Tajiks Worldwide Community: Partition of Aoghanistan - 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

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Partition of Aoghanistan

#61 User is offline   Nader Shah Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
1,155
Joined:
13-October 07

Posted 15 January 2011 - 01:35 AM

I express sympathy for any human being who is verbally abused and is polite enough not to respond in kind. Regardless of what ethnicity or background. That was all, I never expressed sympathy for the Pashtun nationalism which is against Tajiks and Persian speaking people, in private or in public. The PM I sent was long time ago when Kakar never used abusive language.

However, the little sympathy I had for Kakar's forbearance evaporated the moment he started to make offensive comments towards Parsistani, beginning with his comment about Parsistani being gay after he posted his picture. Since then he has gone to the deep end, routinely displaying abusive language. Such language is not worth responding to.

My sympathy always goes to the Tajik cause, both in private and in public, so there is no cause for disappointment

View Postقزلباش, on 14 January 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:

PS: As for Nader's private messaging; I must say that i am very disappointed. We may disagree amongst ourselves but we must always present a united front in the face of outsiders

0

#62 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 15 January 2011 - 10:25 AM

View PostKakar, on 14 January 2011 - 10:03 PM, said:

hey faggot, youre not from afghanistan. what gives you qualifications to speak on Jalalabad and Gardez. Do you see me ranting stupidly about how Iraq will take Tehran


Kakar Wrora,

If you are desparately trying to include Pakhons of Pakistan in afairs of Afghanistan and call them your equal brothers, WE TAJIKS have equally the same right to include iranians and tajiks of central asia in our afairs in Afghanistan, they are our blood brothers, we got more in common with them than the pashtoons who are meant to be our countrymen.
0

#63 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 15 January 2011 - 12:03 PM

View PostSohrab, on 15 January 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:

Kakar Wrora,

If you are desparately trying to include Pakhons of Pakistan in afairs of Afghanistan and call them your equal brothers, WE TAJIKS have equally the same right to include iranians and tajiks of central asia in our afairs in Afghanistan, they are our blood brothers, we got more in common with them than the pashtoons who are meant to be our countrymen.


No Sohrab, he have every right to talk about Afghanistan..because of it´s Pashtun population. Only Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Nuristanis, Turkmen, Qashqais, Kyrgyz and the other minorities are not allowed to include their people in Iran and Tajikistan or Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan, Mongolia, China, Japan, Africa etc. to Afghanistan, because they are no Pashtuns, no Arabs, no Pakis and no other foreigners. Under the excuse of Pashtuns, Pakis have every legitimation to annex the land of their masters and call it Greater Pakistan or Khorasan.
0

#64 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 19 January 2011 - 04:54 PM

Now, even some Pashtuns have realized there is no way out for them, except accedpting either a new era of and power change or dying or accepting a partition!

Quote

ANALYSIS: Civil war and the partition of Afghanistan —Musa Khan Jalalzai

Western analysts believe that since Afghanistan has not been stable after nine years of NATO presence, therefore, what is needed is the partitioning of Afghanistan. However, Robert Blackwill proposes the implementation of an old solution, the creation of a new state, Pashtunistan

The debate about the dismemberment or de facto partition of Afghanistan has intensified in intellectual and media forums in both Asia and Europe. During the past two decades, ethnic cleansing and sectarian terrorism has prepared the ground for a future civil war in the country. Ethnic clashes between Kochis and Hazaras, among Uzbeks, Pashtuns and Tajiks still continued while sexual harassment, abduction, land-grabbing and mental torture of Pashtuns is on the rise in the northern provinces of Afghanistan. National unity and national integration has become an old story. Based on these facts, Afghanistan is a failed state, a state without political control and economic progress.

The present state structure that cannot protect the weak and vulnerable citizens in Afghanistan needs to be either reorganised or entirely changed to create ethnic, political and religious concordance. All ethnic minorities have complaints against the present structure of the state, which cannot meet their needs and cannot protect them from violence. As there is no legitimate functioning state in the country, non-state actors have become a dominant power that run illegal trade in all provinces. The last two decades of civil war entirely destroyed Afghanistan as a functioning state. In the 1980s, mujahideen groups destroyed infrastructure. In the 1990s, the Taliban made their way to power and destroyed all institutions. Now warlords in northern Afghanistan are deeply involved in ethnic cleansing.

The power of the warlords, their private military networks and their private security firms present the biggest challenge to the country’s rehabilitation as a functioning state. War criminals are trying to maintain their criminal militias and keep the state weak. They and their western partners have bypassed the Afghan state. Brutalities against Pashtuns in the north and the targeting of Hazaras in the south are a greater challenge for both the Afghan government and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Over the last 10 years, the Hazarajat region saw a series of reprisal killings. In 1997 alone, the Taliban killed over 6,000 Hazara Muslims in retaliation for the execution of thousands of Taliban prisoners in northern Afghanistan.

However, warlords belonging to the Hazara and Uzbek communities attack the houses of Pashtuns at night, and humiliate their women and elders. These war criminals looted, raped and killed over 60,000 innocent men and women in Kabul in the 1990s. With the coming of ISAF led by the US, warlords got the license of more killings across the country. Kochis kill Hazaras in the south, Hazara and Uzbek are killing Pashtuns in the north, and Taliban have been killing all ethnic groups across Afghanistan for the last 10 years.

