India / Afghanistan - A New Strategic Relationship

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 07 Oct 2011 17:51

Pattom,

If this was to happen, you can rest assured that if this happened the paks will be playing the victim card.
The liberal/left in the west will be going on about extra judicial killings and screaming for India to be made a pariah state. Also they will be playing to the islamic vote bank.

My view £uck them, do it anyway, until they are hunted an killed they will act without fear!!
The west is weak with moral self rightousness, they are scared to act.
Better to let their own soldiers be killed by an "Ally" than offend the vote bank

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 07 Oct 2011 18:11

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/world ... ?ref=world

As Pakistan tries to engage a reluctant China in it's embrace... how far will China go in indulging Pakistan in it's Afghanistan plans?

Some very caustic analysis of Pakistan's future in the New York Times lately... very interesting indeed!

Over the years, Beijing has sent military assistance to Pakistan, provided crucial help in initiating Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program and cooperated closely on intelligence. Sturdy Chinese-Pakistan relations are seen as a hedge against India, a rival to both nations. In recent months Pakistani officials have gone to Beijing seeking Chinese investment in a naval base and weapons, as well as trade deals worth millions of dollars.

But on closer examination, Pakistan’s ability to use China to offset its collapsing relations with the United States may be far more limited than it appears, raising the prospect that Pakistan will be left on the world’s periphery once the Americans wind down the war in Afghanistan and vastly reduce their presence in the region.

A rising China with global ambitions is unlikely to supplant the United States in Pakistan, according to Chinese experts on Pakistan, as well as Pakistani and American officials. And while Pakistan’s latest flirtations with Beijing have been received cordially, Pakistani officials have walked away from their junkets with far less in hand than they might have hoped.

As Pakistan’s economy continues to decline, and the nation is beset by terrorist attacks, some Pakistanis are asking whether China will prove so helpful after all.

“We as a country may not figure as prominently in China’s scheme of things as we believe we do,” said an editorial on Sunday in The News, a leading English-language newspaper in Pakistan. “Islamabad may be valuable for Beijing in strategic terms, and that leads us to the military and civilian nuclear cooperation between the two countries, but is Pakistan important for China in economic and political terms as well?”

The two countries do indeed share a strategic interest in containing India, and China appears to do little to discourage Pakistan’s expensive nuclear and conventional arms race with New Delhi. As such the Chinese military continues to play a major production role in developing Pakistan’s weapons for the army, air force and navy, said retired Gen. Talat Masood, a former secretary of Defense Production.

But China’s core interests lie elsewhere — in its competition with the United States and in East Asia, experts say. China has shown little interest in propping up the troubled Pakistani economy, consistently passing up opportunities to do so.

The Chinese have built infrastructure projects in Pakistan — notably a commercial port at Gwadar on the Arabian Sea — but have pulled back on some as they have come under the threat of terrorism, and where Chinese workers have been killed. Last month a large Chinese coal mining company, China Kingho Group, canceled a $19 billion contract in Sindh Province, citing concerns about security, in particular employees’ safety.

Amid the anti-American rage in Pakistan after the killing of Bin Laden in May, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani flew to China in what was portrayed in the Pakistani news media as a major snub to the United States.

But Mr. Gilani, at least publicly, was unable to coax much out of the Chinese. Trade between the two countries remains anemic — nearly $9 billion, with Pakistan’s share only $1 billion. China’s trade with India exploded from $2.9 billion in 2000 to $61 billion last year.

During the visit, the defense minister, Ahmad Mukhtar, asked China to build a naval base at Gwadar, the port on the Arabian Sea where China completed commercial facilities in 2008.

The request was met with silence. For the moment, China does not see Gwadar as being of much strategic value, several Chinese experts on Pakistan said.

Since its completion, the port has become a rusting hulk, a destination to nowhere. The cost of building the roads and railway that would connect Gwadar with China, across the perilous territory of Baluchistan and up the mountainous terrain of northern Pakistan, was deemed too high, they said.

But on projects of immediate strategic importance to China, Beijing is moving ahead.

The construction in Punjab Province of two new nuclear reactors, known as Chashma III and Chashma IV, were announced by China in early 2010.

China approved the reactors after the George W. Bush administration, as part of its strategy to strengthen India as a bulwark against China, devised a civilian nuclear deal that gave India access to nuclear reactors, fuel and technology on the world market.

Neither Pakistan nor China made any secret of the fact that the new Chinese reactors were a tit-for-tat against the United States-India nuclear alliance, yet another pointer to the notion that, for the moment, China will use Pakistan for a modicum of strategic interests, but not much beyond.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 07 Oct 2011 18:59

YESTERDAY'S signing in New Delhi of a "strategic partnership" between India and Afghanistan sends all the wrong signals at a delicate stage for Afghanistan.
Afghanistan badly needs a chance to develop its own system of governance following 30 years of external interference. India's strategic commitment to Hamid Karzai's government will probably push Pakistan further along the path of backing the Taliban, which it installed in government in Kabul in 1996.

Pakistan greatly fears the prospect that India will take up the work of the NATO forces. Pakistan's main productive land is strung along the Indus River. Islamabad sees Afghanistan as providing Pakistan with strategic depth in a situation in which a prime Indian military strategy has always been to cut the narrow country in two by a thrust from the Rajasthan salient.

