Winning the War in Afghanistan

ganulv/ray:

Right. Interesting point, but the more we delve into the history and geopolitics of the Durand Line, the more it serves as much as evidence of conflcit, rather than a solution to it.

Pakistan, while one element argues for the formal enforcement of the Line, another completely disregards it, giving no credence whatsoever to the sovereignty of Afghanistan.

Quetta, and the Baluch/Pashhtun peoples would not find a plebiscite on the matter as straight forward as an american might, and there is this long-continuing "error" of having made Afghanistan a country with no access to any sea, even though its history long included one.

Something about the basic geography of 'those who control access to a country will always have dominion over that country.'

Not a thing can move to much of Afghanistan (including guns, fighters, fuel, etc...) without Afghanistan (except through other equally challenging neighbors).

Durand is on of those problems behind the problems left over from the British Empire, just as Pakistan itself is (to a great extent as to its issues with India).

Where, exactly, is Pandora's Box?

Durand is but one of hundreds of dusty, discarded bits of Euro colonial baggage laying about the globe for the disrupted populaces left behind as the tide turned to continually trip over.

Some lines were drawn intentionally to disrupt; others did so inadvertantly, but disrupt is disrupt, regardless of original motives and intent. There will be few easy answers and likely several wars over generations for these things to all sort out to a new balance established by the actual residents of where these things linger on.

My understanding is that for Pakistan Durand is an issue they cannot compromise on. I appreciate well why they would believe that, for if Durand went away Pakistan would be immediately as vulnerable to their neighbor as Israel is to hers. Do we really need two nuclear armed countries with no strategic depth or defendable terrain? This puts far too hair of a trigger on the nuclear weapons they possess.

One solution might be to look at a "lesser included" form of sovereignty for Pashtuns, that extends across Durand, granting rights of dual citizenship to all Pashtuns, while at the same time creating a kind of "indian reservation-like" region of Pashtunistan with its own internal governnace, but without actually carving from the hide of the two countires that it spans. Makes sense to me, but may be as unworkable as the current approach, I really don't know. We need to not think we can reach in from afar and "fix" this for them, as we will inevitably be wrong. The consequences are far to high to get wrong. Time and local solutions will cure this as it does all things. No need to hurry it along just because it complicates a problem we are currently fixated upon.

LINK.

The Afghans may even have initiated this -- just to cock a snook at Pakistan. We'll see...

P.S. Sorry, should have noted: Financial Times article, free registration required -- but the supplied headline says it all...

From the FT:

Quote:

---

India has offered...specialist training of high-ranking Afghan police officers in India...Hamid Karzai, Afhan president.. during his two-day visit to the Indian capital which begins on Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the offer.

---

IIRC India already provides some police training, which was mentioned on the thread on India's role in Afghanistan:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=3166

Just another 'stone" being hurled inside the Afghan "greenhouse" that has little glass left intact.

Bob:

You must have taken your meds today.

Beautifully said.

Rather fascinating that one "big answer" for a future less focused on nation states are credible and recognized alternative mechanisms for transnational populations.

Dual citizenship is one very straight forward one or zonal rights (like Euro).

And your belief is that the Pakistani army would accept such a solution? If not, they at least have the capability of foiling any such plan (even if they cannot impose their own will after the "foiling" part is accomplished).
People who think that imposing a unitary nation state on afghanistan was a mistake should, at the least, not replace that supposed delusion with ideas that are orders of magnitude more fanciful (or more disruptive of existing arrangements in countries that have not yet fallen apart).
Keep in mind that a United Afghanistan existed in these borders for a hundred years (longer if you are flexible about borders). What you are proposing are solutions that have less historic inertia than united Afghanistan.

Afghanistan signs pact with India
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/s...act/50662228/1

Afghan President Says Pact Not Aimed at Pakistan
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...india-14664374

Omar:

"United Afghanistan" is pretty different than that older of historical terms: Afghanistan-Land of the Pashtuns. (Pre-Durand?)

Embedded in all of these terms are what Ray notes. What strategic relationships is United Afghanistan going to develop to secure itself?

Does India (and indirectly, Iran, Russia, etc...) counterbalance Pakistan?

Our future role as Emergency Drone Launcher (EDLs), as with Yemen, becomes very complex, but cannot substitute for a "nation" asserting and defending itself on a continuing basis.

Leaving requires, apparently, United Afghanistan finding its balance against Pakistan.

Unless China enforces some kind of solution soon, this will end badly.

