India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

[Singha]

btw what is the ancestry of the people in the Kandahar region ? this is ancient Gandhara of the
Mahabharata epic era.

there was one mujahideen leader named "Ishmael Khan" from that region, who iirc is retired now
and handed over the reign to his son. said to be pro-Iranian.

[Manas]

btw what is the ancestry of the people in the Kandahar region ? this is ancient Gandhara of the
Mahabharata epic era.

there was one mujahideen leader named "Ishmael Khan" from that region, who iirc is retired now
and handed over the reign to his son. said to be pro-Iranian.

Guruji,

Ismael Khan is from Herat. After the Taliban was overthrown post 9/11 I think there was an attempt on the life of Ismael Khan from one of the local factions. Ismael Khan survived but I believe his son was killed. People in the Herat region belong to the Hazara tribes. One of the 4 (Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hazara) major tribes that hold sway over Afghanistan.

[Airavat]

but arent the Hazara people living in their highland enclave west of Kabul supposed to be different ethnically from the pashtuns ? I distinctly recall a natgeo issue on these people and the text and photos indicated a more slavic+mongol heritage from up north..than a mere branch of the pathan clan.

The Hazara ethnic group of Afghanistan are different from the Hazara region in north Pakistan. I'm referring to the latter.....it lies to the east of Indus bordering the Poonch region of J&K in the west.

The Pashtun tribes began colonising this Hazara region in the 17th century, a process which gathered speed during Ahmad Shah Abdali's invasions, but other groups like Gujjars and Gakkhars are still found there.

Ancient Gandhara region (pronounced Gaandhaar) is probably not related to the medieval fort and town of Qandahar.

[Philip]

Check into this MIT site,it gives a good background to current NATO involvement in the country and the various key factors involved.The introduction is posted below.

http://web.mit.edu/cis/fpi_afghanistan.html

Afghanistan

Security and Nation Building
Drugs
Government
Maps
Bibliography/Recommended Reading
Footnotes

For many Americans, Afghanistan has long since become the "forgotten war." The same might be said for the American government, which currently has 26,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan compared to the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, a country that is smaller both in the size of its land and its populace.1 Approximately half of U.S. forces in Afghanistan are under the command of NATO, which has a total contingent of 42,000 troops. However, soldiers from countries other than the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands often have restrictions placed upon them by their home governments, preventing them from deploying to the provinces where they are needed most. Although Hamid Karzai's government has a tenuous hold on much of the northern and eastern sections of the country, attacks by the Taliban and other anti-government forces have been on the rise, especially in the southern provinces. Many of the U.S. troops are tasked with training the nascent Afghan National Army and police forces; however, the small number of government and coalition troops, a weak, cash-strapped, corrupt government, and significant challenges of poverty, the drug trade, prying neighbors, and infrastructure destroyed during nearly 30 years of war make this one of the most daunting nation-building projects in which the international community (and the United States) has ever engaged itself.

Afghanistan is a land-locked country in central Asia with a population of 30 million, over half of whom live in poverty. In fact, Afghanistan is the only country outside of Africa to rank in the bottom five on the United Nations global human development index, which measures education, health, and economic prosperity. The country has a nascent but meager army and no air force or navy to speak of, and the United Nations estimates that opium production accounted for 46% of Afghanistan's diminutive GDP in 2006.2 After the 9/11 attacks, the United States renewed its interest in the country due to its position at the center of the Al-Qaeda network, which was hosted by the ruling Taliban regime. The campaign that followed became the first in a new "Global War on Terror" launched by the world's lone superpower. Unlike the subsequent Iraq war, Operation Enduring Freedom was supported by all of America's major allies, many of whom made significant contributions to the effort, which revolved around a combination of indigenous ground forces like the Northern Alliance, U.S. airpower, and CIA and special forces units deployed in country.3 After the cessation of major combat operations by the end of 2001, the U.S. and it allies began the challenging task of rebuilding a country wracked by over 25 years of civil war. Afghanistan has become a key test of American's willingness and ability to democratize and rebuild a Muslim nation as well as defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda remnants that remain in and around the country. At the beginning of 2008, results on all counts are mixed at best, due in part to a wavering commitment of focus and resources.