Consequently, thousands of Hazaras from the Hazarajat region and thousands of Pashtuns from Balkh, Faryab and Kunduz provinces fled their villages. Armed political groups in the north are subjecting Pashtuns to murder, rape, beating, abduction and extortion. The state is not able to rehabilitate the internally displaced refugees returned from Pakistan and Iran. If we go into the last five decades’ internal displacement history of the country, we will find more stories about different displacements having occurred at different times. At present, more than 500,000 Afghans are internally displaced and one million are still living in refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran. They lost their houses and there is no housing industry in the country to help re-house the returnees. From 2005-2010, thousands of refugees returned from Pakistan, but war, torture, severity of drought and harassment forced them to go back. As they are illiterate and unskilled, they can make no contribution to Pakistan’s institutions.

At present, there is no national concord, no critical infrastructure — water, health, education, employment, security, food, housing, etc. They see no change in their life after the Soviet withdrawal and US invasion. The Afghan nation is scattered into pieces. The Hazaras of Bamyan, Wardak and Daykundi are different from the Pashtuns of the south in culture, language and religious orientation. They can be compared to the Kurds in Iraq. The same can be seen in the Tajiks of Badakhshan and the Pashtuns of Kandahar. The Tajiks are spread from the border of Tajikistan to Kabul and from Badakhshan to Herat. They believe that all their problems are due to the Pashtun misgovernance and their past 350-year brutal rule. Nationalistic notions are stronger among the Tajiks today. As we have experienced in the case of the education ministry in 2007, Persian-speaking communities are more attached to Iran and Tajikistan culturally and linguistically. Their political and sectarian affiliations to these states caused more problems in the country.

The last two decades of civil war have accumulated all the elements of ethnicity and religious extremism. This war encompasses two rival groups and their struggles: one is the Taliban and their resolve for dominance; and the other is the Hazaras, Tajiks and Uzbeks who seek identity and equal representation. They say they are not Afghan, but Tajik, Uzbek and Turkmen. The word Afghan, they say, means Pashtun. Moreover, major ethnic groups in Afghanistan are competing for power. As there is no national concord in the country, in the words of former US Deputy National Security Advisor Robert Blackwill, Afghanistan should be allowed to partition along ethnic lines.

Western analysts believe that since Afghanistan has not been stable after nine years of NATO presence, therefore, what is needed is the partitioning of Afghanistan. However, Robert Blackwill proposes the implementation of an old solution, the creation of a new state, Pashtunistan. “This solution would prevent civil war in Pakistan and solidify the government’s authority and in Afghanistan the loss of the eastern part of the nation would allow for real reconstruction to begin,” he said. Political analysts believe that, being already divided on linguistic lines, Afghanistan appears to be moving towards a permanent dismemberment.

They believe that the process of partition began before the arrival of Taliban on the political scene. Afghan ethnic minorities apparently have no fear of their fellow Tajiks and Uzbeks living across the border. Minorities who dominate the northern provinces opened routes towards Central Asia, imported electricity and gas and created political links with the states of Central Asia and Iran. But they will not be allowed to settle there. Over 90 percent of young people in northern Afghanistan are illiterate, suffering from HIV/AIDS or drug addiction. The Taliban infiltration into Central Asia and their operations in Chechnya and Ingushetia can divert the attention of Russia towards a new buffer state that will divide Afghanistan on ethnic lines.

http://www.dailytime...19-1-2011_pg3_4

0

#65 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 22 January 2011 - 11:48 AM

Quote

Partition

No matter how people feel about the condition of Afghanistan, hardly any effort has gone into fixing the problems. Taken by face value, it might seem like a lot has been done in favor of the country and that the country has improved drastically, but it is only a façade. Once you delve deeper in, you can see just how weak the entire infrastructure truly is. And this is where the problem lies. Only certain, small parts of the country are doing relatively fine but overall the country is virtually falling apart because there is no strong foundation. This “show” is put on for the sake of the rest of the world, to please those that control it. So therefore, when solutions are brought forth and if the “government” doesn’t approve of them, they can use that façade of the country on its way to betterment to reject the suggestions. One solution that has been mentioned time and again is partition of the country. It has been the one of the most discussed topics and also one of the most rejected ones. Recent events as well as past historical tribulations have illustrated that the only solution for Afghanistan is separation.

Dividing Afghanistan has always been a much-heated and much-debated topic. Whether it be to divide it by North and South, or separate independent states for several provinces, the underlining solution is to separate the lands and, most importantly, the people. However, no step has been taken to go forward with such a solution. One of the main supported resolutions is separation by North and South—to divide the Non-Pashtuns and the Pashtuns. Such ethnic aversion is expected considering the shaky history and relationship between the ethnicities of Afghanistan—mainly of Pashtuns with everyone else. For 250 years, the Pashtuns had power over most of the regions of Afghanistan whether it was in the form of a monarchy, communism, or terrorism via religious fanaticism. Most recently, they have tried gaining power through fraudulent elections and official appointments in the legislatures. With 250 years in power, there is hardly any achievement to show for it. The greatest achievement of the Pashtuns is that the nation is literally at the bottom. Afghanistan’s status is the 177th country among 180 countries of the world, signaling just how poor and devastated the country is. It receives its budget from international donations and half of that money is spent on security of the south because 90% of the country’s violence comes from the south. The Pashtun’s ignorance and arrogance have arisen time and again during the Loya Jirga and the creation of such a bogus constitution. When the non-Pashtuns asked for a parliamentary system, the Pashtuns rejected it. Pashtuns are not and never will think of creating a government that is necessary or even fair for our diverse nation by acknowledging past historical events and are instead trying to restore Pashtun hegemony.

