India in Afghanistan

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

I noticed a surprising lack of threads to discuss such a vital security issue in the region. Historically, India has been denied any militarily significant space in Afghanistan. As such India has stuck to humanitarian and economic spheres. Though good looking on paper, this denies India any significant say in the future of Afghanistan or on talks with Taliban. All this seems to be changing as Donald Trump is looking forward to involve india further and make it a n important player on the board. Military involvement in Afghanistan has its positive and negative points. We should use this thread to discuss these points and also to discuss various developments over the coming months.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

We can start by listing the positive and negative effects of India landing boots on ground in Afghanistan.
Positives:
~better control over the ground situation
~better protection for indians working in Afghanistan on various projects like roads, dams , etc
~much more influence on Afghanistan and the local population. Building stuff can only get u so far. When people watch indian troops protecting them from talibani mujahideens, that will go much farther in proving india's strength and reliability.
~ability to influence and secure more mining contracts leading to economic benefits for indian companies.
~ability to neuter pakistan more effectively. It is time Pakistan started fearing a 2 front war thus screwing their security calculations
~ability to easily supply weapons and equipment to ttp and baloch freedom struggle if india so chooses.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

Negatives:
~may earn the distrust and hate of locals
~china and russia support Taliban while india will never support them. Indian troops on ground will push india into the us camp thus opposite russia atleast in Afghanistan. This could lead to souring of india-russia relations
~cost of life and material
~more reason for extremist muslim terror organizations to attack india.
~souring of relations with uae and iran(both support Taliban)
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

The last thread discussing similar issues was closed so I guess we should discuss in a new one now. If the mods feel that some other thread is more appropriate for this discussion, please move my comments to that thread.
Thank you
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Kati »

Without any further clarifications as well as concrete actions against TSP by Great Khan Bharat's direct military involvement will be a headache.
It could end up being a trap too for Bharat too where we'll be left high and dry while Khan withdraws its personnel and hardware. One major bottle-neck is that we don't have any direct land or sea route to Afghanistan, and will be at the mercy of other parties. If TSP is completely neutered by Khan then we'll see .....
Just my 2 paise.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by SBajwa »

India has been helping Afghanistan since 1947., even when Najibullah was ruling (Communists) India donated many buses, hospitals along with Doctors who trained and educated the local populace. Later that hospital in Kabul that India donated was used by Taliban to store ammunition.

Indian army must deploy at least 1 division in Afghanistan as a Peace keeping force (get it from UNO) along with NATO., otherwise all these donations will be used by Taliban and Bakistan to attack us.

Boots must be on Ground in Afghanistan!
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4053
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by ArjunPandit »

Trikaal wrote:I noticed a surprising lack of threads to discuss such a vital security issue in the region. Historically, India has been denied any militarily significant space in Afghanistan. As such India has stuck to humanitarian and economic spheres. Though good looking on paper, this denies India any significant say in the future of Afghanistan or on talks with Taliban. All this seems to be changing as Donald Trump is looking forward to involve india further and make it a n important player on the board. Military involvement in Afghanistan has its positive and negative points. We should use this thread to discuss these points and also to discuss various developments over the coming months.
While there is new need to discuss this, it has been discussed in india afghanistan threads in past..i would suggest you revisit them also, and if possible bring back old posts.
I read on BRF, that this was also being discussed during Vajpayee era, but he deftly avoided boots on the ground.
Yes, I agree to Sbajwa that we need to put boots on ground, but where is the $$$?
just for what we will be up to, Abid rao on republic today said, come to afghanistan and we will show you...
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

ArjunPandit wrote:
Trikaal wrote:I noticed a surprising lack of threads to discuss such a vital security issue in the region. Historically, India has been denied any militarily significant space in Afghanistan. As such India has stuck to humanitarian and economic spheres. Though good looking on paper, this denies India any significant say in the future of Afghanistan or on talks with Taliban. All this seems to be changing as Donald Trump is looking forward to involve india further and make it a n important player on the board. Military involvement in Afghanistan has its positive and negative points. We should use this thread to discuss these points and also to discuss various developments over the coming months.
While there is new need to discuss this, it has been discussed in india afghanistan threads in past..i would suggest you revisit them also, and if possible bring back old posts.
I read on BRF, that this was also being discussed during Vajpayee era, but he deftly avoided boots on the ground.
Yes, I agree to Sbajwa that we need to put boots on ground, but where is the $$$?
just for what we will be up to, Abid rao on republic today said, come to afghanistan and we will show you...
The $$$ issue can be solved to some extent by exploiting local resources. Afghanistan has rich reserves of rare metals like gold, copper,etc. There might also be gas and oil fields. A lot of chinese companies are involved in Ming in Afghanistan. India so far has been unable to secure contracts coz our companies don't have the security cover, backing and influence compared to china. I agree though, that lack of direct access is perhaps the biggest bottleneck.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

SBajwa wrote:Indian army must deploy at least 1 division in Afghanistan as a Peace keeping force (get it from UNO) along with NATO., otherwise all these donations will be used by Taliban and Bakistan to attack us.

