India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Aug 2017 21:04

chetak wrote:
Austin wrote:What will 5000 more troops on Ground do in Afnistan that 1 lakh plus troops couldnt not do 6 years back ? Afnistan is now a case of cut your losses and move then gain something
Body bags coming out of afghanistan is a zero sum game.

Indian boots on the ground, either under amreki command or under amreki directions means more Indian body bags and less amreki ones.

what Indian military objectives can we/do we have in afghanistan?? some quickly made up mickey mouse ones to justify the deployment??

India wont put any boots on ground on a foreign country after IPKF fiasco no political party has the stomach for it, The only way for India to be in Afghanistan would be under UN Mandate. In the past GWB Jr wanted India soldiers in IRaq and we refused it then.

What I was trying to say was US has spend $2 trillion in Afghanistan in past 16 years and had lakhs of troops there , The new strategy wont do any good like in the past , They did not do any nation building in Afghanistan the ruling elite just took the money and ran away there , Only India did Nation building work in Afghanistan from its own pocket.

US should cut its losses and get out of Afghanistan thats the only way they can save American soldier there and cut the financial loss , There is no Win coming from Afghanistan for US/NATO

salaam · Post by **salaam** » 22 Aug 2017 21:32

AMERICAN MEDIA REACTION INDIA AS NEW ALLY IN AFGHANISTAN - MSNBC (27 mins)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwWV_zI15ZI

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Aug 2017 21:54

While Indian boots on the ground might be a long way off, the point remains that this will increase Desi engagement in Afghanistan. It is an opportunity to make tsp back away from kashmir by forcing it to focus more on nwfp and Balochistan.

If India wants to achieve it's objective of getting pok, and a separate Balochistan, it won't happen without greater engagement.

The idea that US should just leave afg, which it could easily have done, means more tsp influence in those areas and therefore increased trouble in kashmir. 90s redux. Exactly why India was desperately trying to get Trump administration to hang in there. This has happened and the US will expect reciprocation. And the noises coming out of the mea show a rather positive reception of this speech.

The expectation that the US should free Balochistan and fight India's fights is beyond ridiculous and does not merit further response.

Now the only question is how will India engage? More weapons and training for afg? Increased infrastructure projects, which would probably mean greater presence of Indian security forces? Buying solah for single engine fighter competition?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 22 Aug 2017 22:07

I have a really basic question. How tough can the US get on Pakistan while relying on it to provide access to Afghanistan?

The Northern Distribution Route is a non-starter given relations with Russia. The reference to India (billions in trade etc.) in Trump's speech is a throwaway line he himself inserted as part of value add. And it is the same stuff kept spouting about Europe, Japan and SOKO. Without Pakistan, the US cannot do anything in Afghanistan as it already has discovered. The whole thing smacks yet again of a plan without a strategy.

Now, if the US were to enlist India to help it establish a corridor to Chahbahar and in the process, help reconcile the US and Iran, it would be a different story. In that event, we can also help bring the Israelis on board (as neutrals if not supporters) by getting them to tone down their opposition to Iran in exchange for for CBMs.

Boots on the ground? Heck No! Linking Kashmir and Afghanistan? No! Investments in infrastructure, yes.

This 'new strategy' is nothing but an effort to kick the can down the road.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 22 Aug 2017 22:09

Austin wrote:..
India wont put any boots on ground on a foreign country after IPKF fiasco no political party has the stomach for it, The only way for India to be in Afghanistan would be under UN Mandate. In the past GWB Jr wanted India soldiers in IRaq and we refused it then...

No UN mandate. China will veto it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2017 22:15

The whole thing smacks yet again of a plan without a strategy.

Perhaps. And that has been teh general reaction. We have got used to Presidents providing, at the very least, bullet point.

However, Trump has pretty much handed over the operational details and time to the Generals. Pretty much everything is TBD - depends on ground situation - how Pakis behave.

There were a few other chnages: A'sthan is on its own when it comes to administration, etc - US is there to train and "kill terrorists".

He also stated that the bad guys are ISIS and AQ. Interestingly he left the door open for the Taliban to sit at the table.