Commentators, particularly those in India, are likely to respond that Pakistan will support the Taliban no matter what India does. Witness the claimed involvement of the Pakistani military intelligence agency, the ISI, in the assassination of Burhannudin Rabbani, who offered the main chance of brokering a compromise peace in Afghanistan.

They are oversimplifying a complex situation. Whatever the shortcomings of the Karzai government - and they are legion - the next time won't be like 1996, for a number of reasons.

Pashtuns, from the ranks of whom the main Taliban cadre are drawn, constitute roughly 40 per cent of Afghans.

Other groups include the Tajiks (the great anti-Soviet commander Massoud, and Rabbani, were both Tajiks), the Persian-speaking Shiite Hazaras and a number of other groups located to the north and west of the country.

The Hazaras have been under severe attack in Pakistan. An estimated 600 of them have been killed in Baluchistan by extremist groups such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. These extremists, located mainly in Southern Punjab, have been allowed by the Pakistan authorities to operate with near impunity. Iranian Sunni extremist groups have also entered Iran from Baluchistan to carry out attacks.

Iran is not amused. Tehran, which has been increasingly flexing it muscles throughout the region, is unlikely to let Afghanistan fall fully under Taliban/Pashtun influence this time round - or not without a fight.

Nor will Western influence and resources be entirely withdrawn from Afghanistan once their troops are pulled out. They will continue to provide training and military resources to the Afghan government. Ironically, they will share a common purpose with Iran in supporting a continuation of something like the status quo.

Negotiations, led by Rabbani and supported by the West, were all about defining what that something would involve. If elements of the Taliban could be induced to participate in government, so much the better for the peaceful future of Afghanistan.

There is evidence of a split on Afghan policy in Pakistan. Some elements in the military wish simply to rely on what they believe was in the past the successful policy of providing outright support to the Taliban. Others, including civilians and some elements of the army, aim to ensure that Pakistan has a seat at the negotiating table and that its strategic interests in Afghanistan - as outlined above - are met. That would require the establishment of a genuinely neutral government in Kabul, of whatever complexion.

Meanwhile, support of terrorist groups such as the Haqqani network could be maintained as insurance.

Enter India, which is already a major player in Afghanistan with aid pledges of $US2 billion ($2.09bn). But most of its aid is in the form of institutional support and economic development aid rather than strategic support.

The agreement between Mr Karzai and Indian Prime Minister Singh goes further, including by offering training to Afghan security forces.

That is bad policy. India, simply, cannot step into the shoes of NATO in offering military support to the current government in Kabul because it is not capable of doing so. More crucially, if Pakistan is pushed further from the Western position, it will close down vital supply routes into Afghanistan. Although Washington has made great play of having developed alternative routes through Central Asia, these can never be sufficient. That is why Washington has had to grit its teeth and persist with its reluctant Pakistani ally as long as it has.

So what is the apparent Indian strategic involvement likely to achieve? Pakistan will resume its policy of unbridled support to the Taliban. It will eventually close its borders to the flow of Western strategic materials into Afghanistan. This will make the Karzai government more reliant on Iran, where India is developing ports and railway systems.

Meanwhile, India will not be strategically placed to provide the type of support previously provided by the West

Once the West withdraws militarily, Afghanistan is likely to become locked into a new civil war, but one more likely to be stalemated than was the case in the 1990s.

To be fair, if the ISI or an element within it was indeed responsible for Rabbani's assassination, Pakistan would also have to share much of the blame. Either way, it is likely to be hapless Afghanistan that will suffer.

Useless article from Sandy Gordon....all the points he has raised is already known and neither he is providing any solution for the problems....It is aknown fact that Iran will be the unknown beneficiary of Indian involvement and that is more the reason why India shud be there; protecting the Pustuns from the Pakistani recklessness and Persian expansion...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Oct 2011 19:53

Sandy Gordon is the inheritor of the Cawthorne line of thinking in the Viceroy Study Group(VSG). Recall Olaf Caroe's seven circles of power puts both India and Aussies in one circle. So Aussie elites think in zero sum game wrt to India and India doesn't even know that.

Gordon is concerned that Indo-Afghan pact will weaken TSP and that will increase India's power whcih could be adverse to Aussies. So look at the article from that POV and come back.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Oct 2011 21:59

http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/20 ... is_of.html
WHO DID THEY THINK THE AXIS OF GOOD WAS DIRECTED AGAINST?:

The agreement will antagonise and isolate Pakistan, which views Afghanistan not only as sharing Islamic bonds but also as strategic territory to retreat into in a conflict with India.
Pakistan deeply fears being encircled by its arch-rival India, and is accused by India and some Nato commanders of using proxy militant groups to maintain influence in Afghanistan.
"The deal jeopardises the recent thaw in Indo-Pakistani relations and further solidifies Pakistan's view of Afghanistan as a staging post for Indian intelligence operations," said James Brazier, analyst at US-based IHS Global Insight.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Oct 2011 22:12

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Sou ... fghanistan
Interest in India puts on the pressure