There are those non-Pashtuns who don’t wish to go over or remember past events/bad memories—they want to take the easy way out and just start fresh. However, there are those that do NOT want to forget and believe that a fresh start can only occur when there has been some sort of change. And by keeping the Pashtuns in power—the same ethnicity that has literally and truthfully brought ruin to the country—there will be no improvement or change for the country, certainly not for the non-Pashtuns and perhaps even some poor Pashtuns. Pashtuns are originally from the South so perhaps and they can rightly go back there and govern rightly over their own people. And leave the North to themselves. Now, some people have stated that once the Pashtuns are gone, the non-Pashtuns might just start fighting with each other and that’s why they prefer to have separate independent states—the Tajiks with Tajikistan, Uzbeks in Uzbekistan, the Hazaras as their own nation. This may very well work out, too, but they must first try to understand just where their problems began and if they work them out. After all, they share a lot in history, culture, literature, etc.

Most of the problems that are present among non-Pashtuns are due to Pashtuns. In the past, pre-Afghanistan, the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Turkmans, etc. lived side by side in Khorasan. There was no threat of communism or terrorism. Terror started with the first footsteps of Abdali. By separating the North and the South that is the first step towards change. Right now, there is no stability in the country and its people. Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns do not have anything in common—historically, culturally, etc. Only recently do the ethnicities have some things in common like the literature and language and that is only because Pashtuns became persianized as they came to the north. Most Pashtuns adopted Dari as their language, Persian poets as their choice of literature, etc. Which is why it seems so hypocritical when those same Pashtuns want to push Pashto and Pashto “literature” and “culture” unto the rest of the country—they didn’t and/or can’t speak the language themselves and they want to force others to accept it. Now, if they badly want Pashto and Pashto culture to be a big part of Afghanistan, then they should all travel back to the South and contently enforce Pashto unto their own people. The people of the North have their own history and culture and they appreciate it and have appreciated it for hundreds of years.

Pashtuns did not bring any progress in the past—which is fairly obvious considering the condition of the country today—so logically, they won’t bring any progress in the future. And if the country is partitioned finally, there is no way it could get any worse. But even so, just how worse could it possibly get? Separation of the country shouldn’t be seen as a failure of the country but rather as an improvement and a solid and proper change. When we factor in all the information—dangerous and ineffective Pashtun rule, misrepresentative country name, forced Pashto assimilation—the only solution can be to separate. Living with Pashtuns did not work in the past and so it won’t work for the future. After all, one can not and should not try living a normal life with cancer—you have to get rid of the cancer or it will destroy you from the inside out. Whether it’s slowly and secretly or fast and outwardly there are only two ways out and they are by cutting it off or letting it kill you.
http://afghanmirror....d.com/id10.html

0

#66 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 22 January 2011 - 11:59 AM

Quote

Nato urged to allow partition of Afghanistan
Afghanistan should be allowed to partition along ethnic lines by pulling back Nato forces and acknowledging that the Taliban will not be defeated in their heartland, a senior former American national security adviser has warned.

by Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent 7:00AM BST 13 Sep 2010

Robert Blackwill, who was Condolezza Rice's deputy as National Security Adviser in 2003 to 2004, will use a speech at the International Institute of Strategic Studies think tank in London on Monday to call on President Barack Obama to make drastratic changes in the war's objectives.

He told The Daily Telegraph that the surge of forces launched last year to stabilise Afghanistan was "high likely" to fail and that the death toll in the conflict was too high a price to pay.

"The Taliban are winning, we are losing," he said. "They have high morale and want to continue the insurgency. Plan A is going to fail. We need a Plan B

"Let the Taliban control the Pashtun south and east, the American and allied price for preventing that is far too high."

Mr Blackwill said that there had been a decade of "innumerable errors" in the Western approach to Afghanistan. Most notably American policy shifted after the atttacks on September 11, 2001 from expelling al Qaeda from its Afghan sanctuaries to crushing the Taliban and installing a democratic government in Kabul.

The result was that America now had 1,000 soldiers deployed for every one of the estimated 100 al Qaeda operatives now believed to be based in Afghanistan and was hemorraging $100 billion a year on the conflict.

A review of the Afghan war that Mr Obama will present to the US public in November, represents an opportunity to change the contours of the conflict. The US committed an extra 35,000 troops to Afghanistan in attempt to reverse Taliban gains.

Mr Blackwill believes the US should only seek to defend those areas dominated by Afghanistan's Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara minorities by pulling out of bases in the south.

By accepting that the Taliban would overrun Kandahar and other big population centres, the US would threaten the Taliban only if it allowed al Qa'eda to reform or if the movement started to encroach northwards.

