krishna_krishna wrote:I believe then you have false impression on capabilities of US milistary, just look at Syria , ookraine and Afghanistan.
Also there are contractors on the ground since many years in Afghanistan, why they failed to deliver thus far in Afghanistan (and I also may add Syria ) ?
When you rely on one-line assertions based on preconceived notions rather than facts, it becomes difficult to respond to your arguments seriously.
The facts are as follows:
-The US military is often overrated, definitely not invincible, but nonetheless quite competent. When it is given a clear mission and useful strategic guidance, it usually performs its job quite well at the operational and tactical level. Whether ousting Saddam, clearing Raqqa (with YPG)/Mosul (with PMU), routing Taliban on Shomali Plain, etc.
-Their problem is at the strategic level. As I said earlier Washington's reliance on/cultivation of the Pakis is the main reason why they have not come closer to achieving their objectives in Afghanistan. Similarly Washington's Syria "strategy" was and is a misguided mess.
-"Contractors" can be there for many purposes, and indeed most of the contractors in Afghanistan right now are non-combatants. If the bulk of the fighting force is official US military, it does not matter if contractors are also present. US press coverage and domestic political pressure will still be focused on the war.
- On the other hand the US is involved in multiple conflicts around the world where the bulk of fighting forces are contractors (with only a few SF, drone operators, etc thrown in). These conflicts remain far away from public view for exactly that reason. US voters forget about what is not directly in their faces.
-If the US fighting force in Afghanistan can become primarily contractor-based instead of primarily-US-military based, it gets downgraded in the public consciousness because Americans will stop thinking about it. This will allow the US to essentially maintain a presence in Afghanistan for as long as it likes without domestic political backlash.
-Anyone who thinks the US military-industrial complex will run out of money (@ steady burn rate of ~$50B per year in Afghanistan since 2016), please do the maths. This is not even 10% of US' annual defence budget.
-Hence if the US replaces its official military fighting force in Afghanistan with a contractor-based fighting force, it will have neither financial nor domestic political constraints against remaining there indefinitely.
Conclusion #1: the US will not "win" in Afghanistan as long as it is dependent on Pakistan to supply its forces there. On the other hand neither will it "lose" in Afghanistan because nobody can push it out against its will.
Conclusion #2: the US can both save money and retain/extend influence in Afghanistan if
a) its contractor fighting-force is composed largely of non-US personnel, and cost is shared by other parties.
b) it does not have to rely on Pakistan to supply that force.
Therefore, it makes sense for the US to try and strike a deal with India.
They can offer India (i) full diplomatic and possibly intel support for a campaign to retake all of J&K (ii) a diplomatic blank cheque to dismember Pakistan as we like (iii) full support against Chini aggression if necessary (iv) opportunity to extend our influence into Afghanistan and control a land route from India-Balwaristan-Afghanistan-Central Asia.
[Note that the above also serve US interests directly as they basically make mincemeat of CPEC and offer the US an inroad to create alternatives for OBOR].
In return they will ask for deployment of Indian troops, possibly as "contractors", to replace some/all of the US military personnel in Afghanistan. And to allow Indian territory, including liberated J&K/GB, to be used as the logistical conduit for the US/Indian presence in Afghanistan. Now I, personally, do NOT think this would be a good option for India.
I think it's better to just let the AfPak stalemate continue; hit Pakistan hard whenever we need to; let the progressive instability eat away at Pakistan, with some help from RAW; and wait/watch for the right opportunity to dismember Pakistan and takeover POJK as and when we want, rather than being obligated to the US for it. We do not want to be left holding the bag in Afghanistan if anything goes wrong. Importantly, our most pressing need is to rapidly develop a $5T and then $10T economy... which will become much more difficult if we embark on such a project.
You can agree with me or disagree with me, but I will only respond further if the arguments are factual. If you want to believe that US is on its last legs in Afghanistan, that Taliban are on the verge of sweeping into Kabul and then rushing into J&K for Ghazwa-e-Hind, ok... don't let me stop you.