[chandrabhan]

Philip, boss, If I sound like a proto-imperialist, pls forgive me, but my outlook I will admit is purely power-expansion oriented, i.e. Indian power.
>>The big Q JE is what happens afterwards?
After what? After we deploy? We will kill as much Taliban and other assorted Islamists as we can, while they try to kill us. For the sheer bloody-mindedness of it. We will also blood a lot of young officers in active combat overseas (not the usual UN shit of handing out umbrellas and condoms and what not – not that I’m criticizing that, it does have its uses). Our goal, once there, should be to stay there as long as we can, with non-military types following in the caravan to set up small businesses, scrabbling for that extra rupee, for that extra % of profit, - which our SDRE banias can do better than ANYONE else - while our military builds up an up to date and extensive first-hand understanding of whatever the phuck is going on in that country.
We will learn, or re-learn, how to build empire. No staging ground as trying as Afghanistan. We need to forge our ambition in the Afghan fire. As a bonus, we can stir the Pakistani pot or what will be left of it – making sure that it only simmers and never spills over. We must maintain as much as possible a good relationship with as many tribes as possible, keeping our links to the Taliban open, so that no group, however execrable, feels that it has only Pakistan to look to for support and funding… We will let the natural Pakhtun and Afghan disdain for the vain Pakjabis to bloom and will water that plant slowly and steadily, over years and years. There is no hurry. As for the Baluch, what right has Punjab to exploit its largest and most resource-vital neighbor? Why is it that the traitor to his people Zardari, who married a Sindhi to improve his social standing, does nothing more for Baluchistan than wear the traditional cap on occasion?
>>Is India after sending in 120K troops to wage war against the Taliban/Pakistan in Afghanistan going to provide the Afghans with water,food,shelter,clothing,etc?
We will try to do so, as we are doing now. More importantly, we will try to create the climate whereby they can try to provide for themselves. But this will not be our first or even second priority. Our first priority, once we get there, will be to manipulate and manoeuvre in whatever manner required so that we stay there as long as possible with the highest comfort-level possible. Our second priority will be to kill the Taliban and others who are anti-India, who have helped kill Indians in the past, and those who have thought or are thinking of helping kill Indians. If we can do the above while helping the Afghans help themselves, which we can, then well and good. Look, it’s not like the Afghans are rolling in basic necessities when we are not there. Certainly we are not likely to worsen the situation.

>>Are we going to broker peace between the multifarious tribal clans,whose alliances change with each season!

Absolutely… this will be part and parcel of “manipulate and manoeuvre in whatever manner required so that we stay there as long as possible with the highest comfort-level possible”. We will be backstabbed and we will backstab. We will be killed and we will kill. We will make temporary enemies and temporary friends. We will rent Afghans, since apparently they cannot be bought , and we will even lease some of them on long-term basis.

>>Let's be honest.We are not and should not be as asinine as the US/NATO. The British during the Raj tried to capture Afghanistan but could not.They couldn't then ,they couldn't now.Even the mighty Soviet superpower failed.

Sure. I prefer to look at our own examples. Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Hari Singh Nalwa. And much earlier.

>> Afghanistan is a completely different inhospitable nation of thousands of sq. miles of mountainous terrain.It will bleed us dry.It will be India;s Vietnam.Even US troops say that compared with Aghanistan,Iraq was a much easier campaign.