"How many people really believe that Kandahar is central to Western civilisation. We did not got to Afghanistan to control Kandahar ," he said.

"Our preference at the time of the attack was for the Taliban to give up al Qaeda not to change the regime. Mr Obama himself and the administration say what we are trying to do in Afghanistan is to destroy al Qaeda."

Alongside misdirected strategy, the "utter corruption" of the government of President Hamid Karzai had eclipsed Nato's hopes to keeping the Taliban at bay after its defeat in late 2001.

In contrast to Mr Blackwill's view that Afghanistan's army and police could not be made ready to control the whole country, Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, said the forces would assume responsibility by 2015.

"If we were to leave before 2015, a point at which on current progress we expect to have achieved our security aims, it would be a shot in the arm to violent jihadists everywhere, re-energising violent radical and extremist Islamists," he said.

"It would send a signal that we did not have the moral resolve and the political fortitude to see through what we ourselves have described as national security imperative."
http://www.telegraph...fghanistan.html

0

#67 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 22 January 2011 - 12:02 PM

Quote

Pushing partition in Afghanistan

Is retreating from the south a solution to the stalemate?

Robert Blackwill, a former foreign policy advisor to both presidents Bush, came to London today to deliver his arguments for a de facto partition of Afghanistan. He made his case in Washington and in the Financial Times earlier in the summer, and appeared in London this afternoon at the invitation of the International Institute for Strategic Studies to rebut some of the criticism his ideas have received, and presumably because his ideas reinforce a similar argument made last week by the IISS itself. The same week, a group of pundits and ex-officials calling themselves the Afghanistan Study Group delivered its own challenge to the conduct of the war.

The timing of all this seem to be determined to a large extent by the approaching US strategy review in December, which is expected to pull British strategy in its wake, and the seeming absence so far of any major challenge to the current counter-insurgency orthodoxy inside the US and UK establishments. In that context, Blackwill is an interesting voice as a Republican arguing for a partial retreat, although he doubtless represents an small minority of the party.

This is his argument as laid down at the IISS this afternoon. The counter-insurgency is failing, and is unsustainable in terms of its cost in blood and treasure ($100 billion a year). It is entirely disproportionate in relation to the original objective of the Afghan mission - to eliminate al-Qaida. Blackwill cites the CIA as said there are 50-100 AQ fighters in Afghanistan, perhaps 300 in Pakistan. He asked: "Is it worth $100 billion to keep them on one side of the Durand line rather than the other?"

On the other hand, he rejected the suggestion that a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, quoting the CIA chief Leon Panetta as asking why should the Taliban negotiate in good faith, if they believe they are already winning.

Blackwill's proposal is to cede control of the "Pashtun homeland" in the south and east to the Taliban and instead defend the north, west and Kabul with a smaller US-led foreign force of 35,000 - 50,000, which would continue to strike against AQ targets either side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

To the objection that the Taliban would simply invite AQ back into its zone of control, he argued that it is just as possible that they would have "learned the lesson" of 2001, and if they did not, "the skies over the south and east would be dark with Predators".

He admitted that it was "tragically true" that the de facto partition plan would be a defeat for women in the ceded area, but said that was not why the US went to war in the first place.

Blackwill said the residual foreign force would be enough to prevent all-out civil war which would inevitably break out if there was a total withdrawal. To fears of the emergence of an irredentist Pashtunistan on both sides of the Durand Line, threatening Pakistan, he responded by saying that the US and its allies could not be more concerned with Pakistani territorial integrity that Islamabad itself.

For some reason, Blackwill declined to answer a question on what happens when a Taliban south fights on under the stirring banner of a united Afghanistan, buoyed by its strategic victory, and by the outrage caused by a strategy heavily reliant on Predators and other air strikes. That would also be a recruiter for AQ worldwide.

Joshua Foust raises the same sort of objections on Registan.net to the Afghanistan Study Group's (ASG's) similar proposals.

Gerard Russell, who ran the British government's outreach to the Muslim world from 2001 to 2003 and who is now based at Harvard, was also doubtful, raises objections as follows:

Economically the northern side would be dependent on trade with Iran. Its roads with the Stans are very poor. But it really makes no sense. You'd need to reconfigure the whole Afghan road network.
It would stoke conflict. Iran and Russia will be drawn into supporting the north, and Pakistan into supporting the south, creating a potentially lethal proxy war that would be worse than the civil war of the 1990s, because the stakes will be higher.
..I doubt any neighbour will want this - Pakistan in particular dislikes the idea of ethnic separatism, and the central Asian states show little enthusiasm to open their borders with Afghanistan. In any event I don't see how it solves the fundamental problems of leadership which beset both the north and south of Afghanistan.


Advocates of a negotiated settlement also argue that there are ways of scaling down the foreign presence in Afghanistan without handing the Taliban a huge strategic victory and taking the ground away from war-weary moderates in the insurgent leadership who might accept a deal.

As things stand, it seems unlikely the Blackwill/IISS/ASG argument will have much impact when President Obama approaches his December review. The word out of Washington is that the administration will stick to its counter-insurgency strategy, notwithstanding Joe Biden's well-publicised reservations, and will listen to General Petraeus when he asks for a relatively slow drawdown of troops from next July.