Karzai’s pivot toward India comes as the United States is cutting aid to Pakistan and accusing it of having ties to the Haqqani faction of the Taliban, bringing significant pressure on the generals in Rawalpindi.“You are starting to see Pakistan come under pressure from all sides, and I think Pakistan is going to have to reassess what it has been doing with the Haqqanis and the Taliban and reassess its policies,” says Lisa Curtis, a South Asia researcher at The Heritage Foundation.his pressure follows years of unsuccessful Afghan and American efforts to work with Pakistan. What’s not clear is whether a get-tough approach will change Pakistani behavior either – or align it more with the insurgency.“I don’t really know how much worse things can get in Pakistan,” says Ms. Curtis. “I don’t think anyone knows at this point what would influence the Pakistani military’s calculations in Afghanistan.”Pakistan’s biggest loss is the dent in the Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship. If Karzai’s efforts to reach out to Pakistan goes south, then you have a serious problem. Then there’s no way stability will be possible,” he says.While Weinbaum and Curtis see Karzai’s recent moves as a significant turn away from Pakistan, others, such as Mr. Yusuf, argue this may be temporary. “He is hedging, seeing what is on offer. He’ll self-correct and come back in the middle,” says Yusuf. “But if these things continue – remember he’s not an independent actor – if Kabul and Islamabad can’t come together then, yes, India’s sphere increases. The US might opt for a suboptimal solution without Pakistan. Pakistan may struggle to reassert itself and the region could head into chaos.”I think the Pakistanis think the US will completely disengage from Afghanistan, but I think they may be miscalculating,” says Curtis. “The major difference from the 1990s [civil war] is the US involvement.”

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 07 Oct 2011 22:19

Sandy Gordon gives 2 reasons why he labels the Indo-afghan treaty 'bad policy'. 1. Pakis will support a Taliban takeover 2. Pakis will block nato supply lines.

Both are (a) unaffected by the treaty in reality. And ( b) are not really India's problem.
So it is a very weak article. If Caroe's theory is right and India and oz are in the same circle, then Gordon's lame article spells bad news for oz.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 07 Oct 2011 22:33

MKB delivers a Friday sermon, chastising us Indians for our hubris and going astray, and exhorting us to repent and emulate the True Leader:
Follow China’s footsteps in Afghanistan

Reuters featured a story on China’s involvement in Afghanistan just when the Delhi newspapers are reporting that India just walked into the ‘great game’ in the Hindu Kush. Reading it from Thiruvanathapuram in the southern-most tip of India gives a surreal feeling. How much at variance are the preoccupations of our pundits in Delhi and the throbbing concerns of small-town folks in India! Yet another foreign-policy disconnect?

The Afghan policies of China and India present a study in contrast. China is also a regional power like India and, arguably, China is not lacking ‘influence’ with the Hamid Karzai set-up in Kabul, either. Yet, Reuters’ thesis is that China is clear-headed and down-to-earth about its priorities and doesn’t want to follow the footsteps of Great Britain, USSR or USA.

China also is averse to turning that desperately poor country into a turf for testing out hubris or for settling scores with adversaries like Japan or the US. China is suspicious of the US and Nato’s intentions in Central Asia (and the Islamists eyeing Xinjiang), but is confident about its intellectual capacity to optimally safeguard its vital interests and core concerns, while husbanding its resources from being squandered away in futile adventures. Funnily, it is China that is credited with an overbearing security establishment that dominates foreign-policy - and not India!
Economic diplomacy is China’s preferred weapon. Unlike the case with India, US is pressing China for military involvement in Afghanistan and for providing a transportation route to that country. India, on the other hand, has been knocking at the American door for the past 6 years for some little role on the military front in Kabul, but US kept saying ‘Nyet’.

China is sceptical of the wisdom of opening the Wakhan Corridor lest ‘foreign devils’ appear on the Silk Road. Whereas, India which is geographically at a disadvantage, still wants to flex muscles and project its power once again into Afghanistan.

India doesn’t dip into historical memory. Some disturbing questions remain. What was the final outcome of the enormous commitment of resources to the Najibullah regime or the Northern Alliance? Najib got overthrown. NA was all but vanquished despite the hundreds of millions of dollars that Indian mandarins spent on the ‘warlords’.

Will history be any different this time? Why don’t we trust diplomacy? We too claim to have a robust economic diplomacy. The best course would have been to leave Pakistan to vainly try to manipulate the fiercely independent Afghans, and ultimately collapse from sheer exhaustion - sooner rather than later? The tons of money that is going to be spent on the Afghan warlords could have been used to develop the backward regions in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, which India claims as its territories {Ouch, the sting in the tail}.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 07 Oct 2011 22:48

Some analysts just don't get it: a stably unstable situation in AfPak can be gamed to be the best possible outcome for India.

Or will only peace and prosperity from Wagah to the Oxus fit the requirement for Indian security?

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 08 Oct 2011 00:27

The tons of money that is going to be spent on the Afghan warlords could have been used to develop the backward regions in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, which India claims as its territories

what is wrong with this point of view?

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 08 Oct 2011 01:04

surinder wrote:
The tons of money that is going to be spent on the Afghan warlords could have been used to develop the backward regions in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, which India claims as its territories
what is wrong with this point of view?

False either-or dichotomy created with the intention of sowing confusion and misleading.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 08 Oct 2011 02:50

surinder wrote:
The tons of money that is going to be spent on the Afghan warlords could have been used to develop the backward regions in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, which India claims as its territories
what is wrong with this point of view?