Boots must be on Ground in Afghanistan!
Exactly my point. If u want influence over the direction of the country, u need boots on ground. If u want a seat on the negotiation table, u need to increase ur stakes. Friendship dams and buses won't cut it.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

Kati wrote:Without any further clarifications as well as concrete actions against TSP by Great Khan Bharat's direct military involvement will be a headache.
It could end up being a trap too for Bharat too where we'll be left high and dry while Khan withdraws its personnel and hardware. One major bottle-neck is that we don't have any direct land or sea route to Afghanistan, and will be at the mercy of other parties. If TSP is completely neutered by Khan then we'll see .....
Just my 2 paise.

Regarding great khan pulling out and leaving us with a mess, how is that scenario different from great khan pulling out without us on ground. It would still mean Taliban in control and ghazwa-e-hind against india. Atleast if we are there, we can delay us leaving or atleast stabilize the situation from going completely tits up.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

I think an important variable that everyone seems to be forgetting is Donald Trump. The man is unpredictable which is both good and bad. Good, in the sense that if anyone can, it is Trump who can browbeat Pakistan into giving India access to Afghanistan. Bad, as in if we refuse his offer to participate, his reaction can be disproportionately punitive where he might go to bed with pakistan against india or even just jump the gun and suddenly order US troops back from Afghanistan, possibly over twitter
Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1409
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Rishirishi »

Posting Indian on TSP's eastern front gives them the jolt. I heard a US military analyst suggesting that India be allowed to post 50K Indian soldiers along the Durrand line. It is the ultimate TSP blackmail by the US.
Remember that the situation would be very different from Kashmir, as the soldiers would mainly be living outside populated areas.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by SBajwa »

At least Indian soldiers can train Afghani soldiers along with NATO soldiers. Build their army so that they can at least defend themselves.
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Kati »

Trikaal wrote:
Kati wrote:Without any further clarifications as well as concrete actions against TSP by Great Khan Bharat's direct military involvement will be a headache.
It could end up being a trap too for Bharat too where we'll be left high and dry while Khan withdraws its personnel and hardware. One major bottle-neck is that we don't have any direct land or sea route to Afghanistan, and will be at the mercy of other parties. If TSP is completely neutered by Khan then we'll see .....
Just my 2 paise.

Regarding great khan pulling out and leaving us with a mess, how is that scenario different from great khan pulling out without us on ground. It would still mean Taliban in control and ghazwa-e-hind against india. Atleast if we are there, we can delay us leaving or atleast stabilize the situation from going completely tits up.
How are we going to send our logistics and resources to Afghanistan in a massive way? We have to be at the mercy of Iran or Tajikistan (i.e., Russia). Iran will extract a heavier pound of flesh for cozying up with Uncle. Russia will dilly-dally in granting permission to go through Tajikistan, given the fact that Putin Da-Man is now soft on Taliban to pay Uncle by the same coin. Lizard and TSP are our of question. The civilian flights India and Afghanistan operates won't do any help. Uncle has the massive advantage to threaten TSP to send it to the stone age if it doesn't allow military hardware pass through its land.
Actually, by having India on Afghanistan militarily, Uncle will have multiple benefits, but not so much for India.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Philip »

A v.tricky situ.We had earlier provided some mil eqpt. to the Afghans via Russia (Russian helos paid for by India).For reasons bets known to it,Russia in recent times has been wooing elements in the Taliban and has softened its attitude towards Pak.Gven the Trump-et call" from Trump Towers to engage more heavily in Afghan's endless war,our immediate reaction of happiness should be sopbered down with a careful examination of the responsibilities and their consequences.

Under no circumstances should we foolishly put boots on the ground. Our misadventure with the IPKF in Sri Lanka taught us a lesson.In Afghanistan,our interests are primarily to see that the country does not become a Paki/Taliban/ISI proxy,which can be used against India. WE simply cannot fight Afghanistan's war with large numbers of India troops.The Afghans themselves must do the biz. Where we can help is in providing the reqd. mil assistance,etc.,which it is asking for,so that it can improve its anti-Talib capability.We have this open and brazen attempt by China ,aggro and firing across the border from Pak.We cannot open another "turd" front! Read this hard-hitting article on the takeover of US foror. policy by the military.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/don ... 06741.html
Trump has been subject to a military coup behind the scenes – this is the beginning of the end for his presidency
He is now so enfeebled that the Generals and Admirals are not just emboldened to ignore his orders with contempt (not a blind bit of notice was taken of his ban on transgender people in the military). They are dictating foreign policy even when it directly undermines the support of Trump’s base
Matthew Norman

Savour it with every fibre of your being, because such events come seldom and are usually over in minutes. And don’t stare directly at it: the flash of hope could cauterise the retina. But for the moment at least, the madness of the Trump presidency has been partially eclipsed.

This is not to suggest that Monday’s speech about increasing troop deployment to Afghanistan and US policy in South Asia was dazzlingly impressive in itself. Despite being one of those rare autocue-obedient recitals that tempt the willfully gullible to imagine he is becoming “presidential”, it had its absurdist flourishes. You had to smile at “I studied Afghanistan in great detail, and from every conceivable angle.” An hour earlier, he almost certainly thought Afghanistan was Jennifer Aniston’s younger sister, Afgh.