It will bleed us. But it will not bleed us dry. 8,300 military personnel have been killed in Kashmir over the past X number of years, excluding Kargil, I read recently somewhere. The more active we are in Afghanistan, the less we will bleed in Kashmir – I think. Or at least we can make it so.…

JE ,
Very well put..The whole point I have been making for long is that we should go for the right reasons and with clarity of thought. We can't be ambigous in such things, Corneing Pakistan can not be the only goal for sending Indian troopers.
I have in the past advocated sendinf troopers but for the reasons of civilisational pride redemption, access to energy and taming of these marauders on khyber. We must make them fight each other, others and also within their own tribes. As you mentioned they can't be bought let us rent them.
If these are not the objectives we have then let them kill Amirkhans and their thought masters - British. Wait for them to cry for help and then make them cede this space for us forever. Supply again through only Land access to kashmir and no other way... can't depend on any one

[ramana]

It will contirbute to the fear of two front war for TSP and will make them behave and become civilized.

[KLNMurthy]

It will contirbute to the fear of two front war for TSP and will make them behave and become civilized.

Don't you mean "pretend to be civilized till circumstances change and they don't have to?"

[SBajwa]

Maharaja Ranjit Singh's strategy in the area beyond Indus river was pretty simple.

After initial conquest Hari Singh Nalwa was made the governor of Peshawar.

Tactically he had implemented following

Marching Artillery flanked by foot soldiers on all four sides.

This was flanked by Ghorcharas Fauj i.e. "Mounted soldiers" who would dash out empty their sallies and come back to join the main people.

Originally Sikh army was always mounted guerilla soldiers who were incorporated into modern warfare doctrine by Ranjit Singh.

Ranjit Singh was very much impressed by the discipled soldiers of the East India Company as well as French Napolean. He created the main army on the same European lines.

After Nalwa, Sher Singh was made governor of Peshawar and under him french Ventura and Allard were leading the Ranjit Singh's army in this area.

Nalwa would simple sorround the village ask them for the tribute in some time frame to Lahore if not then army would burn the whole village and kill any fleeing soldiers and civilians.

[NRao]

The advance of Talibanistan

Armed Forces are up to a task, but, I wonder how much gets GoI has.

"War is not an option." - anonymous.

Ironically something common between India and Pakistan?

Talking of people in these areas, The News International, one of Pakistan’s biggest newspapers said, “They
will obey orders of the Taliban because the Taliban are more powerful than the government that is supposed to protect and sustain them.”

[samuel.chandra]

It will contirbute to the fear of two front war for TSP and will make them behave and become civilized.

Don't you mean "pretend to be civilized till circumstances change and they don't have to?"

Thats the most you can hope to achieve. And thats precisely why it has to a be sustained, long-term, sometimes erratic, sometimes irrational moves. We have to teach them to fear our chankian brains and will to cross red lines.

[John Snow]

we are fixated on Plan(ned) out come.
But for the plan to succeed we must have logistics and supply chain tethered to our depots. The ferry routes unhindered and not dependent on safe conduct by any one.

The problem is we dont have the capability to move troops from Barracks in TN to Punjab efficiently by Air transport. Leave alone heavy equipment, like artilery or CVs Tanks etc.

The only option viable is buy up junk from all CAR nations which are also Russian made and we are familiar with them(equipment) but again we have to depend on some one.


If we had the wherewithal to do heavy duty lifting YES WE CAN, YES WE MUST.

Did we ever practise any massive airlift from of 120,000 troops with required equipment from Punjab to TN or Vice versa?

Even the so called Cold Start allegdly well honed is finding difficult to crank up.

No we are not physically prepared, leadership wise prepared. Just a pipe dream but worth smoking for while wiyh out any smoking guns though!

[milindc]

CNN-IBN's Sagarika has a discussion about 'Can US rein in Pakis'.
Pramit Pal Chaudhary, HT Editor and KC Singh, MEA Secretary are asking what does India bring to US-India strategic partnership? They recommend that GoI needs to bring more ideas on table to solve US's afghan problem. KC Singh says that India is happy with just monetary help on Afghan front and needs to do more to Unkil.