Is Indian development along its Tibetan/Chinese border mutually exclusive with positioning itself in Afghanistan? Does it look like India is getting involved in an Afghan morass like the USSR and US did, with "hubris"? Does Afghanistan cast as long a shadow on China's strategic strategic calculus as in India's? Isn't India also starting with economic investments in Afghanistan like China supposedly is? Sitting in Tiruvananthapuram (with his commie buddies?), MKB has pumped out these smoke rings from his musharraf -- Or maybe that last comment was meant to be below-the-belt and a hint that PRC may cause us trouble on our Tibet border if we rough up its munna in Afghanistan?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Oct 2011 02:59

Prem wrote:http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/20 ... is_of.html
WHO DID THEY THINK THE AXIS OF GOOD WAS DIRECTED AGAINST?:

The agreement will antagonise and isolate Pakistan, which views Afghanistan not only as sharing Islamic bonds but also as strategic territory to retreat into in a conflict with India.
Pakistan deeply fears being encircled by its arch-rival India, and is accused by India and some Nato commanders of using proxy militant groups to maintain influence in Afghanistan.
"The deal jeopardises the recent thaw in Indo-Pakistani relations and further solidifies Pakistan's view of Afghanistan as a staging post for Indian intelligence operations," said James Brazier, analyst at US-based IHS Global Insight.

India foreign policy with nother country cannot be treated with a bilateral relationship with another country,
Pakistan cannot interfere in the Indian interest and Indian policy

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 08 Oct 2011 03:25

surinder wrote:
The tons of money that is going to be spent on the Afghan warlords could have been used to develop the backward regions in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, which India claims as its territories
what is wrong with this point of view?

It is a totally bogus dichotomy of the Arundirty Roy variety (like, "why do you want to have nuclear weapons while X million children are uneducated/starving?")

How much are we spending on developing Ladakh or Arunachal Pradesh right now? How much is allocated, how much actually gets spent on development vs. how much lands up in the pockets of politicians and babus?

None of this will change at all based on the new strategic partnership with Afghanistan.

For that matter, the total loss to India on account of the Sonia 2G scam alone was Rs. 1.77 lakh crore... about $35.4 Billion USD. This is a lot more than the $20B US baksheesh to TSP since 9/11. I might as well make the argument that if we had spent this money on defence upgrades and acquisitions, it would have more than neutralized any increase in TSPA capabilities over the last ten years.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 08 Oct 2011 06:06

[quote="None of this will change at all based on the new strategic partnership with Afghanistan. For that matter, the total loss to India on account of the Sonia 2G scam alone was Rs. 1.77 lakh crore... about $35.4 Billion USD. This is a lot more than the $20B US baksheesh to TSP since 9/11. I might as well make the argument that if we had spent this money on defence upgrades and acquisitions, it would have more than neutralized any increase in TSPA capabilities over the last ten years.

[/quote]
35.4 Billions in the pocket of corrupt Shrimati Neti equals to the whole annual defence budget of India. Hey, the money could have kick started start whole new FAB industry in india and cut down the 1/3 of import from Greater China region. All Theese retired diplomats of Meri Budhibrasht Kurmis scholl ought to pay attention to this greater loss than constantly chanting India Hai Agyani ,Suno Poak Ki Kahani , Dekho China Mahagyani.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Oct 2011 06:47

You mean Kumars!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Oct 2011 06:53

MEA's site on India's efforts among other things Afghanistan:

http://meaindia.nic.in/mystart.php?id=2703

Kamboja · Post by **Kamboja** » 08 Oct 2011 07:35

Pattom wrote:So, you have to let them know that their Ayeshas and little Abdul*n will pay the price for their terrorist actions. I think they would catch on real fast and desist in exporting terror.

I am sure this possibility has crossed the minds of policy makers in Delhi, but the problem is that the crore commandus can react in two ways -- they might as you say cower in fear and cease and desist in their vile terrorism, OR they might escalate the conflict and in turn begin to target not only important politicians and bureaucrats in GoI but also their families. Once the gloves come off it would become personal, a blood feud.

My guess is that this danger of escalated assassinations on both sides (as opposed to the 'random' killing that a bomb blast entails, which is the SOP of the Packees today) is one reason why this path has not been pursued by Delhi.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 08 Oct 2011 09:50

The difference between Indian and Chinese involvement in Afghanistan is that Chinese citizens will not pay with their lives if things don't go their way in the region. India has a larger stake in it. While China can sit on the sidelines and wait for opportunities to seize India has to enter the field and create a role for itself. Cannot really be compared.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 08 Oct 2011 09:56

Rebuilding Afghanistan- MEA document. Gives a lot of details about the work being done.
http://meaindia.nic.in/staticfile/meapu ... nistan.pdf

sum · Post by **sum** » 08 Oct 2011 10:45

The Afghan policies of China and India present a study in contrast. China is also a regional power like India and, arguably, China is not lacking ‘influence’ with the Hamid Karzai set-up in Kabul, either. Yet, Reuters’ thesis is that China is clear-headed and down-to-earth about its priorities and doesn’t want to follow the footsteps of Great Britain, USSR or USA.

The tons of money that is going to be spent on the Afghan warlords could have been used to develop the backward regions in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, which India claims as its territories

Man, MKB keeps digging even deeper every time you think a depth has been reached...