Trump is going to play golf an not worry about A'sthan. That is the job of his Generals here on out. How to "WIN".

On the flip side Trump's instinct told him to leave A'sthan (and as expected Bannon said "flip-flop"). Trump has aligned himself with his Generals.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 22 Aug 2017 22:20

Putting substantially more troops in Afghanistan is boneheaded, because the logistics for those troops, in the present geo-political and ethno religious conflict circumstances can only be possible through Pakistan, which is the source of all problems in Afghanistan and the larger South Asia region.

The strategy outlined by President Trump lays out a few things clearly:
1. Makes a case for winning this war unlike Obamas cut and run (ISIS, power vaccums) and puts forward an unlimited commitment towards winning this war.
2. Identifies Pakistan as a part of the problem, not the solution.
3. A deprioritization of 'nation building' nonsense, such as the 'Karzai is corrupt' campaign. (As if the US, Russia, China, India, UK are not corrupt..) Realizes that corruption is not at the root of the conflict in Afghanistan.
4. Recognition that India is a part of the solution here, with significant resources we can bring to bear on the fight. At the very least, this may involve putting pressure on Pakistan, economic support to trade and economic ties with Afghanistan etc. Building an economic and cultural life in Afghanistan may be outsourced significantly to India.

The strategy is not there yet, but this is the most clearheaded view of this conflict that I have seen since 9/11. Dont worry, have curry, and watch Pakistan get buried. This, I feel, is the beginning of the end of this war. What are the logical next steps? I feel:

1. A lean footprint in Afghanistan with SF, drones and training roles, with military logistics handled for them via air through India. Non lethal logistics will be handled through Indian trans shipments through Iran.
2. Expansion of the war into Pakistan itself, (so far the war had been limited to the Khyber Pakhtunwa and FATA areas). Drones may bomb high value targets in Karachi and Pindi! While support for BLA and MQM may be ramped up.
3. No more economic support of Pakistan through WB/IMF. No more weapons support and avenues to Pakistanis in the west shut off even more than they already are.
4. The whole point of propping up Pak was to stop the Soviets from reaching a warm water base in the Indian ocean, now with CPEC, Paks have committed to providing the Chinese the same, therefore whats the point of paying them any more ransom money?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Aug 2017 23:24

SudeepJ,
The Point 4 in second group has been forgotten even by the Pakis.

I also hope none of the benign neglect or last minute alerting of GOI as the Pakis were bombing Indian embassy

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Aug 2017 23:39

sudeepj wrote:Putting substantially more troops in Afghanistan is boneheaded, because the logistics for those troops, in the present geo-political and ethno religious conflict circumstances can only be possible through Pakistan, which is the source of all problems in Afghanistan and the larger South Asia region.

Problem is, the supplies for even the existing ISAF troops come only through Pakistan. And since Trump's Iran policy is formulated in Riyadh, there will be no new options from that direction.

Until that factor disappears, not only will no direct economic or military pressure by applied on Pakistan, CSF transfers will continue, albeit much reduced in value (down from $3 bn+ five years ago to about $500 mil currently).

1. A lean footprint in Afghanistan with SF, drones and training roles, with military logistics handled for them via air through India. Non lethal logistics will be handled through Indian trans shipments through Iran.

India doesn't have an air corridor to Afghanistan. Not for military logistics anyway.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 22 Aug 2017 23:43

SudeepJ,
The Point 4 in second group has been forgotten even by the Pakis.
I also hope none of the benign neglect or last minute alerting of GOI as the Pakis were bombing Indian embassy

Yes, what most people forget is, there are only 10-15 thousand US troops and contractors left in Afghanistan. Its well within the capabilities of the great Khan to support the logistical requirements of such a small number of troops. The equipment could be shipped to India, transferred to military, or regular air cargo planes in India and flown to Kabul for the last leg. The equipment and supplies needed by Afghan armed forces is a different matter, but in identifying Pakistan as a part of the problem, not the solution, Trump has put them on notice that if they provide logistics support/safe haven to Taliban offensives, the response wont be just on the Taliban-Afghan forces frontline, but could well be in Isloo or Pindi. The range of options available to the US to punish a weak state like Pakistan are endless. From cyber, to insurgencies, to finance to 'kinetic'.