Interesting discussion considering the 120k troops proposal...

Sagarika was trying to put words in mouth of all the participants, stating that India and US's GWOT should be to strengthen Pakistan's civil govt, and society and firm up democracy. All the three avoided stating the same.
I bet Sagarika is desperate to wear a shuttle cock burka.

[Arya Sumantra]

It will contirbute to the fear of two front war for TSP and will make them behave and become civilized.

With only one entry point through Iran, what happens if Iran is attacked by yehudis or amir khan? The 120k troops trapped inside an open air jail called afg han is tan.

[kasthuri]

It will contirbute to the fear of two front war for TSP and will make them behave and become civilized.

With only one entry point through Iran, what happens if Iran is attacked by yehudis or amir khan? The 120k troops trapped inside an open air jail called afg han is tan.

No...if the CAR/Russia route is open to the US, it will likely be open for India.

[ramana]

Umaro Jaan, The evacuation of Indian expatriates before the first Gulf War was considered a very good demonstration of strategic airlift capability. And is studied academically.Try to search for it.

[sanjaykumar]

In the susequent Lebanon evacuation, I know that Naepali and Lankan nationls were also evacuated.


Was passage offered to pakistanis and Bangladeshis?

[Rishi]

Umaro Jaan, The evacuation of Indian expatriates before the first Gulf War was considered a very good demonstration of strategic airlift capability. And is studied academically.Try to search for it.

http://indiancorporateworld.com/airIndia.html

The airline entered the Guinness Book of World Records for the largest evacuation by a civil airliner. Over 111,000 people were evacuated from Amman to Mumbai – a distance of 4,117 km, by operating 488 flights in association with Indian Airlines, from 13 August to 11 October, 1990 – lasting 59 days. The operation was carried out during Persian Gulf War in 1990 to evacuate Indian expatriates from Kuwait and Iraq.

[brihaspati]

(1) the time is passing by for India to use the situation to place an army on the Afghan side of the TSP. Obama may make an u-turn, or US establishment turns shaky like Vietnam, and or a fear of both possibilities makes Obi keep India out. It should have been the response within the first day of the Mumbai attacks, even if a direct attack was never contemplated. The farther GOI waits, the opportunity is lost- maybe already lost.
(2) let us not dream of Afghans reconverting into pre-Muslim cultures - Islam is one religion that systematically wipes out all cultural traces or memories of competing/underlying cultures. The answer is simple but brutal and efficient, and therefore cannot be discussed on BR.
(3) The Chinese threat is a real one, and GOI is getting a taste of licking Chinese boots in suppressing the Dalai Lama and his adherents. Like Tasleema Nasreen, hounded for writing about the "shame" of atrocities on Hindu "minorities" in BD, the Tibetans are reminded by our now fuming/smoking/stuttering leaders (apparently admired by many now for their eloquent anger) that "as guest" they should "behave". We can say also that any culture that claims roots/cenre and loyalty to a source outside of India is also a "guest" here in this land, and they should "behave". If the Chinese come to help these "guests", our Tibetan guests should be encouraged to open up a front in the north - to add flavour to the soy-sauce being prepared by PRC for Arunachal.
(4) What about telling the Chinese experts that it was agood suggestion, maybe India can take it up and do something funny in Arunachal itself, while preparing to blast off the Karakorum highway, and let the Tibetans do a bit of warming up.

[Rahul Shukla]

New NATO routes to Afghanistan likely (AP)

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) — Talks aimed at setting up alternative supply routes to the Khyber Pass for U.S. and other NATO forces fighting in Afghanistan are at an advanced stage, officials said Thursday.

In Brussels on Thursday, a NATO official said diplomatic efforts are nearing conclusion on setting up new routes for U.S. and NATO military supplies that will likely pass through Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

In Washington, a U.S. military official said the proposed land routes would be used as occasional alternatives to the Khyber Pass, or to carry heavier loads if the pass is closed again.