Among other proofs of his copious studies, he said that America’s longest war has been going on for 17 years (rather than not quite 16), and that the failed state is led by a prime minister (rather than a president). But beyond the default bombast and ignoramus howlers, the speech offered encouragement in what would, until a few months ago, have been the unlikeliest way.

With Afghanistan, Trump has had two opposing voices screaming at him. In one ear, the America First far right, as represented by his own instincts and the lovable likes of Ann Coulter and Steve Bannon, demanded the complete withdrawal of US troops. In the other, the Generals insisted this would leave Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the Taliban and even less gentlemanly Islamist outfits; that more troops, rather than less or none, was the way to go.

Donald Trump's ever-changing views on Afghanistan :mrgreen:
In narrowly military terms, the detail he announced on Monday seems irrelevant gesturing. He gave no firm detail at all, in fact, though it is believed that the current US deployment of some 8,000 troops has been boosted to 12,000. Afghanistan was an anarchic hellhole with 100,000 US soldiers on its soil. An extra 4,000 in a country as large and chaotic is purely symbolic. (Even the proposed deployment of an extra 85 British troops might not tip the balance.) :rotfl:

But it is as symbolism that the speech was so reassuring. Here was Trump gesturing grudgingly that he has surrendered to the military. His Generals – chief of staff John Kelly, who hung his head while Trump equivocated between Nazis and anti-Nazis; James “Mad Dog” Mattis, the Secretary of Defence; and HR McMaster, the National Security Advisor – hold him hostage.

For more than a half a century, the prospect of a president falling into the clutches of the military was among the more petrifying available to humanity. In 1961, Dwight Eisenhower warned against it with the special insight and authority of a president who had once been the most powerful soldier on earth. “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” he said. “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Donald Trump looking directly at the sun during eclipse 'is most impressive thing any president’s ever done’, says Fox News host Tucker Carlson
It still exists and will persist. But all things are relative. The power misplaced in Trump and his potential to abuse it by deploying nuclear weapons as a diversionary tactic from his domestic difficulties is a greater threat than any other facing the planet. So long as the Generals are executing this genteel version of a military coup, we can assume that there will be no fighting in the war room, and that Kim Jong-un’s capacity to taunt Trump into summoning the codes will be nullified.

Trump’s speech confirmed that his weakness goes beyond the familiar presidential difficulty of getting contentious legislation through Congress. He is now so enfeebled that the Generals and Admirals are not just emboldened to ignore his orders with contempt (not a blind bit of notice was taken of his ban on transgender people in the military). They are dictating foreign policy even when it directly undermines the support of Trump’s base.

The reaction of his most slavish fans to the Afghanistan speech was instant and predictable. On Bannon’s Breitbart, the white supremacist sweethearts drenched the comment threads with anguished sobs of treachery. Given that isolationism was a central plank of Trump’s campaign, they had good reason. Ann Coulter, the effortlessly poisonous puff adder of nationalist spite, who a few days ago rejoiced at Trump’s insinuation that neo-Nazis and anti-Nazis are as bad as each other, rued his impotence on Twitter.

With his approval ratings in the mid-30s, the adoration of Breitbartians and users of similar sites is the last effective defence Trump has left. The more transparent he is as the dummy perched on the hands of ventriloquist Generals who are effectively continuing the policies of his predecessor, the more of that evaporates. The closer his approval rating slides towards 30 per cent, the more vulnerable to impeachment or removal under the 25th Amendment he becomes.

God knows what Trump was thinking when he stared into the heart of a star during the eclipse. Perhaps he was looking for a medical excuse to avoid giving that humiliating speech a few hours later. But if he was looking to the heavens for a hopeful omen, he will have been disappointed. The sun is going down fast on this abomination of a presidency, and the odds against it rising again diminish all the time.
Last edited by Philip on 25 Aug 2017 11:55, edited 1 time in total.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Austin »

New US strategy for Afghanistan is ‘dead-end’ – Lavrov
The new US strategy in Afghanistan has no chance for success, as it mainly relies on the use of force, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

“The main emphasis in the new strategy, which was announced by Washington, is made on settlement through use of force,” Lavrov said at a press conference on Thursday. “We believe that it’s a dead-end approach.”

Apart from that, the new strategy allows negotiations with the Taliban without any preconditions, which is also a significant flaw, Lavrov added, saying that it jeopardizes the joint international stance formed in the UN Security Council.

If I’ve got the new US strategy right, it allows contacts with the Taliban without them fulfilling any conditions at all,” Lavrov said.

“I don’t think that it goes in line with our joint interest to follow the negotiated, coordinated line which is approved by the UN Security Council. But I hope that within the framework of the expert-level contacts we have with our American colleagues, we will be able to clarify this apparent contradiction.”

Lavrov noted that the UN Security Council, with the approval of Afghanistan’s government, ruled to allow the Taliban to enter the negotiation process under conditions that include severing terrorist links, bringing armed resistance to an end, and respecting Afghanistan’s constitution.

