India in Afghanistan

[Philip]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tru ... 12431.html

McMaster’s parading of pictures of Afghan women is a disgrace considering how the US has actually treated female victims in Afghanistan
There was a window when real change seemed possible – before troops needed to stabilise Afghanistan were sent off to Iraq by Bush and Blair and the Taliban came back

Kim Sengupta
Women in Afghanistan have been failed by the West Reuters
Donald Trump was persuaded to send more troops to Afghanistan by being shown black and white photographs of women wearing miniskirts in Kabul in the 1970s, so the story goes. Lieutenant General HR McMaster, his National Security Advisor, produced the pictures to illustrate what the country was like before the Taliban imposed their brutal and intolerant rule.

It is unsurprising that Trump, a man of limited general knowledge, knew little of Afghan history. It may be surprising that a misogynist like him would care much about women’s rights. It was, however, predictable that the news would lead to some idiotic utterings. Such photos are only shown, according to some, for – “right-wing propaganda”, “racist cultural appropriation” and to “justify neo-imperialist war”.

Those who have been to Afghanistan would know that people there do show similar photographs, often of members of their family, a reminder of a society lost to devastating decades of war.

No one, however, pretends that such a lifestyle was the norm across the country. A friend of mine, a journalist later murdered by the Taliban, had a rather wonderful picture of his mother, who lived in Kabul, sitting next to an aunt, from conservative Uruzgan, both dressed in shades of blue: one wearing jacket and skirt, the other in a burqa.

Donald Trump's ever-changing views on Afghanistan
It is also the case that women in Afghanistan have been failed by the West.

First when jihadis were used to fight the Russians, ending, in the process, the left-wing reformist government in Kabul, and then the country abandoned to the Taliban and their savage suppression of women in the 1980s. It was repeated when the Taliban regime of Mullah Omar was overthrown by American and British troops in 2001. At the time George W Bush declared that the job was done, the Taliban were finished. Tony Blair promised “this time we will not walk away”. Laura Bush and Cherie Blair proclaimed that one of the best things to have happened is that Afghan women have been emancipated.

There was a window when real change seemed possible – before troops needed to stabilise Afghanistan were sent off to Iraq by Bush and Blair and the Taliban came back. I interviewed five women at the time who wanted to help rebuild their country. Three years later, three of them were murdered and a fourth had fled and gone into hiding after narrowly escaping with her life in an ambush in which her husband was killed.

Despite all its problems Afghanistan now has women in parliament, in official positions in universities. But they face constant pressure from reactionary clerics and politicians. Schools for girls, meanwhile, are shut down in the areas controlled by the insurgents, teachers killed. The US sending 4,000 extra troops will not suddenly bring victory in the conflict overnight, a longer term policy is needed. But failing to confront the vicious Islamist extremists as they spread their reach would mean yet another act of betrayal of Afghanistan's women.

[Kati]

^^^^^^
One Kolkata newspaper has published a pic of Afghan women in 70's walking down the Kabul street wearing mini-skirts + high heels. Apparently that
kind of pics were shown to DT by his generals to convince him how liberal Afghanistan was.... and why US should stay there.
PATHETIC.
The same generals didn't say how they bankrolled all sundry fundoos to achieve short term goals, and caused a huge setback for the Afghan women.
West has the tendency to cause a mess first, and then asking the rest of the world to come and help them.

[Kati]

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

A lot of things can be achieved without putting boots on the ground, and then becoming an easy target. A smarter plan is to stay under shade and pull the strings. Balochistan has become quieter. I don't know whether our assets are getting compromised or not. Or, there may be a sense of lethargy among some babus. Gilgit-Baltistan is a prime area where real bamboos can be given to two countries inimical to us, but again 'chalta-hai' attitude......

[JE Menon]

Do not underestimate the Americans, their knowledge, know-how, or determination once they set their minds on something... I sincerely doubt American generals in country, or directly involved in Afghanistan, need Trump to show them pictures of what it was like in Afghanistan.

Pakistan is in for a steady and sustained beating, the kind that their ISI wallahs hand to the Baloch over a week in detention. Will be fun to watch and participate in on the sly.