Moscow agreed last year to let the NATO alliance use its territory to resupply Western forces fighting in Afghanistan. But talks with Central Asian nations bordering Afghanistan have been more protracted than expected. At issue are flyover rights and at least one rail link near the Afghan border just north of the Afghan city of Mazar-e-Sharif, where the German contingent has a large military base, the NATO official said.

Military experts have proposed extending the existing railroad line from Uzbekistan to Mazar-e-Sharif. That would eliminate the need to transfer supplies from the rail cars to trucks to haul them into Afghanistan. Individual NATO members such as Germany and France already use the so-called northern route to supply their forces in Afghanistan on the basis of bilateral agreements with Russia and the Central Asian states. But the alliance as a whole still relies on the route from Pakistan's port of Karachi and through the Khyber Pass.

[SSridhar]

It will contirbute to the fear of two front war for TSP and will make them behave and become civilized.

Ramana, the PA would not engage in two-front war. It will leave the western border to the Taliban and concentrate only on the East. It doesn't care much for FATA anyway. After all, India is the raison d'etre for TSP anyway. And, TSP generals are very well known for tactical brilliance. It may also assume, and correctly so, that the NATO/ISAF/Indian forces may not hold on to land when the run over that place and may indeed return it to TSP after cleaning up the mess, which would be an added benefit. OTOH, it will dream of making some quick inroads into India and negotiate with her later from a position of strength.

If we get engaged in Afghanistan, the rules of engagement should not tie our hands behind our back as it happened in Sri Lanka.

[NRao]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/washi ... ?ref=world

Major Push Is Needed to Save Afghanistan, General Says

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: January 8, 2009
WASHINGTON — The top American commander responsible for Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, said Thursday that the country would require a “sustained, substantial” commitment from the United States and other nations to stop a downward spiral of violence and a resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Gen. David H. Petraeus in Washington on Thursday. “There has been nothing easy about Afghanistan,” he said.
General Petraeus, who declined to suggest a time frame for that commitment, also said that Iran, which has been the target of United Nations sanctions because of its nuclear program, had common interests with the United States and other nations in a secure Afghanistan.

Although he hinted that such interests might make talks with Iran feasible, he said he would leave the topic to diplomats and policy makers.

“I don’t want to get completely going down that road because it’s a very hot topic,” General Petraeus told a conference of the United States Institute of Peace, a government-financed research organization. Nonetheless, he said, “there are some common objectives and no one I think would disagree.”

Like the United States, Iran is concerned about the narcotics trade in Afghanistan and the resurgence of extremists there, he said. “It doesn’t want to see Sunni extremists or certainly ultrafundamentalist extremists running Afghanistan any more than other folks do,” he said, while acknowledging that the United States and Iran have “some pretty substantial points of conflict out there as well.”

President-elect Barack Obama said frequently during the campaign that he considered Afghanistan the central front in defeating terrorism. The Obama administration is expected to send 20,000 to 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan over the next year.

General Petraeus also cautioned that security in Afghanistan would not improve if the only initiative was the deployment of more American troops; he said that Afghanistan required a diplomatic and economic commitment as well.

“There has been nothing easy about Afghanistan,” General Petraeus said. Although “the natural tendency will be to look to the way progress was achieved in Iraq for possible answers,” he added, it is clear that Afghanistan is different from Iraq.

Afghanistan has a higher illiteracy rate, more difficult terrain and fewer developed resources than Iraq does, he said.

The daylong conference, which was meant to highlight the foreign policy challenges facing the new administration, also included a warning from William J. Perry, a defense secretary in the Clinton administration, that Mr. Obama will “almost certainly” face a serious crisis with Iran during his first year in office.

Mr. Perry, who is influential in Democratic national security circles and has ties to members of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy team, said that Iran was “moving inextricably” toward developing nuclear weapons.

“And it seems clear that Israel will not sit by idly while Iran takes the final steps toward becoming a nuclear power,” he said.

