As the bigwigs hold forth in Kabul, Afghanistan’s future still looks uncertain

Defacto partition is not something radical, it what the state of afffairs on the ground has been - in terms of languague, culture, ethnicity, history and so and so on....

The Taliban upsurge in 1995-1996 was successul partly because it had huge outside support. The Tajiks held out against them in the main under Ahmad Shah Massoud at great cost. The people fighting the Taliban then appealed to the US and the West back then to help them in the fight against the Taliban and its allies...but none was forthcoming.

If this time the West and the US especially set out to make sure that these naturally anti Taliban and anti Pashtun rule areas were provided the means to equal the Talibans vast supplies - then ofcourse they would hold out far better than what happened in the years of 1995-2001.

If the US provided the backing then also the events of countries (Pakistan Iran Uzbekistan Russia S.Arabia) 1992-1994 - where a whole series of their respective surogate forces took on and brought havok upon the government of Burhanuddin Rabbani - would not be repeated.

Pashtunization will never succeed in Afghanistan - and yet that is what all of the Pashtun client government of that country have tried since 1930s.... and Karzai along with with close aides are dreaming of this again....it is time to realise that Karzai is and this Pashtunization desire are both illegitimate - neither are what the people of the especialy the North and West have wanted.

@HinduKafir:

Afghanistan was formed by a division of the Iranian army returning from India. In that sense it is very similar to Romania (formed by a Roman legion). The fact that they are not very united and that the country does not have a very long history as an independent nation is no reason to threaten its sovereignty. A great number of countries in the world fall within that category. So if we start to redraw borders we will face more trouble than you can imagine. The best option is to come up with an exit strategy and exit!

There probably isn't a country called Afghanistan. Who is in charge changes every 5 miles. Ungovernable for centuries from any 'centre', crime is a safer source of income than is legal effort.

Come home before you look even more stupid than George W.

We need to stop focusing on Big Government ideas like a strong central state and uniformed forces and just focus on well regulated defensive militias and micro grant/loans. Community security and getting money to the citizens is much better than all the corruption we are spawning now.

Come now, we know better than to have optimism for officiousness. And from 68 nations at that.

As this phase of the war moves towards a close, we must remind ourselves what the war was really all about in the first place. Firstly a few facts:

Did Al-Qaeda attack the USA on 11 Sep 2001?
Yes
Did the Taliban attack the USA on 11 Sep 2001?
No

And yet the war so far has been 99.9% against the Taliban. The reason for this is the Bush policy that stated that there was no distinction between terrorist organizations and nations or governments that harbored them. As the Taliban was permitting Al-Qaeda to have camps and bases in Afghanistan, they were fair targets.

I would argue that this policy was a bad one as it has led to the current mess in which it is very likely that most of Afghanistan will return to the Taliban. And once they take over their part of the country we may have a repeat of the Najibullah killing of 1996, but this time it will be Karzai, the corrupt USA stooge.

Then we can be sure that the Taliban will not forget that the Northern Alliance sided with the USA invasion and may attempt to settle this little debt. It means that the USA / NATO will have to arm the Northern Alliance to prepare them for a possible civil war.

In retrospect, it would have been far better for the USA to have invaded Afghanistan, destroyed Al-Qaeda, beat up any Taliban that wanted to fight and then quickly pull out.

A few lessons have been learnt by all.

The Taliban learnt:
a) it does not pay to harbor Al-Qaeda. It is too expensive in terms of manpower. (By the end of 2008, the Taliban apparently had severed remaining ties with al-Qaeda, according to senior U.S. military intelligence officials, there are perhaps fewer than 100 members of Al-Qaeda remaining in Afghanistan.).
b) they can beat the USA / NATO just as they beat the Russians

The USA / NATO learnt that
a) The Bush policy was wrong
b) Regime change is much more difficult than they thought
c) Regime change is very expensive

It is a sad reality that the conflict in Afghanistan is now essentially lost as far as NATO/ISAF and the United States is concerned. Whether or not the USA ever had any chance to garner real influence in that country is difficult to say, but if it ever did the time was probably in 2001 just after the Al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. At that time there was a lot of international sympathy for the United States and a genuine feeling that Afghanistan was wrong to allow the Al Qaeda group to remain in situ and use that country as a base.

Had a different President been in office in 2001, and had the United States been a different country with more capacity to deal with issues in complex and sophisticated terms, the outcome might have been different. The Taliban were and still are a repulsive movement, subjugating the rights of women and trashing the freedoms of religious minorities, not to mention the cultural history of Afghanistan. However, there are many repulsive regimes in the world that the United States and the Western World in general seem quite happy to live with (e.g. Zimbabwe, Myanmar).