“We maintain the contacts with the Taliban exactly in accordance with these criteria, urging them to comply with these UN Security Council demands,” the minister said.


The new US strategy was announced by US President Donald Trump at the Army’s Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall on Monday. Despite saying earlier that he was in favor of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, Trump now seems to be following the approach of his predecessors, promising that the troops “will fight to win.” Ending the 16-year military engagement in the country with a “hasty withdrawal” would only play into the hands of the terrorists, he said.

READ MORE: Trump’s change of heart: Afghanistan strategy marks dramatic switch for US president

The US president said that after an “effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan.” US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson later that Washington stands ready to “support peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban without preconditions.”
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Austin »

Ex-Afghan President Karzai slams Trump's Afghanistan plan

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/2 ... zai-241907
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

Kati wrote:
How are we going to send our logistics and resources to Afghanistan in a massive way? We have to be at the mercy of Iran or Tajikistan (i.e., Russia). Iran will extract a heavier pound of flesh for cozying up with Uncle. Russia will dilly-dally in granting permission to go through Tajikistan, given the fact that Putin Da-Man is now soft on Taliban to pay Uncle by the same coin. Lizard and TSP are our of question. The civilian flights India and Afghanistan operates won't do any help. Uncle has the massive advantage to threaten TSP to send it to the stone age if it doesn't allow military hardware pass through its land.
Actually, by having India on Afghanistan militarily, Uncle will have multiple benefits, but not so much for India.
Yes, I agree that route is the biggest challenge but not for india. If america wants india involved, they will have to arrange a route. Whether they do this by bullying TSP or iran is not our headache. I guess the most likely scenario is Trump browbeating TSP into allowing overhead indian military planes to Afghanistan. A country which allows drone strikes on its people will agree to pretty much anything with the right incentive.
Regarding lizard and putin, yes, both are gravitating towards Taliban and that is exactly why it is important that india gets on the negotiation table and thwart such a move. We won't get there unless we have boots on ground. Military equipment assistance is like a bottomless hole in my opinion. It will cost us money but get us no influence or power.
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Kati »

Trikaal wrote:
Kati wrote:
How are we going to send our logistics and resources to Afghanistan in a massive way? We have to be at the mercy of Iran or Tajikistan (i.e., Russia). Iran will extract a heavier pound of flesh for cozying up with Uncle. Russia will dilly-dally in granting permission to go through Tajikistan, given the fact that Putin Da-Man is now soft on Taliban to pay Uncle by the same coin. Lizard and TSP are our of question. The civilian flights India and Afghanistan operates won't do any help. Uncle has the massive advantage to threaten TSP to send it to the stone age if it doesn't allow military hardware pass through its land.
Actually, by having India on Afghanistan militarily, Uncle will have multiple benefits, but not so much for India.
Yes, I agree that route is the biggest challenge but not for india. If america wants india involved, they will have to arrange a route. Whether they do this by bullying TSP or iran is not our headache. I guess the most likely scenario is Trump browbeating TSP into allowing overhead indian military planes to Afghanistan. A country which allows drone strikes on its people will agree to pretty much anything with the right incentive.
Regarding lizard and putin, yes, both are gravitating towards Taliban and that is exactly why it is important that india gets on the negotiation table and thwart such a move. We won't get there unless we have boots on ground. Military equipment assistance is like a bottomless hole in my opinion. It will cost us money but get us no influence or power.
Unfortunately, we haven't seen any serious US effort to neuter TSP yet.
1. US is NOT leaving Afghanistan in foreseeable future (just like Iraq), because it is a nice place to set up a base and use it as
a pressure point against China, perhaps Russia, and TSP-India too.
2. US has to show its seriousness by a series of small moves, like handing over DCH, D-gang, etc etc., which it can easily do, but won't.
Unfortunately, US has a very bad track record as an ally. I recall that late B. Raman-Sir used to say that US is the only country which will
take the help of a friend, and then won't hesitate run off with the friend's wife.
3. The current Russian softness toward Taliban is a temporary matter to put pressure on the US. Essentially it is paying US by the same coin as
US did in Syria. However, it is doubtful that Russia would do anything that might harm Bharat seriously. Also, Russia won't forget Beslan and how
the west was mute in opposing the Chechens terrorists.
4. I think IPKF in SL was a mush easier task than the Afghanistan situation. SL misadventure was due to incompetency of many people in the higher-ups.
5. By drawing India in Afghanistan US may try to deflect the Taliban's ire toward Indian soldiers. Hence India will be left with the bodybags, but all the strategic decisions will be made by the US there.
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Kati »

Let me add one more point to the above ^^^^^

We are already projecting our soft power in Afghanistan in a massive way. We are bringing in Afghan security personnel in Bharat and training them in batches. We are encouraging Afghan NGOs, and training them silently. We are helping Afghanistan with infra facilities, etc. ....
If US is truly serious, then it just has to help us get the Azad kashmir back which can give us a land route to Afghanistan. But I doubt if that will happen without a regime change in TSP and without angering China.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