On Thursday, Mr. Obama filled top Pentagon positions under Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

For deputy secretary of Defense, Mr. Obama selected William J. Lynn III, an executive and lobbyist at the defense contractor, Raytheon, who served as undersecretary of defense in the Clinton administration. Although Mr. Obama campaigned against the influence of lobbyists in government, a transition spokesman said Mr. Lynn came highly recommended by both Republicans and Democrats.

“The president-elect felt it was critical that Mr. Lynn fill this position,” said the spokesman, Tommy Vietor.

Michele A. Flournoy, a leader of Mr. Obama’s transition team for the Pentagon, was selected for the No. 3 job, under secretary of defense for policy. Ms. Flournoy was the lead architect of the Clinton administration’s 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, a strategy and planning document that the Pentagon is required to produce every four years.

The transition team also said that Robert F. Hale, who was assistant secretary of the Air Force during the Clinton presidency, would become an under secretary of defense, serving as the Pentagon’s chief financial officer.

Mr. Obama named Jeh Charles Johnson as the Defense Department’s general counsel. Mr. Johnson served as general counsel of the department of the Air Force during Mr. Clinton’s second term.

Michael Falcone contributed reporting.

[negi]

Did we ever practise any massive airlift from of 120,000 troops with required equipment from Punjab to TN or Vice versa?

Add some dozen stingers or Chinese equivalents of igla to the scenario and we shall see true picture.

[ShauryaT]

The only option viable is buy up junk from all CAR nations which are also Russian made and we are familiar with them(equipment) but again we have to depend on some one.

There is another option, which is in the realm of possibilities, if Indian leadership wakes up to it and actions it.

India, Iran and Afghanistan held a trilateral meeting in Teheran on January 4-5 to discuss alternative transit routes to Afghanistan as Pakistan refused to allow India access to the overland route to Afghanistan.

The Foreign Office spokesman said that the Minister of State for External Affairs, Digvijay Singh, led the Indian delegation to the talks, while Iran was represented by its Road Transport Minister, Ahmad Khorram and Afghanistan by its Trade Minister, Sayed Mustafa Kazemi.

The talks focused on how to operationalise the Chabahar-Melak-Zaranj-Dilaram route from Iran to Afghanistan. Chabahar is a port on the Iranian coast and is crucial to opening this alternative route. Iran, the spokesman said, planned to upgrade the Chabahar-Melak road and construct a bridge on the route to Zaranj.

India, he said, had already constructed a feasibility study on the 213-km Zaranj-Dilaram route, which it planned to construct. Iran, he maintained, would facilitate the entry of Indian equipment and the purchase of material for the section of the road to be constructed by India.

Atul Aneja reports from Manama (Bahrain):

According to highly-placed sources, the Iranian side is looking at diverting most of the trade to Afghanistan and Central Asia from Chabahar, located not far from its maritime border with Pakistan, while reserving the port of Bandar Abbas mainly for trade with Russia and Europe.

The development of this route would have major implications for Afghanistan, Iran and India.

Landlocked Afghanistan has so far been highly dependent on Pakistani ports for its trade. But access to Chabahar will give it more options to govern its overseas trade and lessen Islamabad's political leverage on it.

The Afghan Government is keen to lower its political and economic dependence on Pakistan, as its core is made up of the erstwhile Northern Alliance leadership that fought the Pakistan-backed Taliban regime.

Iran, with the new arrangement, is positioning itself as the custodian of new trade routes to Afghanistan, Russia and Central Asia. Iran has already engaged Russia and India to improve the North-South Corridor that can carry goods from India to southern Iran and thereafter across the Caspian Sea into Russia and Europe.

Iran, India and the Central Asian republic of Turkmenistan have also signed an agreement to transit goods from the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas to Central Asia via Turkmenistan. Goods can be transferred either by road or rail as the Iranian and the Central Asian railway systems have been inter-connected since the mid-nineties.