Problem is, the supplies for even the existing ISAF troops come only through Pakistan. And since Trump's Iran policy is formulated in Riyadh, there will be no new options from that direction.

Until that factor disappears, not only will no direct economic or military pressure by applied on Pakistan, CSF transfers will continue, albeit much reduced in value (down from $3 bn+ five years ago to about $500 mil currently).

Lets wait and watch. Riyadh does not have any real foreign policy beyond resisting Iran. At the same time, Iran itself is not friendly with Pakistan or the Taliban (recall the massacre of Iraninan diplomats in Kabul by invading Taliban forces) so there is an opening for some limited cooperation here. As long as the ISAF does not harm any Iranian interests, there is a possibility for logistic cooperation.

India doesn't have an air corridor to Afghanistan. Not for military logistics anyway.

We do have an air corridor that was recently started. We also have a LEMOA with the US. Lastly, if a commercial air cargo flight originates in Bombay to land at Kabul, what are the Paks going to do? There is no way they can do anything at all.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Aug 2017 00:10

sudeepj wrote:Lets wait and watch. Riyadh does not have any real foreign policy beyond resisting Iran. At the same time, Iran itself is not friendly with Pakistan or the Taliban (recall the massacre of Iraninan diplomats in Kabul by invading Taliban forces) so there is an opening for some limited cooperation here. As long as the ISAF does not harm any Iranian interests, there is a possibility for logistic cooperation.

After all the stuff that's come out of Trump's mouth on Iran? Colour me sceptical.

Trump slams Iran in first foreign speech, delivered from Saudi Arabia
How Donald Trump's travel ban has hit Iran's tourism renaissance
Charlottesville violence: Iran's foreign minister condemns Donald Trump's 'slow' reaction to racism
Iran warns it could have enriched uranium within five days if Trump pulls US out of deal

We do have an air corridor that was recently started. We also have a LEMOA with the US. Lastly, if a commercial air cargo flight originates in Bombay to land at Kabul, what are the Paks going to do? There is no way they can do anything at all.

There is no way to hide the reality of US military supplies being shipped in by Indian carriers to the Kabul and Kandahar airports. The Pakistani response will be to treat it as a breach of trust by India and to shut it down.

Besides which the cost of sustaining a deployment of 10,000 men+ by air alone will be enormous.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 23 Aug 2017 00:23

Color yourself any way you want

But naming Pakistan as the problem in Afghanistan and identifying India as a part of the solution is a first for an American policy statement.

> There is no way to hide the reality of US military supplies being shipped in by Indian carriers to the Kabul and Kandahar airports. The Pakistani response will be to treat it as a breach of trust by India and to shut it down. Besides which the cost of sustaining a deployment of 10,000 men+ by air alone will be enormous.

There is nothing hidden about such traffic and they *can* simply close their air space for Indian cargo traffic, but there will be retaliation and some marginal extra cost for the ISAF. The costs, at least in my judgement, are less than the cost of a defeat in Afghanistan.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2017 00:31

Trump mentioned Pakistan as a problem. What he did not do - yet, is name three others: Iran, China and Russia. That shoe has yet to fall. They all are supporting Taliban in one way or another.

However, the US did nail Iran, Russia and NK a few weeks ago and today nailed some Russian and Chinese entities for supporting NK's nuclear effort .

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Aug 2017 00:39

sudeepj wrote:Color yourself any way you want But naming Pakistan as the problem in Afghanistan and identifying India as a part of the solution is a first for an American policy statement.

It has symbolic value sure and is an indication of basic US attitudes towards India & Pakistan but practical constraints on ground remain unaltered so far as Afghanistan is concerned.

There is nothing hidden about such traffic and they *can* simply close their air space for Indian cargo traffic, but there will be retaliation and some marginal extra cost for the ISAF. The costs, at least in my judgement, are less than the cost of a defeat in Afghanistan.