Kati wrote:
Unfortunately, we haven't seen any serious US effort to neuter TSP yet.
1. US is NOT leaving Afghanistan in foreseeable future (just like Iraq), because it is a nice place to set up a base and use it as
a pressure point against China, perhaps Russia, and TSP-India too.
2. US has to show its seriousness by a series of small moves, like handing over DCH, D-gang, etc etc., which it can easily do, but won't.
Unfortunately, US has a very bad track record as an ally. I recall that late B. Raman-Sir used to say that US is the only country which will
take the help of a friend, and then won't hesitate run off with the friend's wife.
3. The current Russian softness toward Taliban is a temporary matter to put pressure on the US. Essentially it is paying US by the same coin as
US did in Syria. However, it is doubtful that Russia would do anything that might harm Bharat seriously. Also, Russia won't forget Beslan and how
the west was mute in opposing the Chechens terrorists.
4. I think IPKF in SL was a mush easier task than the Afghanistan situation. SL misadventure was due to incompetency of many people in the higher-ups.
5. By drawing India in Afghanistan US may try to deflect the Taliban's ire toward Indian soldiers. Hence India will be left with the bodybags, but all the strategic decisions will be made by the US there.
1. I am not so sure. Obama was planning to leave by 2014. It is another matter that he got bogged down too much. I feel that US is at a point where the only reason they are still there is to save face. If they can get Taliban to sign a half decent peace deal today, they will be out of there before u can spell 'BAZZINGA' . India needs to be there to prevent a farce of a peace deal

2. Sorry I can't understand what DCH and D-gang is. Dawood perhaps? Isn't he in UAE or pakistan? What does US have to do with it? US won't use precious influence just to capture a terrorist who means nothing to them.

3. I fear this is not true. Russia is just as opportunistic as US. We need to stop looking at russia with rose tinted lenses. The only reason we had russia so far in our corner is because we buy their weapons. They never shy away from selling same or better equipment to china, our arch enemy. They even started selling equipment to pakistan to make us fall in line and stop buying us weapons even though russian equipments are still a major part of our imports. If the russian interests align with Taliban, they'll support Taliban. They won't give a rat's a** about such an indirect threat to india when they don't care about direct ones. Have u heard a word from russia so far in india's favor regarding doklam ?

4. Srilanka was a massive f**kup. (I hope such censored profanity is allowed , if not let me know and I'll edit it out) hopefully we learnt the right lessons and Afghanistan will be better. Just because u failed once doesn't mean u never try again.

5. True but if we are smart about it, we can mitigate that. India should only be protecting indian assets and projects on ground rather than door to door fighting. It's not like Taliban isn't targeting indians there. Only difference is we will be protecting our own while increasing our footprint from toddler feet to T-Rex feet.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

Kati wrote:Let me add one more point to the above ^^^^^

We are already projecting our soft power in Afghanistan in a massive way. We are bringing in Afghan security personnel in Bharat and training them in batches. We are encouraging Afghan NGOs, and training them silently. We are helping Afghanistan with infra facilities, etc. ....
If US is truly serious, then it just has to help us get the Azad kashmir back which can give us a land route to Afghanistan. But I doubt if that will happen without a regime change in TSP and without angering China.
That's the entire point, our footprint isn't significant enough. Sure it is bigger than what we do in other countries but in Afghanistan, we don't rank in the top 10. We won't get a place at the table by training a few officers(we are not training soldiers, just officers), helping a few NGO's and building dams. I know all this is important and helps rebuild and heal Afghanistan but the world isn't fair. The good guy doesn't win, the one with the biggest gun does. Otherwise why would china invade a peaceful country like bhutan and most of the world not even raise an eyebrow. Regarding azad kashmir, US will never help with that. Even with pakistan, there are limits to how high they will jump when the whip cracks. At one point , the monkey, no matter how servile, will flip the bird to the tamer. I am afraid kashmir is that point for pakistan. Pakistan would rather be erased from map than cede kashmir.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

Philip wrote:A v.tricky situ.We had earlier provided some mil eqpt. to the Afghans via Russia (Russian helos paid for by India).For reasons bets known to it,Russia in recent times has been wooing elements in the Taliban and has softened its attitude towards Pak.Gven the Trump-et call" from Trump Towers to engage more heavily in Afghan's endless war,our immediate reaction of happiness should be sopbered down with a careful examination of the responsibilities and their consequences.