Next, he will use the same logic to handover Arunachal and Ladakh to China saying that we are better served feeding the billions of hungry children in the country instead of offending our tallest neighbor to the North..

vina · Post by **vina** » 08 Oct 2011 11:06

I think the Pakis are seriously seriously miscalculating on this. The US WILL remain in Afghanistan even after a "withdrawal" by keeping a very significant strike capability (USAF combat planes, Apaches, Dronacharyas and a ground element of Abrams and other stuff) to deter any possible Taliban take over by military conquest. Along with that will be the ability to scale back fully if needed. So, that effectively rules out any Najibullah like situation and a "win" for the Taliban. This will of little cost to the Americans

What they will do is hand over Afghanistan back to the Afghans and it they will be responsible for securing the country whatever it takes. Now that could mean Afghanistan retaliating on Pakistan by paying them back in kind. So Pakistan runs an Afghan insurgency ? The Afghans could easily run a Baloch and Pashtun insurgencies in Balochistan, FATA and area now named as Khyber-Phaktunwa , areas which Afghanistan never recognized Pakistan's sovereignty.

India could never run a Baloch insurgency effectively since it didn't have a contigous border

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 08 Oct 2011 12:02

Making Sense of the Latest India-Afghanistan-Pakistan Drama

October 7, 2011, 12:35 pm ET by Azmat Khan

President Hamid Karzai’s provocative two-day trip to India this week continues to resonate across the subcontinent. His announcement of an unprecedented strategic partnership with India has put Pakistan on edge, with potentially significant consequences for the region.

We talked to C. Christine Fair, an assistant professor of South Asian affairs at Georgetown University, to make sense of the unfolding geopolitical drama and what it bodes for America’s intentions to draw down troops in Afghanistan.

Q.: Why was President Karzai in India, and what were his objectives for the trip?

Christine Fair: India has been a longstanding partner, not only of President Karzai, but of Afghanistan. India has certainly been the biggest regional donor to Afghanistan, and it’s been one of the Afghanistan’s most important global donors.

There’s a lot of antagonism towards Pakistan in Afghanistan, whereas India is held in high regard. So I think [the visit was motivated by Afghan] interest in understanding where India is vis-à-vis Pakistan in Afghanistan. What will be its long-term goals as the U.S. security umbrella continues retreating?

India is having a big debate about how important it is for India to remain in Afghanistan, with what objectives and at what cost.

Q.: During his trip, President Karzai signed a strategic partnership agreement with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh under which India will provide assistance to Afghanistan, including stepping up trade and training Afghan forces after U.S. forces leave in 2014. What’s the significance of this accord and why has it set off such fears in Pakistan?

Christine Fair: Pakistan’s concerns with this partnership stem from their conviction that India will use its position in Afghanistan to the detriment of Pakistan.

The basic problem is that, according to my sources, who are not Pakistani – British diplomats, UN diplomats and increasingly Americans as well – India has been supporting the Baloch insurgents from Pakistan, [who are waging an ethnic nationalist rebellion in Pakistan's southwestern province of Balochistan].

This is not the first time that India has done this. Balochistan has been a historical place of intervention for the Indians, so this is very disconcerting to the Pakistanis.

The Indians have also historically – although they haven’t made the official proclamations to this effect in recent history – supported Afghanistan in its irredentist claims on Pashtun parts of Pakistani territory. Pakistan is concerned about India using Afghanistan to deny Pakistan strategic depth.

Finally the Northern Alliance – and of course [assassinated former president Burhannurdin] Rabbani was a key figure in that – was aided and facilitated by the Indians, and they were the only rival to Pakistan’s proxy, the Taliban.

For all of these reasons, Pakistan sees this strategic partnership between India and Afghanistan as completely detrimental to its interests.

Q.: Are Pakistan’s fears well-founded?

Christine Fair: The Americans would dismiss Pakistan’s fears, and so would Indians. They would basically say the Indians have no interest in destabilizing Pakistan, but that’s not entirely true. If that were true India would not be manipulating affairs in Balochistan to the varying levels that it is, and it’s certainly not at the levels that Pakistan claims.

So Pakistan does have concerns. Pakistan fears India and its partnership with the Americans: the American commitment to build it up as a global power; the Indian-American nuclear deal. … So the Pakistanis want to have the opportunity to deny India’s rise as a regional hegemon, much less a global power.

Q. President Karzai has tried to do some damage control. He clarified the agreement wasn’t directed at Pakistan and said, ”Pakistan is a twin brother, India is a great friend. … The agreement that we signed yesterday with our friend will not affect our brother.” Will his words placate any concern in Pakistan, or are they merely lip service?

Christine Fair: Pakistan will not be reassured by this. Karzai can say whatever he wants to say; it’s not going to reassure Pakistan.

Q.: Pres. Karzai also announced that Afghanistan would be calling off peace talks with the Taliban, saying, “We have decided not to talk to the Taliban because we do not know their address … therefore we have decided to talk to our brothers in Pakistan.” Has Karzai given up on negotiations with the Taliban?

Christine Fair: I think he’s realized that rather than talking to the floor manager, he has to talk to the CEOs, and the CEOs are Pakistani intelligence and military officials in Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

Q.: What does that mean for the peace process, and for the American military’s role in Afghanistan?

Christine Fair: The American’s military role in Afghanistan is going to end no matter what, in terms of this high-intensity counterinsurgency initiative. There’s just a growing realization that there are limits to what the Americans can do given Pakistan’s intransigence on supporting the Afghan Taliban.