Omar:

We have had this discussion about China separately. They have commercial interests on both sides, but, arguably, more home guard issues in this one, too.

Very interesting to see what they would do if they actually had to worry about it (if the US was not there).

On a map, it looks like Afghanistan, a slice of Pakistan, and then a whole lot of nothin on the west of china. How big is that area of nothing? Wouldn't the other 'Stans above have more interest? As well as common religion? Not sure what they would bring to the table militarily, but they should at least have an interest in drugs, and a route through to Pak/India. I can't see China getting involved.

Ken posted a map on the China site.

That little upper their place (the old inland silk road) is where all the oil/gas is.

My guess is that within 20 years (barring any major disruptions) the old silk road (laced with pipelines east and west, and off-ramps at the right spots, will be some of the most highly valuable real estate in trade in the world (That's the perennial delusion of the Big Game).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve the Planner

Ken posted a map on the China site.

That little upper their place (the old inland silk road) is where all the oil/gas is.

My guess is that within 20 years (barring any major disruptions) the old silk road (laced with pipelines east and west, and off-ramps at the right spots, will be some of the most highly valuable real estate in trade in the world (That's the perennial delusion of the Big Game).

---

The idea of a silk road revival has been trumpeted here and there, but I really don't see much in it. The original silk road was a way of getting goods from the east coast of China to Europe. It was very inefficient, which is why silk was so very expensive in those days. It has been completely replaced by maritime transport and is now commercially irrelevant.

There's been talk of Central Asian energy running south, but given the continuing security problems it hasn't happened, nor is there any special reason why the Chinese would want it to happen: they can pipe oil and gas directly from Kazakhstan into Xinjiang, no need to mess with the mess to the south. Central Asian oil and gas can flow to China, to Europe through the Russian grid, and to Europe via Azerbaijan, BTC and similar pipelines. Again, no need to mess with the mess, and it's way too messy to bother.

Nobody will want to deal with a trade route that involves Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran unless they absolutely have to... and nobody with any significant trade has to. I can imagine some limited regional trade developing, but as a major trade route there's just no reason for it to revive.

I don't think there will be a major revival of land transit either; but I believe Steve is talking about conflict and competition for control of the resources in the region on central Asia where the route once was. I think this is very likely, and as the ability of the US to deter such conflicts wanes may happen sooner than later.

I agree that conflict over Central Asian energy resources is a real possibility. I do not think it's likely to involve the US, for reasons of geography a relatively minor player in that picture. It is a very likely Russia/China flashpoint somewhere down the line. The Chinese want the oil and gas: it's the only really substantial supply that they can get that doesn't rely on vulnerable shipping routes. The Russians don't need the energy, but control of the transit routes from Central Asia to Europe gives them a lot of leverage over Europe and over their former possessions on their southern border... maintaining that sphere of influence is important to them for a lot of reasons.

I don't think that conflict is likely to involve Afghanistan or Pakistan at all, and I doubt that the US would have any ability to deter it even now, though there's little immediate prospect of it erupting. Another one of those things we don't and won't control.

Bob, Dayuhan:

Right, a potential flash point, perhaps more grounded in ego than objective economic realities.

Problem with Oil/Gas inland/maritime exchange is not about whether it is technically feasible, but which resources were invested in, and the immediate impacts of change.

Right now, there are some pipelines and some tankers going to different markets, with investments in either being substantial and long-term.

Overtime, certain investments create explicit short-medium term constraints which, if threatened, can create flashpoint.

It all depends on what, overtime, emerges, and what kinks in the hose occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

...conflict and competition for control of the resources in the region on central Asia where the route once was. I think this is very likely, and as the ability of the US to deter such conflicts wanes may happen sooner than later.

---

I submit we shouldn't be concerned with deterring such conflicts in that and several other locations around the world where we really have no interests...

Other than commercial, of course -- but that 'reason' is often ferociously overstated and embellished to appear far more valuable than it actually will be. The only real reason we stick our nose into a good many conflicts is that accursed and pathetic 'do gooder' mentality. It has done us no favors over the years. :mad:

Ken:

Right. If kinks in that hose (now or in the future) occur, they would affect those dependent on that hose--not likely to be US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve the Planner

...not likely to be US.

---

--and sitting on the sidelines occasionally can be beneficial...

No 'glory' in it but beneficial. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

The only real reason we stick our nose into a good many conflicts is that accursed and pathetic 'do gooder' mentality.

---

I'd say there are more reasons, and even if you don't count them as reasons, they are at least prerequisites.