If ISAF is bombing and raiding Pakistan closing down a logistics corridor is to be expected. Happened after the Salala incident too.

Also, the costs of shipping in supplies by air about 10 times higher than the conventional route - $3/lb to 30¢/lb for surface transport. Those are not sustainable figures for a prolonged period of operations.

THE AFGHAN-PAK LOGISTICS CHALLENGE IN 2012 - Jan 2011

disha · Post by **disha** » 23 Aug 2017 01:12

Did people miss the word "Indo-Pacific". Twice?

salaam · Post by **salaam** » 23 Aug 2017 01:15

Some points to ponder:
1- AD talk or India sharing a 106 km border with Af and need to patrol it in future.
2- Recent air corridor between Delhi and Kabul. If they are sending dry fruits, we might be sending some nice things to support our (3)
3- Multiple Bharatiye-Af co-ordination offices in Af
4- Slow and gradual buildup of hostility and general conditioning of populace towards Chi-Pak by MAD
5- Doklam and continuing to needle Panda so it remains off balance.
6- Recent Naranja SouthAsia talk after M's visit.
7- Emergency purchases for a short intense war.

Seems like we are gonna see a feint being launched from Bhuj/Barmer/Jaiselmer and then an actual mad dash from Uri and Poonch. This will be combined with SpOf actions from Af area.

Maybe this winter will be the end of PoK and CPEC nonsense.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 Aug 2017 01:53

I don't know why people are so ecstatic about Trump's statements. Unless there is some action on the ground his statements about Pakistan's terror support are nothing but lip service.

As for asking for India's help look at the way he did it. He did not say India was a valuable partner and request for assistance. He said, India makes billions from trading with the US and demanded India's assistance in return. That is an asinine statement. Along the same lines as "Mexico runs a huge trade surplus with the US, so they should pay for the wall!".

And we all know that whatever any US president says or does, the State Department is and always has been completely Paki pasand. I don't know if Tillerson is going to change that or if he is even on the same page as Trump on this.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Aug 2017 02:46

NRao wrote:Trump mentioned Pakistan as a problem. What he did not do - yet, is name three others: Iran, China and Russia. That shoe has yet to fall. They all are supporting Taliban in one way or another.

However, the US did nail Iran, Russia and NK a few weeks ago and today nailed some Russian and Chinese entities for supporting NK's nuclear effort .

Why don't you pull out the Chinese take out menu?

If Pakistan which is the front end of all those folks is named and blunted what is the need for all those?

BTW when such comes to shove the US role in proliferation will also come out. Its just not valuable right now.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 23 Aug 2017 03:12

nachiket wrote:As for asking for India's help look at the way he did it. He did not say India was a valuable partner and request for assistance. He said, India makes billions from trading with the US and demanded India's assistance in return. That is an asinine statement. Along the same lines as "Mexico runs a huge trade surplus with the US, so they should pay for the wall!".

Statement is related to Trump's personal style and pandering to his base. There is no point in Indians feeling bad or good based on personal style. There is no concrete demand here, beyond a very general theme about reducing trade deficits. He could call me a N-word, for all I care, as long as he does the right thing in fighting and winning this war.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Aug 2017 05:04

Link to Trump's speech please?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 Aug 2017 05:11

^^^
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/worl ... ubz=0&_r=0

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 Aug 2017 05:14

Viv S wrote: Also, the costs of shipping in supplies by air about 10 times higher than the conventional route - $3/lb to 30¢/lb for surface transport. Those are not sustainable figures for a prolonged period of operations.

THE AFGHAN-PAK LOGISTICS CHALLENGE IN 2012 - Jan 2011

It's not just the cost of air delivery. What do they fly over? And why would Pakistan allow it?