I think the best that the Americans can hope for is to put some modicum of stability and to try to put some pressure on Pakistan, but I think there is a growing realization that without some massive scaling down of the conditions for security transfer to the Afghans, the Americans won’t get out when they want to get out.

By get out, I don’t mean pull out and then go home. I mean scale down counterinsurgency activities in preference to a more normal relationship with Afghanistan, with the ability to conduct robust counterterror operations when needed.

Q.: Tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan have reached new heights since Rabbani’s assassination. Afghan officials say Pakistan’s intelligence agency was involved in the murder, a charge Pakistan denies. Is this an unusually low point in Afghan-Pakistan relations, and how long will these tensions likely last?

Christine Fair: They’re going to last forever. They’ve never had good relations.

Pakistani is waging a proxy war in Afghanistan. Pakistan has shown that it has no intention of backing away from the Taliban, and that it was likely involved in the Rabbani assassination. The ISI has twice been tied to attacks on the Indian embassy in Afghanistan. So I would say it’s pretty bad and I don’t really see a lot of prospects for improvement.

Afghanistan hasn’t handled this in a terribly sophisticated way either. Afghanistan has been really happy to use the Indian card to beat up on the Pakistanis, and this will not be in Afghanistan’s advantage, because no matter what India does, it’s not going to be able to insulate Afghanistan from what the Pakistanis are doing.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Oct 2011 12:29

Karzai interviewd on the BBC by Simpson.
Words almost accurate.

S:"What about corruption in your govt....?"

K: "It is mainly due to the foreigners and their money,contractors,etc.who have corrupted some Afghans.When the Soviets were n Afghanistan,there was not even 5% of what exists now".

This answer by him is also reflected in a piece on the subject in a newspaper today,a Guardian article,where the author castigates the west for spending $ trillions where the money goes mainly into the pockets of the defence manufacturers and private contractors like Blackwater,who are all run by the top politicos in the US and west billion in cash was fown in and simply "disappeared"! This was meant to bribe the Iraqi resistance. The same game has been played out in Afghanistan,this time those who have been bribed are the Paki uniformed scum,from Kayani downwards,and the poor Afghan people getting precious little.

The Afghan War has been an umitigated disaster for the US.India must be exceptionally cautious NOT to get too firmly drawn into events on the ground there,thinking that we can replace the US/NATO etc.Tis would be catastrophic.Instead,we should be preferring to help the Afghans help themselves.We do not have the deep pockets of the US,which are now empty after 10 years of meaningless conflict.Let the Pakis beggar themselves first!

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 08 Oct 2011 13:27

India promises to prop up Karzai
mkb is batting for whom: India or Pakistan??

The big question, therefore, remains to be answered: Will it prove to be within Delhi's capacity to advance on its own such an ambitious agenda of all-round strategic partnership with Afghanistan? High hopes have been raised during Karzai's visit, but the pitfalls of Indian policies cannot escape notice, either.

India's record of fulfilling its commitments to its "allies" (not only Afghan) has been patchy. India repeatedly failed at critical points to bolster the NA despite its pleas when the Taliban juggernaut began rolling into the Amu Darya region. Meanwhile, Karzai would also know Pakistan's centrality in any Afghan peace process and India can never be a substitute for Pakistan.

Will Indian military advisors be stationed in Afghanistan? If that happens, the Indian political leadership cannot overlook the grim prospect of the nascent dialogue process with Pakistan disintegrating in no time. It is highly unlikely that Islamabad (or Washington) would countenance an Indian military presence in the Hindu Kush.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Oct 2011 14:31

anmol wrote:
Making Sense of the Latest India-Afghanistan-Pakistan Drama

October 7, 2011, 12:35 pm ET by Azmat Khan

The basic problem is that, according to my sources, who are not Pakistani – British diplomats, UN diplomats and increasingly Americans as well – India has been supporting the Baloch insurgents from Pakistan, [who are waging an ethnic nationalist rebellion in Pakistan's southwestern province of Balochistan].

This is not the first time that India has done this. Balochistan has been a historical place of intervention for the Indians, so this is very disconcerting to the Pakistanis.

Well my sources are saying it is the Brits who have their dirty hands in Balochistan, with their primary motive to give India a bad name and to keep the Pakis on edge!

Brits remain the snakes they have always been!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Oct 2011 14:50

India needs to guide ANA to recruit those Pushtuns who have felt the brunt of the ISI and their puppets in Afghanistan. All those who have lost family members at the hands of the Haqqani Group, Quetta Shura, whose mothers have been beaten up in the markets by stick wielding Taliban, whose sisters have been kidnapped by these weapon-wielding barbarians, etc. One has to be careful in recruitment so that the ANA that comes up is so anti-Pakistan that when the time comes, they would be willing to march up to Rawalpindi and eat those fat crore commanders live!

Secondly it is best if the India footprint in Afghanistan is kept to a minimum, and most ANA and ANP people are trained in India itself. Get most of the Afghans to fly over to India and get their training here. Here Indians can control the environment, and keep our trainers out of harm's way as much as possible. The initial basic training can take place in Afghanistan by Afghans themselves, advanced skills can be imparted in India, and then for field training they can again go to Afghanistan. There Indian trainers can be embedded into the Afghan teams.