For India, the Teheran meeting is seen as a consolidation of its post-Taliban Afghan policy in partnership with Iran and the new dispensation in Kabul. Iran, India, Russia and the Northern Alliance had earlier worked together in seeking the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan and the Teheran meeting is seen as part of New Delhi's effort to add a new strategic dimension to this relationship.

The three sides also discussed the possibility of finding road access to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in Central Asia, in case their cooperation can result in linking the Chabahar-Dilaram road to Afghanistan's proposed garland road system. The garland road system, which is likely to be set in motion under international supervision, envisages the construction of a web of inter-locking roads throughout Afghanistan.

[Prabu]

[url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bjp-w ... an/409175/[BJP wants military action against Pakistan[/url]

Bhopal: After taking the international community into confidence, India should launch military action against Pakistan, the BJP president said on Saturday.

Pakistan was continuing with its support to terrorist activities from its soil and hence the military action against it had become almost unavoidable, party president Rajnath Singh said.

Addressing a press conference at the Madhya Pradesh BJP office in Bhopal, Singh charged the UPA Government at the Centre with failure on all fronts.

The Congress-led ruling coalition was soft not only on Pakistan but also on terrorism, he alleged. The BJP chief said tough action against Pakistan should have been taken after the Mumbai train blasts of July 2006.

Prices of essential commodities had risen continuously in the last four-and-a-half years and if they were coming down now, it was not due to the UPA government, Singh said.

[pgbhat]

[url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bjp-w ... an/409175/[BJP wants military action against Pakistan[/url]

Bhopal: After taking the international community into confidence ................
.

there lies the problem

[Lalmohan]

Did we ever practise any massive airlift from of 120,000 troops with required equipment from Punjab to TN or Vice versa?

Add some dozen stingers or Chinese equivalents of igla to the scenario and we shall see true picture.

more than the troops themselves, what needs to be airlifted are all the equipment, supplies, fuel, food, water, etc., which is why you need rail roads and large ships to move armies, not just aircraft. even unkil cannot airlift the entire requirements of 120,000 men easily.

the airlift out of iraq was commendable, but it was people only

and yes, if the pakis contest the skies by whatever means, it will be costly

[NRao]

Based on this article Washington loses a vital link, Indian decision is made: no need to send any troops. However, IMHO IA will miss a lot of fun.

Consider:

The head of US Central Command, General David Petraeus, is soon to launch a surge in Afghanistan that will double the number of US troops from 30,000 to 60,000. At the same time, Pakistan's tribal areas, where militants have extensive bases, will become open hunting grounds for Afghan and Pakistan tribal militias backed by joint patrols of the national armies of the two countries, in addition to North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces

Having to patrol jointly, PA under pressure as never before?

Also, IMHO a coup in PakiLand now is more distant.

[ramana]

NRao, On the contrary it makes it more likely. There is 50 % chance in near term and 90% by May.

Lets see. Paarkalam.

[NRao]

Ramana,

My reasoning was that if "Pakistan's tribal areas, where militants have extensive bases, will become open hunting grounds", then Indian presence will certainly lead to a toxic reaction from TSPA. "Indian presence" does not have to mean patrolling within TSP, it could even mean IA providing civilian support within Afghanistan.

My earlier support of 120K in A'stan was actually to actively participate within TSP. IF done with US/NATO then red lines will not have been crossed and yet the deed would have been done. 120K from India would actually mean around 200K in total to deal with ISI and TSPA.

................90% by May

What are you hiding?

[Y I Patel]

When I read something like this...

Mullen calls India crucial to effort

... by no less than Adm Mullen, who is quoted as saying

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael G. Mullen on Saturday said the Pentagon has "revised" its counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, noting that any solution to the current crisis must include Pakistan and India.

... and said Adm then mentions that there is rising concern over security in Afghanistan, then I have to go hmmm.