Under no circumstances should we foolishly put boots on the ground. Our misadventure with the IPKF in Sri Lanka taught us a lesson.In Afghanistan,our interests are primarily to see that the country does not become a Paki/Taliban/ISI proxy,which can be used against India. WE simply cannot fight Afghanistan's war with large numbers of India troops.The Afghans themselves must do the biz. Where we can help is in providing the reqd. mil assistance,etc.,which it is asking for,so that it can improve its anti-Talib capability.We have this open and brazen attempt by China ,aggro and firing across the border from Pak.We cannot open another "turd" front! Read this hard-hitting article on the takeover of US foror. policy by the military.
I feel we need troops on ground, atleast in symbolic numbers, enough to protect indian assets and interests. No need to participate in the actual fight(maybe contribute a battalion), just guard indian projects and businesses. Giving out military equipment isn't enough to influence the peace deal farce that has been going on. We do have covert presence in Afghanistan due to these contributions but we have reached the saturation point. If we want to stop TSP , russia and china from handing over Afghanistan to Taliban, we need to step up NOW.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

This is what happens when we don't have boots on ground. After all the military equipment, officer training, ngo help, cricket help, bus donation, parliament and dam building, we continue to be ignored because we are not a stakeholder in Afghanistan
https://www.google.com/amp/m.timesofind ... 228906.cms

Russia, China and Pakistan for flexible ties with Taliban, India ignored
NEW DELHI: As Russia, China and Pakistan work towards building a new axis in Afghanistan to accommodate Taliban as a tool against the Islamic Sate terror group, it could have unforeseen consequences for the Russia-India relationship.
On Tuesday, China, Pakistan and Russia met in Moscow to discuss Afghanistan's "deteriorating" security situation, despite strong protests from the Afghan government. The three countries relented towards the end of the day's discussions and said that they would expand the group to include Afghanistan the next time. There is already a move to induct Iran into this group.
Nandan Unnikrishnan, Russia analyst at Observer Research Foundation, said, "In the present context of limited communication between India and Russia, Russia's actions could lead to a drift in relations." India only recently reaffirmed its ties with Russia by announcing almost $10 billion in defence purchases from Moscow.
The statement issued at the end of the meeting said, "The Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China as the UN Security Council permanent members confirmed their flexible approach to delisting Afghan individuals from the UN sanctions lists as their contribution to the efforts aimed at launching peaceful dialogue between Kabul and Taliban." This could, if Russia and China press ahead, and if the US does not block, result in the removal of some top Taliban leaders from the UNSC sanctions list. Afghanistan, incidentally, has asked for the new Taliban chief to be included in the list.
Conspicuous by its absence at the meet was India, which continues to hold Taliban as the biggest threat in Afghanistan. Besides India, the Afghan government and the US both agree to this. The Afghan government is currently going through its own political crisis, with the two key leaders of the unity government, President Ashraf Ghani and CEO Abdullah Abdullah, at loggerheads. The US, which has 9,800 troops in a counter-terrorism role is unsure of how it will utilise its presence in Afghanistan under a Trump administration. India is holding on to the "red lines" for integration of Taliban into the Afghan government but that seems to be getting diluted by the new axis, which is less Afghan-led and more Pakistan-led, putting Pakistan once again in the driver's seat on Afghanistan's future. Iran, which has been doing its own outreach to Taliban, is equally apprehensive of the fallout of IS cadres relocating to Afghanistan as they get driven out of Syria and Iraq. This is essentially a return to the good-Taliban, bad-Taliban argument, as everybody wants to do a peace settlement in Afghanistan. India will remain out of this move yet again. Russia is looking for two things -an opening to Pakistan and a lever against IS that Moscow believes could be at its doorstep, given Russians form the largest group of IS fighters. The last time Russia was on India's side. But this time, Russia says its more worried about the IS than about losing India's friendship
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by srin »

We need to be a bit smarter in Afghanistan.
First, the problems: Americans don't have the staying power. Everybody is biding time till they go away. Whoever we arm can switch to Taliban the next day. Tribal and religious loyalty is more than the national loyalty. At this rate, it'll be very quickly back to the pre-9/11 days, where we supported National Alliance under Ahmed Shah Masood against a rampant Taliban. Building dams or Parliament is all nice, but hard power is what talks.

So, the requirements from us: we need to keep pakistan bogged down in Afghanistan. We need to cultivate a constituency that wouldn't ever to switch allegiances to either Taliban or Al-queda or ISIS.

So, this is what I proposed in the other thread: raise and train regiments of afghan women soldiers. Equip them with small arms and light artillery. Let them be the frontline against Taliban. They won't switch allegiances at least, and it'll atleast have a chance to succeed.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

srin wrote:We need to be a bit smarter in Afghanistan.
First, the problems: Americans don't have the staying power. Everybody is biding time till they go away. Whoever we arm can switch to Taliban the next day. Tribal and religious loyalty is more than the national loyalty. At this rate, it'll be very quickly back to the pre-9/11 days, where we supported National Alliance under Ahmed Shah Masood against a rampant Taliban. Building dams or Parliament is all nice, but hard power is what talks.

So, the requirements from us: we need to keep pakistan bogged down in Afghanistan. We need to cultivate a constituency that wouldn't ever to switch allegiances to either Taliban or Al-queda or ISIS.