Thirdly, we would also have to train our own trainers in Dari and Pashto. A few weeks of intensive training may be needed.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 08 Oct 2011 15:04

Is there a link to the Sandy Gordon article guys. I couldn't find it. It requires a response.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 08 Oct 2011 15:17

anmol wrote:Christine Fair: The American’s military role in Afghanistan is going to end no matter what, in terms of this high-intensity counterinsurgency initiative. There’s just a growing realization that there are limits to what the Americans can do given Pakistan’s intransigence on supporting the Afghan Taliban.

I think the best that the Americans can hope for is to put some modicum of stability and to try to put some pressure on Pakistan, but I think there is a growing realization that without some massive scaling down of the conditions for security transfer to the Afghans, the Americans won’t get out when they want to get out.

I don't know how much Ms. Fair is clued in to the Foggy Bottom. If indeed sh is, then the above assessment is simply admitting to failure. The 'modicum of stability' cannot be achieved unless the Taliban leaders, warlords sympathetic to the Taliban on either side of the Durand Line and their PA/ISI handlers are physically liquidated. If the Taliban are allowed to survive and if the US continues to compromise with Pakistan, the US can only expect a bloody nose as it scales down. I do not know how the US expects to have a military presence, without being harassed day in and day out, in an Afghanistan where the Taliban are not comprehensively defeated and where the Taliban even share power with the NA and others.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 08 Oct 2011 15:31

JE Menon wrote:Is there a link to the Sandy Gordon article guys. I couldn't find it. It requires a response.

Link

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 08 Oct 2011 15:38

Thanks Klaus.

Damn, no possibility of comments in that paper.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 08 Oct 2011 15:46

ramana wrote:Sandy Gordon is the inheritor of the Cawthorne line of thinking in the Viceroy Study Group(VSG). Recall Olaf Caroe's seven circles of power puts both India and Aussies in one circle. So Aussie elites think in zero sum game wrt to India and India doesn't even know that.

Gordon's piece is somewhat contradictory to the line adopted in recent times by independent think-tanks like Lowy Institute, however this squeak from him indicates that this is the official government line, hence indirectly the line taken by the Amirkhans with respect to the Indo-Pacific.

Coincidentally, media reports on the recent AUSMIN conference referred to bringing India under the Asia-Pacific region, the term Indo-Pacific was adopted here by the renamed ANZUS. India's utility seemed to be a hedge against China, they do not envision a role for us to our west.

This also comes from their Anglo-Saxon viewpoint that IN would get stronger if our reach deepens into Central Asia, a corollary of "whoever controls the IOR dominates Asia".

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 08 Oct 2011 17:55

JE Menon wrote:Thanks Klaus.

Damn, no possibility of comments in that paper.

It is annoying. Lets comment here. Some from me:

1) Gordon's argument is essentially:
(i) The Indo-Afghan pact will increase Pak support for Taliban
(ii) The ostensible justification for Pak support for Taliban is that it needs Afghanistan as "strategic depth" in which to run away from India's advancing forces
(iii) Pakistan will prevent supplies reaching Afghanistan that need to travel over Pakistani territory
(iv) India cannot provide the type of military support that ISAF/NATO can
(v) The civil war in Afghanistan will intensify

2) Lets take each point in turn
(i) Pakistan will anyway do whatever it can to install the Taliban in power in Afghnistan, whether this pact exists or not. Pakistan believes it has a birthright to have a government in Afghanistan that they control, and are prepared to go to any lengths to achieve this end. Indian support for Afghanistan will indeed mean that Pakistan will have to try harder to ahieve its aims, and Indian support (lets discuss below what form this support takes) for Afghanistan will enhance the Afghan government's ability to resist the Taliban onslaught.

(ii) Pakistan has no god given right to "strategic depth" in Afghanistan. Anyone who tries to legitimise the concept of Afghanistan as strategic depth for Pakistan is simply appeasing Pakistani aggression against sovereign Afghanistan. "Strategic depth" in the context of modern wafare is in any case a ridiculous proposition. Who will feed, fuel, and arm a Pakistani army that has withdrawn into Afghanistan? What makes the Pak Army think it will be safe in Afghanistan. The concept is pure baloney.

(iii) The Afghan National Army can be more than adequately supplied from its neighbouring and friendly Central & West Asian states, including Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran. Afghanistan does not need Pakistan to supply its armed forces.

(iv) India has no intention and no need to put "boots on the ground". Our partnership will involve financial support, and support in building national capabilities like healthcare, education, transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure, media, etc. Indeed we can and will also provide military training to the ANA (if requested to do so). The countries in NATO and ISAF also need to do the same.

(v) The civil war in Afghanistan has a better chance of ending if the Afghanistan government is supported in every possible way, and Pakistan is severely punished for its support of the Taliban.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 08 Oct 2011 18:18

US hails India's key role in Afghanistan

:
"India has a training presence inside Afghanistan and has (it) for a quite some time. Obviously President (Hamid) Karzai finds that very helpful," Pentagon spokesman, Capt John Kirby, told reporters last evening.