Only thing to watch out for is Israel. Think about it: if we do go in, we will rely heavily on Iran for our logistics. Thus Iran itself gets a role in the whole affair, via a back door. If Iran gets a role in influencing success of US objectives in Afghanistan, then US will have that much less incentive to continue the current uncompromising stance against Iran and it's anti-Israel stance... so where will that leave Israel?

[Yusuf]

India has an air base in Tajikistan. The scope can be expanded from there to provide logistics to Indian forces in A-stan.
I am all for stationing India forces in A-stan as it opens up a second front against Pakistan and it will make them rethink their strategy. If India is able to maintain air assets as well out there or beef up the Tajik Air base then it will definitely have the Pakistanis running.

[John Snow]

It depends!

1) How long the mission in Afghanistan lasts

2) By passing through Iran US will get more intelligence up close about Iran.

3) Israel will wait for better time assuming the sanity will prevail in Iran.

4) Iran would also have more time to go about what its doing right now.

It will be a happy large family till the first opportunity to back stab some one not watching his back!

Its a small detour for Israel.

[ramana]

NRao asked

................90% by May

What are you hiding?

hedging 10% for US to see the light and stop it!

As Bond says "Never say never!"

[John Snow]

Agree with ramana garu, most like early rather than late.

It is in the best interest of Zaradri to one more time fall as scape goat and be ressurected later. A coup is what the doctor ordered for him.

Also if TSPA gets sound thrashing on its behind administered by Uncle and Afghan forces, it better happen when TSPA General is in gaddi. That way the H&D takes the beating it should have had long back in 2001/2002.

All depends upon Obama and his coffers, tax cuts , increased spending and then 60,000 troops the money better be even if its fresh off the mint!

[kasthuri]

When I read something like this...

Mullen calls India crucial to effort

... by no less than Adm Mullen, who is quoted as saying

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael G. Mullen on Saturday said the Pentagon has "revised" its counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, noting that any solution to the current crisis must include Pakistan and India.

... and said Adm then mentions that there is rising concern over security in Afghanistan, then I have to go hmmm.


Only thing to watch out for is Israel. Think about it: if we do go in, we will rely heavily on Iran for our logistics. Thus Iran itself gets a role in the whole affair, via a back door. If Iran gets a role in influencing success of US objectives in Afghanistan, then US will have that much less incentive to continue the current uncompromising stance against Iran and it's anti-Israel stance... so where will that leave Israel?

On the other hand, if you think about Obama's interest in engaging Iran in diplomacy and Iran's natural interest in Afghanistan (without Taliban) makes me think Iran could be important here. Also, General Petraeus has stated Iran could be a player in Afghan. Please see the following link.
U.S., Iran share interests in Afghanistan: Petraeus

[samuel]

IMHO, nothing's shaking till the elections are over. After that, the ball is in the US' court. No one from India is going anywhere until the elections are over too, and the Pak response to Obama initiatives in Afghanistan will dictate what kind of invitation India gets, which in turn will influence 10%'s future.

Strengthen Ayni and seek a route through Iran in the interim is what India should do to maintain robust pressure. We can always "step back," if a more comfortable northern route shows up for us (doubtful).

S

[archan]

To add to that, Bharat and Iran do have a more or less pleasant history as modern era states and good cultural image of each other. Back in the 80s we had an Iranian family as paying guests since the guy was studying in Bharat. I am sure there were many such Iranians in India back then. Not sure how it is now.

[Rahul M]

archan, there are still iranians studying in India in the basic sciences. I know of people pursuing their PHD here. academic visits and even temporary positions at Indian institutes for research fellows are fairly common.

[ramana]

I think an Iranian student is trying to dethorne the commies at JNU this year!

[Kanson]

1) How long the mission in Afghanistan lasts

If we have permanent interest in A'stan and a permanent commitment to safeguard that interest then a permanent means of safeguarding that interest should be enacted by means of permanent outpost.