Then again, things could always get even worse, and make Plan B look no so much attractive as unavoidable.
http://www.guardian....n-war-partition

0

#68 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 22 January 2011 - 12:28 PM

Quote

A de facto partition of Afghanistan may bring Victory for US

A de facto partition of Afghanistan may bring Victory for US
By A Khokar • Jul 19th, 2010 • Category: Politics • 3 Comments

The Obama administration’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan seems headed for failure. Given the alternatives, de facto partition of Afghanistan is on the table which is being considered as the best policy option available to the United States and its allies and mark it a Victory..

Even after the change of war horses that Gen David Petraeus, Iraqi insurgency fame commander is now the head of the forces in Afghanistan; this is felt that U.S. polity should stop talking about timelines and exit strategies and accept that the Taliban will inevitably control most of its historic stronghold in the Pashtun south. But Washington could ensure that north and west Afghanistan do not succumb to jihadi extremism, using U.S. air power and Special Forces along with the Afghan army and like-minded nations.

Enthusiasts for the administration’s counterinsurgency strategy, or COIN, are likely to reject this way forward in Afghanistan. They will rightly point out the many complexities in implementing de facto partition.

De facto partition is clearly not the best outcome one can imagine for the United States in Afghanistan. But it is now the best outcome that Washington can achieve consistent with vital national interests and U.S. domestic politics.

There are many reasons for this.

Even if President Barack Obama adds a year or two to his timeline for major progress, the COIN strategy appears unlikely to succeed. Given the number of U.S. combat forces now fighting, the Taliban cannot be sufficiently weakened in Pashtun Afghanistan to drive it to the negotiating table on any reasonable timeline. True, the Afghan Pashtun are not a unified group. But they do agree on opposing foreign occupation and wanting Pashtun supremacy.

“We have seen no evidence that they are truly interested in reconciliation,” CIA Director Leon Panetta said on June 27, “where they would surrender their arms, where they would denounce Al Qaeda, where they would really try to become part of that society. … Unless they’re convinced the United States is going to win and that they are going to be defeated, I is thought that it is very difficult to proceed with a reconciliation that is going to be meaningful.”

With an occupying army largely ignorant of local history, tribal structures, language, customs, politics and values, the United States cannot, through social engineering, win over, in the foreseeable future, sufficient numbers of the Afghan Pashtun on whom COIN depends.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s deeply corrupt government — as unpopular as the Taliban — shows no sign of improvement, and Afghanistan has no history of a robust central government. Allied efforts to substitute Western nation building for Afghan nation building will continue to fall short. The Afghanistan National Army is not expected to be ready to vanquish the Taliban for many years, if ever.
Moreover, Pakistan’s military and intelligence services, with their dominating optic of India as the enemy, have shown no willingness to end support for their long-time Afghan Taliban proxies — or accept a truly independent Afghanistan.

Decisively, the long-term COIN strategy and far shorter U.S. political timeline are flawed and incompatible.
The lack of progress in substantially pacifying Pashtun Afghanistan before Obama’s July 2011 decision date will become increasingly clear — though proponents are sure to focus more on the costs of failure than on the likelihood of enduring success.

What then? If the COIN strategy cannot produce the desired results in the next 12 months, the US administration has six broad policy alternatives:

1) It can stay the course with the failing COIN strategy or even “double down” on the U.S. commitment — despite the lack of intrinsic U.S. vital national interests tied to Afghanistan.

2) It can seek other ways to entice the Afghan Taliban to end violence and enter into a coalition government. Karzai now seems to be pursuing this, but his efforts cannot alter the grim realities on the Pashtun battlefield or Taliban sustained intransigence. There is famous proverb: Why negotiate if you believe you are winning?

3) It can try to save parts of Pashtun Afghanistan, locale by locale — in an ink-blot strategy — fighting in some areas and acquiescing in others. But this would mean continuing major U.S. and NATO casualties in the south. It would also allow the Taliban — like the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese — to concentrate its forces, ink blot by ink blot, among a sympathetic or intimidated local Pashtun population. In any case, it only delays the inevitable when U.S. forces depart.

4) It can opt, as Vice President Joe Biden reportedly counselled before Obama’s surge decision, not to fight the Taliban in the countryside. It can, instead, defend Kabul and Kandahar (epicentre of the Pashtun and the Taliban’s spiritual birthplace), intensify efforts to lure Taliban who can be bought with money or political power and work with local warlords rather than the central government.

5) It can initiate rapid withdrawal of all American forces, which would produce a strategic calamity for the United States. For it could lead, first, to all-out Afghan civil war; then, to the Taliban’s probable conquest of the entire country. Since Afghanistan’s neighbours would very likely be drawn in, it could ultimately destabilize the entire region. It could also dramatically increase likelihood of the Islamic radicalization of Pakistan, which then calls into question the security of its nuclear arsenal. It might also weaken, if not rupture, the budding U.S.-India strategic partnership. In addition, it would profoundly undermine NATO, perhaps persuading the alliance to never again go “out of area.” It could trigger global support for Islamic extremist ideology and increased terrorism against liberal societies everywhere. And worldwide, friends and adversaries alike would see it as a failure of international leadership and strategic resolve by an ever weaker United States, with destructive aftershocks for years to come.