A response to the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington was required and America had shown itself to be too slow to respond to the threat posed by Al Qaeda during much of the 1990s when that organisation launched a series of attacks on American and pro-American targets. However, there could have been a better approach taken than what we saw. Using the Northern Alliance to sweep the Taliban out of power seemed like a good response to the military “quick fix” mindset of the American popular media. It was somehow comforting for Americans to see Special Forces Troops riding around on horses targeting precision air strikes from B-52 bombers to wipe out lots of “bad guy” Taliban and Al Qaeda troops.

Sadly the bulk of the fighting took place between Afghans from different tribal groups and the foreign fighters (including American and other western citizens), were surrendered by their Afghan allies on the battlefields and then slaughtered by Northern Alliance forces with US Special Forces troops watching on. The interrogation and mistreatment of these people, many of who were subsequently let go without charge due to the lack of any substantial evidence made a complete mockery of the entire “justice must be done” argument that drove America into invading Afghanistan in the first place.

Having invaded the country the Americans then ignored it and moved onto invade Iraq, allowing the Taliban to rebuild. The Pakistanis have always supported their Pashtun allies and continue to do so. The Pakistani element in the Afghan conflict is part of the puzzle that is not adequately acknowledged whenever the politicians and diplomats group together to talk about Afghanistan.

What we now have is essentially a civil war between Pashtun from the south, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras from the north, a struggle that has been a feature of Afghanistan for centuries. Overlaid on top of this civil war is the proxy war being fought out between India and Pakistan over Afghanistan. These to sub-continental rivals are battling for regional control and Pakistan is paranoid about becoming isolated and surrounded by Indian influence.

The west, in particular the Americans, are out of their depth in Afghanistan. The NATO/ISAF force structure is a joke and does not adequately link the various forces together in a way that allows for proper civil and military integration. To win a conflict like Afghanistan requires a strong central government and that is non existent with Karzai being a weak, corrupt and totally unreliable ally. The counter insurgency, civil war requires patient, low-intensity military effort with the local forces doing the front line fighting not a foreign troop presence. America should have learnt this from Viet Nam, but alas they seem to have ignored all those painful lessons.

If NATO and the Americans left Afghanistan tomorrow it would not increase the threat to New York, Washington or London one bit. There would be a power vacuum to fill and it is most likely that Karzai with the help of the Pakistani military intelligence services would negotiate a deal with the Taliban that would see some compromise reached that would eventually lead to a degree of peace and stability emerge in that country. Less foreign intervention is required in Afghanistan not more.

"...south is handed over to the Taliban and the north to Uzbek, Hazara and Tajik warlords..." by Francesc Vendrell.

I don't agree with this. This would be like you are solving a puzzle and without solving it making it more difficult for others to solve it. This will be going back 1989-1990 when Soviets ran away. It will come full circle again and process will carry on.

Moreover media and foreign policies of NATO countries are still Al-Qaeda centric and don't seem to be investing in root issues. I don't know exactly what FM of Iran said, but I sure I would agree to 30-40% of what he must have wanted to say.

@fedupargentine:

I had a very similar experience when I visited the area a couple of years earlier. They could make an MP5 or an AK-47 down to the manufacturer’s mark and it felt and fired just like the original.
I do agree with you vis-à-vis the western presence and the present Afghan army. This war may not be winnable.
The only people worth their salt on the government side are what used to be called the Northern Alliance (Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek and a few others).

Here's an intelligence exchange far more crucial to the world than a spy swap over spies. It involves a more creative, innovative and profitable swap, this time a diplomatic swap with Afghanistan, exchanging US supported legal crop cultivation for illegal narcotics crops, but for the same money to the farmer.

What if this relatively simple swap strategy brought decisive victory over defeat in (and for) Afghanistan? What if severing the main revenue source of al Queda and Taliban is also hugely profitable to all nations? What if eliminating the main funding of Afghan corruption also increased regional security and stability and reduced the growing loss of life and other human casualties? We cannot swap for those already killed or wounded.

Why would any leader think that swapping a few spies had a greater diplomatic, political and economic priority than decisively winning the war in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan as a country exists only on the maps that cartographers produces 2 centuries ago

In reality its a rocky terrian with a bunch of people running around with guns

All that this region offer is a strategic vantage point connecting East Aisa with Europe. If the rerurns make economic sense, the dominant power will rule Afghanistan. It is the turn of Americans and the Britsh

And lets stop refering it to as graveyard of empires. Its a ragged cloth that many have discarded after wearing it thin.