So, this is what I proposed in the other thread: raise and train regiments of afghan women soldiers. Equip them with small arms and light artillery. Let them be the frontline against Taliban. They won't switch allegiances at least, and it'll atleast have a chance to succeed.
Where will these women come from? This isn't delhi nor is there a Kurdish community there. These women have spent generations behind a veil. Forget gun, they don't get to decide how many wives their husband has. Some tribal women might fight alongside men to protect their home area but envisioning a women only force is a dream too far.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

Also, people seem to worried that if we enter Afghanistan, US and NATO will exit leaving us with the problem. This is not a game of 'it' where US says we are 'it' and now we have to solve everything. If others leave, we can leave with them. In such a case, we will be just as well off as we will be if US leaves right now.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by srin »

Trikaal wrote:
srin wrote:We need to be a bit smarter in Afghanistan.
First, the problems: Americans don't have the staying power. Everybody is biding time till they go away. Whoever we arm can switch to Taliban the next day. Tribal and religious loyalty is more than the national loyalty. At this rate, it'll be very quickly back to the pre-9/11 days, where we supported National Alliance under Ahmed Shah Masood against a rampant Taliban. Building dams or Parliament is all nice, but hard power is what talks.

So, the requirements from us: we need to keep pakistan bogged down in Afghanistan. We need to cultivate a constituency that wouldn't ever to switch allegiances to either Taliban or Al-queda or ISIS.

So, this is what I proposed in the other thread: raise and train regiments of afghan women soldiers. Equip them with small arms and light artillery. Let them be the frontline against Taliban. They won't switch allegiances at least, and it'll atleast have a chance to succeed.
Where will these women come from? This isn't delhi nor is there a Kurdish community there. These women have spent generations behind a veil. Forget gun, they don't get to decide how many wives their husband has. Some tribal women might fight alongside men to protect their home area but envisioning a women only force is a dream too far.
I was thinking of the Peshmerga. But I'm out of ideas otherwise. There is no other way we get someone else to fight. I don't like the idea of putting our soldiers there, nor do I like the idea of dealing with Taliban. Not doing anything and leaving there means we hand a victory to Pakistan.
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Kati »

srin wrote:We need to be a bit smarter in Afghanistan.
First, the problems: Americans don't have the staying power. Everybody is biding time till they go away. Whoever we arm can switch to Taliban the next day. Tribal and religious loyalty is more than the national loyalty. At this rate, it'll be very quickly back to the pre-9/11 days, where we supported National Alliance under Ahmed Shah Masood against a rampant Taliban. Building dams or Parliament is all nice, but hard power is what talks.

So, the requirements from us: we need to keep pakistan bogged down in Afghanistan. We need to cultivate a constituency that wouldn't ever to switch allegiances to either Taliban or Al-queda or ISIS.

So, this is what I proposed in the other thread: raise and train regiments of afghan women soldiers. Equip them with small arms and light artillery. Let them be the frontline against Taliban. They won't switch allegiances at least, and it'll atleast have a chance to succeed.
Srin-saar,
training women is fine, but not enough. Perhaps, Hazaras or Tajiks can be trained and a critical number of them are put on ground (like Hezbollah) to deter Taliban.

Trikaal-saar,
I still do not see how you can send at least 50k Indian soldiers in Afghanistan, and supply them comfortably. You think Uncle will open a land corridor for us through TSP when it even refuses to cooperate on much smaller issues. If Uncle is in a hurry to leave then it is more of a problem to run the logistics. Further, If Russia-China-TSP want to exclude India on Afghan matter then there is no guarantee that they will incorporate India just because India stations soldiers there. In fact, within the Afghani civilian society and the current govt these three countries have least influence. TSP only controld Talibs. India has more goodwill among the civilian society than any other country.
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Kati »

I don't think Uncle will leave Afghanistan totally. They want to maintain a large base with at least 5k soldiers, and call the shots. They just want to stop their own casualty and reduce the heavy drain on the check-book.
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Kati »

Again, all these discussions are hypothetical. If Uncle is serious enough, and want to have a serious equal relationship in Afghanistan, then let them start a secret negotiation. if they assure us safe supply lines, and at least a billion$ as compensation (why not, if they can pay TSP $2.5 billion annually under various schemes?) then we can think about it.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

Kati-saar
the logistics problem, as I said earlier, is uncle's. If Trump wants us there, he has to open the door or else this whole discussion is mute. An air corridor over pak is very much possible. All pak army and govt has to do is keep quiet and take it lying down. Uncle doesn't help us on minor matters because they don't concern them. US is like ur baniya, they will only help where they have a motive. Motive here is clear, motive to arrest/extract india targeting terrorists is not there. Uncle won't leave without hashing out a peace deal. My concern is that the deal won't be in india's favor. India definitely has more goodwill but what use is that when we don't have influence. I will refer u to the article above about talks with taliban. Training hazarat is a good idea but for that, we again need boots on ground. U can't train sipahi by bringing them to india. Currently only officers are trained in india.
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Kati »

Afghanistan is a bigger fish to fry. I wonder how we couldn't sharpen our mettle by instigating Shias in Gilgit-Baltistan. That is a very critical area, and will put all those parties on their toes who want to exclude Bharat from Afghanistan meeting.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

Kati wrote:Again, all these discussions are hypothetical. If Uncle is serious enough, and want to have a serious equal relationship in Afghanistan, then let them start a secret negotiation. if they assure us safe supply lines, and at least a billion$ as compensation (why not, if they can pay TSP $2.5 billion annually under various schemes?) then we can think about it.
They won't pay. They pay pak for the route and to control them, they will never have such influence over india, besides Trump is a scrooge so paying india is out of question. I agree about route safety and assurance(at least an air corridor)
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Kati »