6) Or it can adopt new U.S. policy goals for Afghanistan that, realistically, have a better chance of succeeding. This means accepting a de facto partition, enforced by U.S. and NATO air power and Special Forces, the Afghan army and international partners.

After years of faulty U.S. policy toward Afghanistan, there are no quick, easy and cost-free ways to escape the current deadly quagmire. But with all its problems, de facto partition offers the best available U.S. alternative to strategic defeat.

It may be Announced that US will retain an active combat role in Afghanistan for years to come and may do not accept permanent Taliban control of the south, the United States and its allies could withdraw combat forces from most of Pashtun Afghanistan (about half the country), including Kandahar, over several months.

US forces would stop fighting and dying in the mountains, valleys and urban areas of southern Afghanistan — where 102 coalition soldiers were killed in June, the most in any month of the war and almost three times as many as a year ago. But US may be ready to assist tribal leaders on the Pashtun periphery, who may decide to resist the Taliban. US may focus on defending the northern and western regions — containing roughly 60 percent of the population. These areas, including Kabul, are not Pashtun dominated, and locals are largely sympathetic to U.S. efforts.

US may offer the Afghan Taliban an agreement in which neither side seeks to enlarge its territory — if the Taliban stopped supporting terrorism, a proposal that they would almost certainly reject.

US may then make it clear that we would rely heavily on U.S. air power and special forces to target any Al Qaeda base in Afghanistan, as well as Afghan Taliban leaders who aided them. It would also target Afghan Taliban encroachments across the de facto partition lines and terrorist sanctuaries along the Pakistan border.

It is expected that careful analysis are carried out and this might mean a long-time residual U.S. military force in Afghanistan of about 40,000 to 50,000 troops. Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and supportive Pashtun in this endeavour may be enlisted as well as US, NATO allies, Russia, India, Iran, perhaps China, Central Asian nations and, one hopes the U.N. Security Council also.

US may continue accelerating Afghan army training. That would devote nation-building efforts to the northern and western regions, where, unlike the Pashtun areas, people are found less conflicted about accepting U.S. help and not systematically coerced by the Taliban.

There might even come a time when a stronger Afghan National Army could take control of the Pashtun areas.
Such fundamentally changed U.S. objectives and strategies regarding Afghanistan would dramatically reduce U.S. military causalities and thus minimize domestic political pressure for hasty withdrawal. It would substantially lower US budget-breaking military expenditures on Afghanistan — now nearly $7 billion per month.

This would also allow the U.S. Army and Marines to recover from years of fighting two ground wars; increase the likelihood that our coalition allies, with fewer casualties, might remain over the long term; encourage most of Afghanistan’s neighbours to support an acceptable stabilization of the country and reduce Islamabad’s ability to parlay the U.S. ground role in southern Afghanistan into tolerance for terrorism thought to be emanating from Pakistan.

In addition, it would allow Washington to focus on four issues more vital to its future national interests: the rise of Chinese power, the Iranian nuclear weapons program, nuclear terrorism from Pakistan and the future of Iraq.

There are certainly problems with this approach:

The Taliban could trumpet victory or not accept a sustained status quo and continually test America’s resolve. It is likely that lower-level violence would persist in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, especially in the south. Pashtun Afghanistan could again become a hotbed of international terrorism, a dangerous outcome that probably could only be avoided by U.S. combat forces fighting there for years — and, in any case, the current Al Qaeda epicentre is in Pakistan.

In the context of de facto partition, the sky over Pashtun Afghanistan would be dark with manned and unmanned coalition aircraft — targeting not only terrorists but, as necessary, the new Taliban government in all its dimensions. Taliban civil officials — like governors, mayors, judges and tax collectors — would wake up every morning not knowing if they would survive the day in their offices, while involved in daily activities or at home at night.

But there would be no mountain caves in which they could hide and, at the same time, do their jobs. Over time, that could produce some degree of deterrence against Taliban support for terrorism.

Pakistan would likely oppose de facto partition. Managing Islamabad’s reaction would be no easy task — not least because the Pakistan military expects a strategic gain once the U.S. military withdraws from Afghanistan.

Indeed, Islamabad might need to be persuaded to concentrate, with the United States, on defeating the Pakistan Taliban and containing the Afghan Taliban to avoid momentum toward a fracturing of the Pakistan state. There might be potential pockets of fifth column Pashtun in the north and west. Karzai and his associates would almost certainly resist partition — and might not remain in power. Fearing a return of Pakistan dominance in Afghanistan, India would likely encourage Washington to continue ground combat in the south for many years to come — and would have to be told that was not in the cards.

Human rights in the Taliban-controlled areas would also probably be abysmal, including for minorities.
Putting together a coalition of like-minded nations to implement this strategy would be a daunting diplomatic challenge — not least with Tehran.

But even with all the challenges, defacto partition will be done sooner rather than persist until US current COIN strategy has failed, triggering a domestic political eruption at home and, perhaps, a disastrous total U.S. military withdrawal.

Will Washington wait to change its objective and strategy in Afghanistan until even more U.S. blood and treasure have been lost in a fruitless quest among the Afghan Pashtun and the Taliban proclaims that it has mighty America, like the Soviets, on the run out of Afghanistan.