The best solution of the crisis would emerge with the capability of isolating the Talibans from Al-Quaida. Its though guess work, 98% of the afgans are not involved in violence. Al-Quaida with its vast resouces for buying to poor afgans to detonates explosives and in many instances to fight law enforcing forces both local and foreign. By this time everyone knows that Al-Quaida has their agenda and they have picked up afganistan as the first theater of operation to watch how this case is being handled by the world? Depending of the result they will open further fronts in other countries. Historically, afgans being very consious of freedom never accepted foreign domination and given opportunity are quite capable to deal with Al-Quaida elements themselves. Presence of foreign forces in Afganistan is counter productive. We should all honour their wish.

How Meek a Posture Hamid Karzai strikes in your Picture.
Aly-Khan Satchu
www.rich.co.ke

Another great game by another hegemonic Empire that become stuck in its grave-yard.

Fascinated by the history of Afghanistan I went to visit Pakistan in 1988 and got authrization in Peshawar to visit Derra a small town off limits to foreigners (being from Argentina helped because the civil employees loved Maradona). It was a Taliban bastion, which was ok at the time because they were fighting the russians. I was impressed about how they manufactured there own weapons and were trying to build an anti helicopter 20 mm gun with a transmission bar from a truck. My thoughts were about guys my own age(at the time) whose life revolved around war and guns, it was like second nature to them. I was worried when the americans landed in Afghanistan, because they just do not have this attitude towards war, even less their allies. The afghan army looks like a joke compared to these though guys, who only live for war. It looks like the western alliance will go the same way of Alexander, the british and the russians. Maybe splitting the country and leaving the pushtuns to do by themselves is a good idea to contain the nightmare that Afghanistan has become.

US and NATO would do a great service to the cause of Afagnistan by neutralizing ISI (Inter Services Intelligence)and if possible force Pakistan to dismantle their set up. Also equaly important is to interogate the Past and Present Kingpins of ISI. Its they who are sheltering the Al-Quaida elements in the AFPak border belts. It is surprising and painful to hear Mrs. Clinton, the Secretary of State, United States of America allegation about it and also commit 750 Million Dollar for Pakistan. Is it not funny?

That the cost of intervention in Afghanistan would be steep, in terms of lives and money, was known to all except a few blind and deaf men at WH and 10 Downing. The reasons are three-fold. First, there was no measure of success for the external force, the USA in this case. Its not even the death of bin Laden now, or foisting a client government. Second, without doubt, Afghanistan's neighbours will fuel trouble. Thirdly, historically, afghans esp pashtoons have been hard to subjugate; and no occupying force is too big to fight against a determined opposition particualrly in such hostile terrain. There can be a target date for withdrawal, but no target to be achieved triggering withdrawal. Like in Iraq, intial softness has raised costs. The only solution lies in cutting off flow of funds. In that, the Arabs, Iran and Pakistan will have to play ball, and control over drug money established. Both extremely difficult. End result: USA will lose big time and with that, the end of US hegemony will begin.

Do they know how to talk to all the Afghanistan Govt/warlords in Afghanistan?

This region understands two things very well - war and trade. You can not BS them out of this. And with multiple willing parties in the table, Afghanistan Govt/warlords are in a better position in the negotiations table.

So, in the negotiation table we have the following players

USA: Offers money, infrastructure, security
Pak: Offers religion, arms, money
China: Offers infrastructure, trade
Iran: Offers Trade
India: Offers money, infrastructure, security, trade
Taliban: Offers security, trade (drug), money
Russia: (don't know for facts) - but there must be something

So, from the surface it looks like there are lot of players in the region but at the same time there are groups with similar interest.

Camp A: USA, Pak
Camp B: China, Pak
Camp C: India,Iran and probably Russia

This region typically negotiates is what they "get" not what they have to "give". Reason is they know that they can always break their promise based on a ground that any contract with non-Muslim can be broken.

So, the endgame will be based on what Afghanistan get - not on what they have to give.

And there are other horrible options too - split up the country!

Another monumental exercise in human futility! This mother of all charades, brings to mind the famous words of the Bard: "..A tale told by a (bunch of) idiots (hypocrites), full of sound & fury, signifying nothing.."

And the rest of the world looks on..

This fiasco in Kabul is as phoney as 'global pow wows' come. It's all about: "The truth, the whole truth & nuthin' but LIES"

Diplomats, like their dupicitous-brothers-in-arms (politicians) are just a bunch of posturing hypocrites on a pretentious global charade. Experts in mind games & pathological obfuscations..

Wonder what will make 'em quit their mindless, albeit lucrative, going-through-the-motions games & do something concrete to uplift our world from the cesspools we wallow in??

One thing's for sure: nuthin's gonna change as long as 'they' remain self-absorbed opportunists, motivated & shackled primarily by greed, selfishness & narcissistic agendas.

In a brazenly self-absorbed world, so enaumered & entranced by the 'self', what hope do we have of witnessing any change for the better?

None that crosses my mind, sad to say..