources. These resources will help to give the people security and prosperity.

But so far, all of that has been blocked by Pashtuns, Pashtun nationalism, and Pashtun militant groups. Pashtuns have no understanding for economy, real politics, or modernism. All they want is their "Pashtunwali": a system of oppression and revenge, and extremist Islam. Even Hamid Karzai and his family, known stooges of America, cannot get rid of this system.

What people like you want is simple: restoring the old system of oppression and revenge on everybody in the region, turning Pashtuns into local rulers so they can steal and rape. To restore the old tyranny that has turned the glorious Khorasan of the past into "Afghanistan" - the "Land of Pashtuns" - the most backward country in the history of mankind.

But the Non-Pashtuns - the "Non-Afghans" - the Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and others, are tired of this BS. That's why they are fighting: that's why the governor of Balkh is removing Pashtuns from his province, why Tajik and Hazara students at Kabul University are constantly in fights with Pashtuns (just read the news!), why Pashtuns in south become Taliban so they can fight the Tajik-dominated National Army.

I object this system - and I object your view (though I am convinced that you do not support Pashtun ethno-nationalism, but instead fail to see the real problems because you are too naiv).

I am proposing a real solution: disintegration WITHOUT a civil war, securing the national resources, giving Pashtuns nd all others in the region autonomy. If Pashtuns do not like American soldiers, then leave their region! But I can tell you that this anti-American sentiment is not shared by Tajiks and Hazaras: most of them are happy that the international community cares about them. For decades, they had been victims of Pashtun ethno-fascism. For the first time since decades, they enjoy partial autonomy. And they are grateful to it. Tajiks and Hazaras do not fight Americans, Pashtuns do. So the solution to the problem is very easy:

Disintegrate Afghanistan, secure the Non-Pashtun areas with international forces (like in so many other regions in the world: South Korea, former West Germany, etc) and let the Pashtun south become what it is: a Pashtun nation.

You see ... you are just a veteran soldier, I guess with no insight into politics. You see it from the eyes of an ordinary person who has - actually - no idea of the whole complex issue. But this is not how the world functions.

OUR mission is to unite international intersts with our national - Khorasanian - interests. The international community wants the resources in Khorasan, Iran and China want the same and they want a stable and secure land bride in between, Russia wants to keep Pashtun and Arab terrorists out of Central Asia, India wants to reduce Pakistani influence in the region: we can offer all of that. By dividing Afghanistan and creating "Khorasan", we offer the world all of that:

- constant military presence comparable to Germany and South Korea
- a real political border with al-Kaida-controlled Pashtunistan ("Afghanistan")
- friendly neutrality toward all neighbors (except Pashtunistan)
- mine licenses for India, Iran, China, US, Russia, and EU
- a nation united by language and one neutral identity

Your leaders in Washington D.C. are smart and they know that. By dividing "Afghanistan", they can give more than 50% of its people real freedom and prosperity, and they can still keep their "Taliban option" against Iran and China, without risking a total failure. Iran and China, on the other hand, will invest in a better infrastructure in "Khorasan" which will be their direct connecting land bridge. They will not care about "Pashtunistan". And everybody will be happy: except Pashtun nationalists. Meanwhile, the ordinary Pashtuns will be happy to live their ordinary lives according to "Pashtunwali". What happens in their country will not effect Khorasan and vice versa.


Americans have interests. They learn fast, they have an excellent secret service, a powerful army. Like all successful nations, they have interests and they want to protect these interests. The key is to unite regional interests ("Khorasan") with international interests.

If the division of Afghanistan serves America's, Europe's, India's, China's, and Iran's purposes, then Afghanistan will be divided.

So far, only Iran and Pakistan oppose a division, because that would bring order and stability to the region, and it would ensure constant NATO/UN military presence. Iran needs the Taliban to fight the US, and the US needs the Taliban to harass Iran. The Taliban (and the Pashtuns in general) are slaves to both sides. Be it as it is, why should Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks suffer because of that?

Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks do not fight any of these powers. They have excellent relations with Iran, they have a neutral position toward Pakistan and China, they love India, they have good relations with Central Asia (and hence Russia). In the past 8 years, they have proven day by day that they want peace and prosperity. But that is being denied by Pashtuns and the Pashtun president and his central government in Kabul.

Disintegration is the only solution.


JKabuli, your ideas are a waste of time. And your claim, that the disintegration of weak nation would create weaker smaller nations has been disproved by so many real cases: Yugoslavia, 3rd Reich, British Empire, etc etc etc.

It does not matter how small a nation is, as long as it's united within itself. "Awghanestan" will never be a united country. And there is also no need to join Iran or any other nation. "Khorasan" can stand by itself, a Persian nation that shares with Iran the same relation that Austria shares with Germany. People like you and the Taliban will not be able to prevent that, not even with the usual sectarian and religion card.

You are underestimating the people in this forum, JKabuli. And all I can tell you is that the idea of disintegration has already reached the highest ranks among Hazaras, Uzbeks, and Tajiks,. They may not say that in public yet (and they have very good reasons not to), but I can assure you that they do it in public. The disintegration of Afghanistan is just a matter of time. They sooner you realize, the easier to accept it.

Because sooner or later, even a "social parasite" like you - living in the US and cursing the US at the same time - will have to decide between Khorasan, America, or Pashtunistan.


The guy talk about issues that many of us have already on mind since the day of our birth in an unholly country.

#5 User is offline   tajik kabuli Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
06-October 09

Posted 26 December 2009 - 03:01 PM

View PostParsistani, on 26 December 2009 - 10:58 PM, said:

On another forum I just found the following quotations:


The guy talk about issues that many of us have already on mind since the day of our birth in an unholly country.

who is JKabuli ??? ? ??? ???

#6 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Research Group
22-May 07

Posted 26 December 2009 - 05:09 PM

View Posttajik kabuli, on 26 December 2009 - 03:01 PM, said:

who is JKabuli ??? ? ??? ???

Who care´s who this Ghool with his 25 different passport is. Forget him, he is a loser. The guy who wrote that quotes above is known as Abu_Sayed. He seems beeing very educated and well-informed about most things.

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users