US Foreign Secretary Hillary Clinton Upcoming tour for strategic dialogues with Pakistani authorities is seen as very important visit.
http://www.pakspecta...victory-for-us/

0

#69 User is offline   Kakar Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
58
Joined:
13-November 10

Posted 24 January 2011 - 03:49 AM

View PostSohrab, on 15 January 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:

Kakar Wrora,

If you are desparately trying to include Pakhons of Pakistan in afairs of Afghanistan and call them your equal brothers, WE TAJIKS have equally the same right to include iranians and tajiks of central asia in our afairs in Afghanistan, they are our blood brothers, we got more in common with them than the pashtoons who are meant to be our countrymen.


byadar, please explain to me, by what qualifications can an Iranian speak on the military capacity of 2 PASHTUN MAJORITY cities to be lost to non Pashtuns?


of course as a Persian he has every right to be CONCERNED or INFORMED about his fellow persians in Afghanistan, no doubt\


but by what capacity can he speak on the realities of GARDEZ AND JALALABAD. can this man ppick out those 2 cities on a map?
0

#70 User is offline   Kakar Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
58
Joined:
13-November 10

Posted 24 January 2011 - 03:52 AM

View PostNader Shah, on 15 January 2011 - 01:35 AM, said:

I express sympathy for any human being who is verbally abused and is polite enough not to respond in kind. Regardless of what ethnicity or background. That was all, I never expressed sympathy for the Pashtun nationalism which is against Tajiks and Persian speaking people, in private or in public. The PM I sent was long time ago when Kakar never used abusive language.

However, the little sympathy I had for Kakar's forbearance evaporated the moment he started to make offensive comments towards Parsistani, beginning with his comment about Parsistani being gay after he posted his picture. Since then he has gone to the deep end, routinely displaying abusive language. Such language is not worth responding to.

My sympathy always goes to the Tajik cause, both in private and in public, so there is no cause for disappointment


this is a cop out and a fabricated excuse

you know for a fact that as soon as i joined this board parsistanti greeted me with insults. we know that YOU KNOW this because i posted your PRIVATE MESSAGE telling me to ignore him

so when i RESPOND to parsistantis INSULTS all of a sudden youre "GHAIRAT" forced u to interfere and insult me

this story makes no sense and no one buys this. I have not been disrespectful on this site TO ANYONE WHO WAS NOT DISRESPECTFUL TO ME.

so in conclusion, you are a BEGHAIRAT as the proof is clear. You are a MUNAFIQ in your two faced beahviour. and then, instead of being a man and acknowledging your wrongdoings, you LIE to hide your BEGHAIRAT so you are DISHONEST as well

i am glad to have exposed your lack of honour. esteemed tajikam members, you should thank me for exposing a BEGHAIRAT within ur ranks, as his two faced dishonesty would surely have burned you the way it did PARSISTANI
0

#71 User is offline   Kakar Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
58
Joined:
13-November 10

Posted 24 January 2011 - 03:54 AM

btw this has nothing to do with pashto persian etc etc

its about honour and dishonour

we have Kakar who joined this forum with respect and expressed support for persian identity and culture and sought to distance himself from pashtun crimes and only insulted those who insulted him

and then we have Parsistanti who the whole forum knows is a joke and possibly homosexual, we have yet to verify

and we have NadiR Shah who i have exposed as a munafiq beghairat two faced coward
0

#72 User is offline   قزلباش Icon

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
325
Joined:
26-October 10

Posted 24 January 2011 - 09:22 PM

Nader shah made a mistake and we have forgiven him. At the time you joined the forum, we were all rather upset about parsistani's harshness and so one can understand why Nader mitt have done that.

I am not going to let you drive a wedge between us and I am not going to let you insult Nader or Parsistani

Try your unimpressive mind games elsewhere.
هیچ وقت به خدا نگو یه مشکل بزرگ دارم
به مشکل بگو من یه خدای بزرگ دارم


Go tell the wolves that although the father has been killed,
The father's gun is with us still
Tell them that although all the men of the tribe have been killed,
There is a young boy in the cradle still

Bakhtiari Proverb
0

#73 User is offline   AbuMuslim Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
53
Joined:
05-February 08

Posted 26 January 2011 - 04:35 PM

kakar

I too beleive parsistaani is harsh, over sentimental and emotional. we don't need such a language it discourages people from the forum. I would suggest he argue his points logically.

But in this case you are the biggest beghairat because you were not supposed to post a private message, it shows ur ghairat. That guy, nader shah may have believed like that later on may have changed it but it was meant to be personal message. you did beghairati what a foool you are
I am the servant of the Qur'an as long as I have life.
I am the dust on the path of Muhammad, the Chosen One.
If anyone quotes anything except this from my sayings,
I am quit of him and outraged by these words.
Movlana Jalaluddin Balkhi
0

#74 User is offline   قزلباش Icon

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
325
Joined:
26-October 10

Posted 26 January 2011 - 04:46 PM

View PostAbuMuslim, on 26 January 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:

But in this case you are the biggest beghairat because you were not supposed to post a private message, it shows ur ghairat. That guy, nader shah may have believed like that later on may have changed it but it was meant to be personal message. you did beghairati what a foool you are


I had wanted to point that out but i decided against it.
From my experience, those you scream the loudest about ghayrat,namoos and sharaf are the ones who lack those very qualities.