[Trikaal]

It's time to shed status quo and take up a big role if we want to be a player, not a pawn

http://idrw.org/afghan-quagmire-india-m ... -big-game/

Afghan Quagmire: India must learn to play the big game

The US President has spelt out the much-anticipated US Policy for Afghanistan and South Asia. Expectedly, there are enough divergent views expressed within the US and elsewhere. What does it hold for India? To recall, the substantive issues are: The policies are to best serve US strategic interests; the US commitment is “condition-based” and not time-bound; nation-building is not an agenda; and finally, there will be greater operational freedom to the US military. At its core, the policy is the same as enunciated since 2009. Then, as now, it emanates from a fundamentally flawed acceptance of where the root of the problem lies and where the terrorism network is. It is a US dilemma, which it either is unprepared to address or feels inadequate to control the consequences. In the aftermath of 9/11, the strategic community and the world in general referred to this geo-location as the Af-Pak region — the Al-Qaida had its roots there and the Taliban was ruling Afghanistan from 1996, with both organisations straddling the Durand Line. During 2001-03, when Al-Qaida was smoked out of Afghan caves and the Taliban defeated, the core of their leadership and the centre of terrorist activities shifted to bases in Pakistan. The genie took roots with state patronage, as the world now knows, emboldened by Pakistan’s recognition of US compulsions in Iraq and their mutual bonhomie in playing dirty tricks in the years of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. As a result, the war in Afghanistan was not pursued to its logical military end. Since then, the bigger cause of the region’s unrest and export of terrorism is Pak-Af geo-politically and geo-strategically. Unless the US deals with Pakistan, it cannot win in Afghanistan. If the policy is not directed at where the problem is, the US can spend another 16 years and a trillion dollars more, but will only be “Bush pruning” and “Trump cutting”, while the fundamentals of the problem continue to feed and take deeper roots in Pakistan. The US reluctance to even refer to the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai carnage and yet expect India to be a substantial partner must be deeply analysed. The obvious question is: What are the US’ long-term strategic interests in the region that it seems to draw its own “Lakshman Rekha” in its dealings with Pakistan, and how far do they converge with ours? Also distinct is a lack of reference to any regional involvement and cooperative mechanism to reach the envisioned end. India continued its people-centric economic activities in Afghanistan, even when the US and other regional stakeholders kept New Delhi out of the deliberations till a few years ago. For a security-socio-economic situation as in Afghanistan, keeping activities of nation-building exclusive of military operations is fraught with danger. This is especially when the US, wielding the military power, expects others to do the “winning of hearts and minds”. This takes more credence given that the US commanders on the ground now have greater flexibility in the use of kinetics and the reported increase in troops. And if the US is there only to kill terrorists, the type of troops surge may indicate the way: Is it anywhere on the broader Pak-Af region or selective, as Pakistan is? The Durand Line is not accepted by Afghanistan, not even when the Taliban was in power, and the terror that straddles that region must be dealt with as such. While we may appreciate the US identifying Pakistan as a part of the problem, its reluctance to deal with it undermines its own policy; logistics dependence, while true, is not certainly the insurmountable reason. There must be a substantive long-lasting cooperative mechanism prior to our deep alliance with an only US initiated policy. With a purely operational outlook, where is the strategy for peace? However, these are opportune times, and to be counted, we must step up and play our role consistent with our aspirations. We must also learn to play the big game and operate in conditions of ambiguity, in pursuit of our national interests. In Afghanistan, one such abiding strength of ours is the Afghan people; the role we choose to play must nurture and not undermine that strength. (Lt Gen K.G. Krishna (retd) is a former Director, Military Intelligence.

idrw.org .Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website http://idrw.org/afghan-quagmire-india-m ... -big-game/ .

[Kati]

It should dawn to Uncle/NATO that they can't have any face-saving exit strategy or any other feasible solution from Afghanistan without a local assistance. TSP is playing a double game, and Uncle knows it very well. But since during Soviet intervention in Afghanistan TSP and Uncle went to bed together, each knows other's weak spots ( ) very well. However, If Uncle can get over that infatuation then Bharat can help, perhaps setting up bases in Afghanistan, with the assurance that it ought to be allowed to do whatever it wants in Balochistan. But I doubt Uncle would be that much willing, since it has a joint mechanism with TSP in Balochistan to needle Iran in Sistan-Balochistan province of Iran.