Trikaal wrote:Kati-saar
the logistics problem, as I said earlier, is uncle's. If Trump wants us there, he has to open the door or else this whole discussion is mute. An air corridor over pak is very much possible. All pak army and govt has to do is keep quiet and take it lying down. Uncle doesn't help us on minor matters because they don't concern them. US is like ur baniya, they will only help where they have a motive. Motive here is clear, motive to arrest/extract india targeting terrorists is not there. Uncle won't leave without hashing out a peace deal. My concern is that the deal won't be in india's favor. India definitely has more goodwill but what use is that when we don't have influence. I will refer u to the article above about talks with taliban. Training hazarat is a good idea but for that, we again need boots on ground. U can't train sipahi by bringing them to india. Currently only officers are trained in india.
Okay, Trikaal-saar, let the big baniya start the bidding process.

Iran is recruiting Hazaaras enmass to do the fighting in Syria (of course, they have the shiaite connection), so with some efforts we can do that too. In the northern Tajik area that can be done too. But the main Pastoon population is very tricky - the trained soldiers can join Taliban easily. may be we should start buying up some talib factions actively. Not sure if that effort has been given a try or not.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

What if we convince Afghanistan to allow india to establish a rocket force in Afghanistan. This way, we don't have to get dirty fighting Taliban, and we threaten both taliban and pakistan. Is such an idea feasible ? As far as I know, taliban control around 40% of Afghanistan by land. Is there Afghanistan govt controlled land near durrani line where such a rocket force can be established which will have both pakistan and taliban areas in strike range ? I'd appreciate if someone can tag some oldies/regulars who are knowledgeable about this.
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Kati »

Trikaal wrote:What if we convince Afghanistan to allow india to establish a rocket force in Afghanistan. This way, we don't have to get dirty fighting Taliban, and we threaten both taliban and pakistan. Is such an idea feasible ? As far as I know, taliban control around 40% of Afghanistan by land. Is there Afghanistan govt controlled land near durrani line where such a rocket force can be established which will have both pakistan and taliban areas in strike range ? I'd appreciate if someone can tag some oldies/regulars who are knowledgeable about this.
Trikaal-saar,
with due respect, I beg to differ. Uncle is having hard time protecting its forces from hit n run by Talibs. What are we going to do with a rocket force? it may end up killing some civilians which will be used as negative publicity. Whatever that rocket force can do in Afghanistan we can do the same sitting in Bharat, of course, that will be Afghan land, and not Bharat desh declaring a war on TSP. At best a military base in or near Kabul, but will it secure Afghanistan for us? A big NO. Afghan govt itself is heavily dependent on Uncle/NATO for all financial and military support. Are we going to play the second fiddle in Afghanistan? Without a concrete plan put forward by Uncle/NATO with solid assurances the whole picture looks very hazy to me. May be I'm missing something, and please tell me what I'm missing.
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Kati »

The only feasible option is to use the Iranian Chabahar port to send me and ammo to Afghanistan, and that too perhaps on the western Hazaara area. But two problems - Iran may try to protect its flank jealously in that area. Secondly, taking Iranian help may tick off Uncle/NATO.
Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Trikaal »

Kati wrote:
Trikaal-saar,
with due respect, I beg to differ. Uncle is having hard time protecting its forces from hit n run by Talibs. What are we going to do with a rocket force? it may end up killing some civilians which will be used as negative publicity. Whatever that rocket force can do in Afghanistan we can do the same sitting in Bharat, of course, that will be Afghan land, and not Bharat desh declaring a war on TSP. At best a military base in or near Kabul, but will it secure Afghanistan for us? A big NO. Afghan govt itself is heavily dependent on Uncle/NATO for all financial and military support. Are we going to play the second fiddle in Afghanistan? Without a concrete plan put forward by Uncle/NATO with solid assurances the whole picture looks very hazy to me. May be I'm missing something, and please tell me what I'm missing.
Playing first fiddle means taking over the Afghanistan problem from US, which is a big no. Right now we are playing probably 5th fiddle. So playing second fiddle will be a big improvement. The rocket force I am proposing is more of a deterrence in Afghanistan than involved in direct confrontation. It will also give sleepless nights to TSP and screw it's security calculations. Yes, a concrete plan is definitely needed but that will only come once india starts to seriously offer boots on ground. Right now we are shying away from it.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: India in Afghanistan

Post by Cain Marko »

Can the Balochis be tapped to do the work for India vs tsp and Taliban? In return make the Balochistan cause Indias... Rake it up everywhere, provide moral support and muscle to their freedom struggle.

In any case, there should be no move in Afghanistan without India's support. So far, modi and Co have succeeded in encouraging the US stay the course. Now to consolidate this little victory. How? Joining anti China alliance in the Pacific? Buying more US weapons? This seems to be trimmed agenda. But India needs a bigger role in return and access to the areas
Post Reply