He welcomed India's decision to train the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), a pact on which was inked between the two countries this week during the New Delhi visit of Karzai.
:

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 08 Oct 2011 18:33

It bears repeating what the real problem is. TSP is the evil here. And yet Fair bimbo, gordon whatever, and even US are trying to justify TSP's evil deeds. I mean someone should tell these slime balls that their specious arguments simply upend the entire rationale for the so called GWOT. Glib diploamtic gobly gook talking about TSP's imaginary fears or illegitimate fears won't escape this fact.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 08 Oct 2011 19:16

Klaus wrote:
ramana wrote:Sandy Gordon is the inheritor of the Cawthorne line of thinking in the Viceroy Study Group(VSG). Recall Olaf Caroe's seven circles of power puts both India and Aussies in one circle. So Aussie elites think in zero sum game wrt to India and India doesn't even know that.
Gordon's piece is somewhat contradictory to the line adopted in recent times by independent think-tanks like Lowy Institute, however this squeak from him indicates that this is the official government line, hence indirectly the line taken by the Amirkhans with respect to the Indo-Pacific.

Coincidentally, media reports on the recent AUSMIN conference referred to bringing India under the Asia-Pacific region, the term Indo-Pacific was adopted here by the renamed ANZUS. India's utility seemed to be a hedge against China, they do not envision a role for us to our west.

This also comes from their Anglo-Saxon viewpoint that IN would get stronger if our reach deepens into Central Asia, a corollary of "whoever controls the IOR dominates Asia".

There seems to be slight modification in the model of Caroe, the recent strategic calculations that are coming from the Oz specifically points to certain directions....

1. The region of activity seems to have expanded with the inclusion of the term Indo-Pacific.
2.The centre of gravity of this new geopolitical spacing is planned to be Oz and not the subcontinent.
3. But the important point is that even for this new region .....can Punjab be trusted to secure the Western perphery of this region or more specifically can Punjab actually secure the West?
4. It is clear Punjab cannot stop the Persian expansion, neither can it stop the Chinese march to CAS, its hold on Balochistan will increasingly be fragile, then whats the use of Punjab being the gurdain of Hindukush?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 08 Oct 2011 19:23

CRamS wrote:It bears repeating what the real problem is. TSP is the evil here. And yet Fair bimbo, gordon whatever, and even US are trying to justify TSP's evil deeds. I mean someone should tell these slime balls that their specious arguments simply upend the entire rationale for the so called GWOT. Glib diploamtic gobly gook talking about TSP's imaginary fears or illegitimate fears won't escape this fact.

Too damn right.

All Rundy Gordon can say is:

Although Washington has made great play of having developed alternative routes through Central Asia, these can never be sufficient. That is why Washington has had to grit its teeth and persist with its reluctant Pakistani ally as long as it has.

Rundy is harping on about the "need for Pakistan". That is Pakistani wishful thinking. Reality is evolving in adifferent direction, and the Asskisstanis will soon be totally isolated. After Mullen's Congress testimony one would have hoped that "western commentators" would stop making excuses for the terrorist army of Pakistan. Rundy probably owes some debt of gratitude to the ISI. The price of "western commentators" like Rundy and Anatol Lieven is very low; something even the professional beggars of Asskisstan can afford.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 08 Oct 2011 19:32

Samudragupta wrote:
There seems to be slight modification in the model of Caroe, the recent strategic calculations that are coming from the Oz specifically points to certain directions....

It does have an IOR and greater Indo-Pacific component but that would be OT here.

1. They might be of the opinion that India will free-ride off the work done by their forces in the Helmand and Oruzgan provinces.
2 There is also the possibility that Gordon might be voicing a strictly British PoV with respect to all the effort put towards the Balochistan movement, which Fair was trying hard not to hint at, IOW India through its AFG presence might actually expose the ongoing western role in Balochistan dissent/secession.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 08 Oct 2011 22:27

Pakistan's approach and relations with the Taliban would cause a gap in the ties between Tehran and Islamabad, a senior Iranian researcher cautioned on Saturday.

"Iran-Pakistan relations can be negatively affected by Pakistan's attitude and approach towards the Taliban, which is opposite to Tehran's view and approach (towards this group)," Keyhan Barzegar said during an Islamabad meeting on the future of Afghanistan after the US withdrawal from the country.

He also blasted the US strategy in Afghanistan, saying that Washington's policies impair Iran's interests in neighboring Afghanistan.

"Since the US strategy in Afghanistan impairs Iran's interests in that country, striking an agreement with the US over Afghanistan is impossible," the analyst added.

The Sino-Pak-Iran axis that the RAPES are trying to build across the Trans-Asian axis can only be broken if India sits right at the centre of this axis...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Oct 2011 22:50

Maha Brhasta Kumar(MKB) and Christine UnFair can start a new PakisuarUS think tank. They are a pair who want to prop TSP no matter what even when they found TSP has morphed from a grass snake to a viper!

One thing to recall. MMS at Sharme Sheikh told TSP to bring it on about Indian 'support' to Balochis. He wouldn't offer that if the allegations were true. And to date Pakis haven't brought any evidence except show ordnance with POF markings!

Ergo there is no Indian support to Balochis.

However it doesn't mean there is no US or UL support which Unfari is deflecting. In TV Balochi protesters are always shown in Londin.

All these guys conjuring scares about what TSP will do to India and Afghanistan don't realize its all their hallucinations. Short of nuke attack on India and or Kabul TSP cant do any thing except sit and rot in their own toilet nation.

All earlier actions by TSp ahd tacit US support under the rubris of providing stability. Terrorist strikes on India were condoned and Indian retaliation prevented in interests of keep the facade of a nation state in TSP.

After the policy failure US sees it recoiling on themselves. Unfortunately apologists for TSP in US and elsewhere haven't taken of their green glasses.