[sudeepj]

This face saving nonsense is the motivating factor for 'hard exterior', moth eaten interior nation states like China and Pakistan. Strong and self confident countries such as the US or India do not care and are able to take unemotional decisions based on self interest.

If the US has decided that it wants to stay and win the war, there is very good reason. Pak wants to use Afghanistan as an Islamist 'liberated zone' for its war on India. Such a 'liberated zone' can become a global destabilizing factor and a persisting danger to open societies the world over. (As an aside, if the 'liberated zone' is in Afghanistan, Pakistan is.. a contested zone?)

The second reason is China Pakistan Military corridor has made Pak one of the main area of great power proxy struggles and they are going to pay in blood. Militarily, a one off Chinese base at Gwadar is not going to change anything in the Indian ocean region, but it may reduce pressure on the Chinese in the SCS area. IF it fructifies.

[Vinay_GR]

NARENDRA MODI
‘ATM MODI’ SQUIRMS IN TRUMP’S AFGHAN EMBRACE
India welcomes unprecedented U.S. invitation to play a more active part in Afghanistan, but what was that about the money?

http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopoliti ... an-embrace.

Friends don’t talk money, especially when the friendship is as special as the one India and the United States claim theirs to be. But as Narendra Modi is beginning to find out, there’s no such thing as a free hug, not in Trump World.

Unveiling his much-awaited address on the strategy to end the Afghan conflict, Donald Trump this week said all the things that would gladden the heart of the Indian leader. He blasted India’s arch-rival Pakistan for sheltering terrorists and demanded Islamabad do more to rein in terror emanating from its soil. Modi’s thoughts exactly.

Trump didn’t stop there. In an unprecedented come-hither to India, he described it as a “critical part of America’s South Asia strategy” and invited it to play a bigger role in Afghanistan. No US president has solicited India’s help in Afghanistan or highlighted India’s primacy in the region this openly.

What’s at stake for China as unsure Modi meets unpredictable Trump?

But then he had to spoil it all. In a snarky aside unbecoming in a policy speech, he said: “We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan. But India makes billions of dollars in trade from the United States and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development.”

The Indian government chose not to dignify the money mention with a reaction, concentrating instead on welcoming the new policy. But it rankled all the same. “Whatever Afghanistan is or should be about for India and the US, surely money is the least relevant consideration?” said Shashi Tharoor, a parliamentarian and former foreign minister who chairs India’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs.

Dealmaker Trump’s surprising ultimatum for India in Afghanistan war strategy

In the last three years, Modi has progressively tightened his embrace of the US, in a departure from the more careful approach of his predecessors balancing between the US and China. But this is not the first time Trump has brought up money. Just days before the first meeting between Modi and Trump in Washington in June, Trump singled out India for trying to extract “billions and billions and billions” of dollars in foreign aid to sign up for the Paris climate agreement, drawing an angry response from New Delhi. By the end of Modi’s trip, during which he was photographed repeatedly bear-hugging Trump, a self-declared germophobe, India had in fact signed away billions of dollars in defence contracts without much to show by way of tangible returns.

After all that embracing, has US left India out in the cold over standoff with China?

The new US visa policy restricting Indian software workers, which is playing havoc with Indian IT companies’ traditional business models and putting thousands of their techies out of work, did not even come up when the two leaders met. Instead, Modi got a lecture on the need to relax India’s trade barriers.

“I get the sense that Trump has sized up Modi to be an ATM. His reference to America’s US$24 billion trade deficit with India as reason for India to step up to the plate in Afghanistan was not only crass but downright insulting. The perception it creates in the regional opinion – that Modi is his sidekick – doesn’t do any good for the country’s self-respect,” said former Indian ambassador M.K. Bhadrakumar. “India has been the biggest donor in Afghanistan, and that is a legacy that predates both Modi and Trump.”