ghayrat isnt something you talk about; its something you project through your actions.
هیچ وقت به خدا نگو یه مشکل بزرگ دارم
به مشکل بگو من یه خدای بزرگ دارم


Go tell the wolves that although the father has been killed,
The father's gun is with us still
Tell them that although all the men of the tribe have been killed,
There is a young boy in the cradle still

Bakhtiari Proverb
0

#75 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:15 PM

View PostKakar, on 24 January 2011 - 03:49 AM, said:

byadar, please explain to me, by what qualifications can an Iranian speak on the military capacity of 2 PASHTUN MAJORITY cities to be lost to non Pashtuns?


of course as a Persian he has every right to be CONCERNED or INFORMED about his fellow persians in Afghanistan, no doubt\


but by what capacity can he speak on the realities of GARDEZ AND JALALABAD. can this man ppick out those 2 cities on a map?


Majority? We will decrease your number to minus 1000 000, you moron. Jalalabad and Gardez and their surrounding regions are like Ghaznai the most eastern Tajik and in generell Persianspeaking bastion against you Haramian. Go and educate yourself, you filthy slave. Just get out of this forum. You KaKhar was never been in Gardez or Jalalabad. Go and tell those words there they will call you a Kooni and a servant of Paki (Talib) and hang you on your small penis, you loser. Do you actually know that the Persianspeaking population have formed already their belts in these eastern regions. Just wait, in maybe 10 years, your numbers will be zero or even lesser.

Quote

you know for a fact that as soon as i joined this board parsistanti greeted me with insults


Goofy, Parsistani is not a shameless sell-out dog and a lapdog of PAKHTU-speaking ISI to insult someone. Stop slandering and lying. You did insulted without any reasen me at first and I did counterattack. If you touch a snake you can be sure that the snake will bite you and kill you, with no excuse and pardon!! I even tried to restart a new talk without bashing and I even told you that but but you jerk ignored it and again started at first to insult me. Don´t act here as a victim. That´s typical for Pashtuns. As long they can profite they are the ''kings'', but if you take him everything or giving others the same privilegs he act as a victim. I hope you godless people will suffer more and taste your godless life under NATO´s b-52s and pleeeeeeeease, don´t use words like Beghairat or nang or Ghairat. You are Pashtun. You as a Pashtun or Pashtunized member of this group do not know what Ghairat, Beghairat or Nang means. When you adoptet this words your homosexual elders were using it for women-selling (ghairati), daughter selling (ghairati), sleeping with mother, sister, grand-mother, father, uncle, aunth etc. naked under one sandali (ghairati), pedophilia (ghairati) but farhang, tamadon (culture and civilisation) as beghairati. Your definition is a sick definition. You people need docs, very good docs. Even your father bought your mum from her brother or her father by offering a sheep for her. Before his marriage, he enjoyed his times with the herds of his family and some neighbour´s guys. You are the biggest loser right now. Talking about ghairat and nang is non-sense if you still live in Canada while your mothers and daughters are surrounded by 42 nations from all sides. Awghan e Khaar. Again, Parsistani is not a Pashtun-like ''Ghairatman''. Parsistani have trully Ghairat. It is you people who dance after my flute, not me or my nation. Go rescue your female members from your Paki, Arab, American and now Russian masters, you moron. Maybe you will learn what Ghairat really means. Stupid hypocrite idiot. You should be very carefully what you say. It is very easy to me to find you and your family and send my friends to you. They won´t make any compromisses to you, I swear by god. Be careful what you say or how you act. I do not care what happen to filthy Pashtuns or their families and specially not to a loser like Abdul Karim Kakhar. These are my last words to you uneducated wahabi-salafi hypocrite mule-ass. Now don´t make out of this topic your personal Pashtunistan or Kandahar or Paktia-looking like topic. Keep out here. The best thing is to keep away from us. Go to your own Pashtun forums. The same way I teahc you a lesson your own roras act to us on their forums.
0

#76 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:23 PM

Russia´s new presence in Afghanistan seems to be helpful for a desintegration of Afghanistan´s north and west from east and south, which means partition.

Russia means Partition for Afghanistan
0

#77 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 29 January 2011 - 01:23 PM

http://tajikam.com/f...id=380&Itemid=1
0

#78 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 29 January 2011 - 01:34 PM

Dear friends, it´s time for us to apart from ourself from Pashtun Afkoonian http://tajikam.com/f...id=376&Itemid=1 the greatest uneducated bastards the world have seen. Noone should ask me why I am so hated by Pashtuns and vise versa. This article is the answer of every question. Death to Pashtuns! This is exactly that what I meaned why I am for a name change (ethnicalisation) of ''Dari'' to Tajiki. A great reason for partition from barbarians and animals.
0

#79 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 08 March 2011 - 09:52 PM

Interesting, some Awghans from Laghman are talking about partition of Awghanistan and say it´s the best solution to rescue Pashtu and Pashtun life. Visit Paltalk.com/Express. Create there an account (I would appreciate Sohrab to do it). YOu don´t need to load something. You will visit Paltalk via Browser. Add me as Parsistani.
0

#80 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 08 March 2011 - 10:33 PM

...http://freevideo.rt.com/video/4138 ... http://freevideo.rt.com/video/4138
0

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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