A bigger question looms over Trump’s intended role for India in Afghanistan. “It’s not entirely clear what Trump wants India to do that it isn’t already doing,” said Tharoor, pointing out that New Delhi has spent over US$2.5 billion in vital development projects ranging from a major highway and dam to ensuring 24/7 electricity for Kabul, restoring girls’ schools, setting up a major maternal and child health hospital and building the new Afghan parliament.

Modi has demonstrated an appetite for non-developmental aid as well by supplying Kabul with eight MI 25 attack helicopters. There have also been media reports on the possibility of India putting boots on the ground in Afghanistan. But any such decision would be a hard sell at home for Modi, even with his popularity.

“It would be folly for India to be drawn directly into security arrangements within Afghanistan by sending troops, since Indian soldiers would become a magnet for violent attacks, not least by Pakistani proxies,” said Tharoor, an opposition leader.

Why China is caught in India-Pakistan crossfire

Satu Limaye, director of the East-West Centre in Washington, is similarly unsure what Trump specifically wants India to do, adding the details may emerge in the coming months. He, however, finds the “unambiguous invitation to India” in Afghanistan significant. “Until now, the US has been cautious about such encouragement. The invitation seems to be meant to compensate for a less robust US nation-building role,” he said.

Despite its engagement in Afghanistan, India has traditionally avoided involving itself in its domestic politics. The Afghans appreciate this, said Bhadrakumar, who hopes India doesn’t take Trump’s “bait” to step into nation-building. “Why should India carry America’s can of worms?”

The former ambassador is also not convinced if India can trust America’s, or even Trump’s, commitment to Afghanistan. “What happens when Trump’s strategy fails and the exit strategy begins?” said Bhadrakumar, warning of the dangers of hitching India’s wagon to America’s Afghan quagmire that has dragged on for 16 years and shows no signs of ending.

While Trump’s strong reproach of Pakistan has gone down well in India, repeatedly scarred over the years by attacks by Pakistan-based terrorists, many in India’s strategic community are not sold on his commitment, or ability, to punish Pakistan. “It’s difficult to take Trump’s rants against Pakistan seriously until the US demonstrates to Pakistan that it has other options. I would like to see the US first find new supply lines, which India cannot provide,” said Zorawar Daulet Singh, a fellow at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi. “India is a marginal player in Afghanistan, and that is the reality of geography.”



As an immediate neighbour, Pakistan controls major supply routes into Afghanistan that support US troops. America’s strained relations with Iran, the other major Afghan neighbour, only adds to Islamabad’s leverage. India has been trying to promote a port in Iran and railway lines connecting the port with major Afghan cities, but Trump’s hard stance against Iran has jeopardised the project. The Chabahar port, touted as India’s strategic counter to China, is located about 70km from the Gwadar port in Pakistan that China has built as part of its China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

Iran could quit nuclear deal within hours if US keeps adding sanctions, President Rowhani warns

A year after India committed US$500 million to the project, Chabahar remains dead in the water while India’s relations with Iran have become strained, reportedly as a result of Trump’s pressure on New Delhi. While India has cut oil imports from Iran and has started importing crude from the US, Tehran has snubbed India by awarding a gas field it was eyeing to Russia’s Gazprom.
These regional and capacity constraints put a question mark on whether India would want to take Trump up on his offer. Besides, it also serves India better to keep its Afghan efforts as its own, rather than make them a part of an obviously failing and uncertain American project. Also, as Bhadrakumar says, “to be spotted in any Muslim country as America’s junior partner is fraught with danger”. Going Dutch with the Americans, New Delhi might well conclude, is still not its best option in Afghanistan.

[Cain Marko]

Not entirely accurate imho. Modi has been able to get US to sideline tsp and that is a good beginning. In fact it is a first. Where this goes hereon will be real interesting.... Will he truly squeeze tsp, we still see soon enough. But modi should definitely be an ingratiating baniya if this gets the necessary results. Massage that massive ego, promise goodly returns and totally fubar the relationship with tsp. If for example, buying extra hardware, which is unique from the us achieves this, it is money well spent. Hell, get more c130s, tankers, and even a few directly imported solahs if it means this allows Trump to boast about making usa great again, screwing tsp and using drones regularly. Time to wean the US off the maniacal harlot that is tsp.

This could be a win win... There is a lot of common interest between the two countries.