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Aug 2017 05:51

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/trump-ad ... ey-1740778
Trump Administration Had To Put Pressure On India For Afghan Role: Nikki Haley
US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said on Tuesday that the Trump administration had to put pressure on India to step up its role in bringing about a political solution to end the prolonged war in Afghanistan.
World | Press Trust of India | Updated: August 23, 2017 01:44 IST
WASHINGTON: US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said on Tuesday that the Trump administration had to put pressure on India to step up its role in bringing about a political solution to end the prolonged war in Afghanistan.
Her comments came as Trump on Tuesday unveiled his new Afghan strategy retracting from his initial instinct to pull out from Afghanistan. Instead, the US president said, the American troops will "fight to win" the 16-year-long conflict.
In a prime-time address, Trump called out Pakistan for providing safe havens to terrorists but also said that India was making "billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan..."
"We've got to put the pressure on India that they have to be part of the political solution," Nikki Haley told CNN.
The Indian-origin US ambassador to the UN said that Trump was taking a regional approach to end the Afghan conflict. "This is not just about Afghanistan. This is about the region, and so that means that we've got to put the pressure on Pakistan," she said, adding that Pakistan can no longer harbour safe havens for terrorists.
......

I do not think this approach will work with India. India was not allowed into the group for fear of alienating Pakistan. India on its own financed Afghanistan projects to the tune of $2 billion. It is kind of late in the day to abandon Pakistan and to coerce India to come to the table. The few additional troops they are sending will not stem the tide or change the outcome. Furthermore, if trade with the US is put on stake, and India complies, other things will be put on balance to make India acquiesce to Khan's wishes. Buy our outdated aircraft at our conditions or else. India is not Japan or Germany, who were conquered, nor it is UK who have a special relationship. It is not even France that was helped in WWII and after. But never mind, our government has ways of deflecting such wishes quietly, as it was done in the case of Iraq.
Gautam

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 23 Aug 2017 06:11

one thing to be noted ..in all stmts coming out of DC..the reference is always to Haqqani group..never about Let, HM and about Salauddin , Dawood, Hafiz Sayeed or M azhar..and yet they want our cooperation.

sum · Post by **sum** » 23 Aug 2017 06:28

^^ Honestly, Americans would care only about their core interests and dont see why they should give a damn abt us since our own govt doesnt even emphasize these points

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2017 06:50

ramana wrote:
NRao wrote:Trump mentioned Pakistan as a problem. What he did not do - yet, is name three others: Iran, China and Russia. That shoe has yet to fall. They all are supporting Taliban in one way or another.

However, the US did nail Iran, Russia and NK a few weeks ago and today nailed some Russian and Chinese entities for supporting NK's nuclear effort .

Why don't you pull out the Chinese take out menu?

What is that?

If Pakistan which is the front end of all those folks is named and blunted what is the need for all those?

No, Pakistan is not a front. No longer. And that is the point. Such old ways need to change.

salaam · Post by **salaam** » 23 Aug 2017 06:55

NRao wrote:
ramana wrote:

Why don't you pull out the Chinese take out menu?
What is that?

In US atleast, Panda menus basically have 9-10 ingredients. These are mixed together to create 100's of menu items.

What Ramana is saying if that Pak (main ingredient) is mentioned, what is the need of listing all the derived dishes (Bear/Panda/others).

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 23 Aug 2017 07:54

The new policy is a significant moment. Indian involvement in the new strategy would have been already discussed and mutually agreed upon. However grandstanding on this helps Trump to show a minor foreign policy victory as if his negotiation skills brought India to be involved in Afghanistan. In fact, India has been wanting a seat on Afghan table for long and now it is happening.

The only impediment to putting the plan in motion would be the logistics of supporting a contingent of 15K US troops and contractors. Before the policy is publicly announced, it is obvious that some alternate solution would also have been worked out.

No US President including Trump would go out to articulate a specific war strategy without some thought to how it would be successful. This plan seems to have the backing of all the Generals in his cabinet and has been in the preparation for past few months.

Doval's visits during this period should be seen in that context.

One would also expect US to have already stockpiled enough supplies to last a few months.

In addition to Indian strategy circles, this development would be heartily welcomed by Balochistan freedom movement as for the first time they are likely to get a powerful Ally in their fight against Pakistan's ongoing Balochi genocide.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 23 Aug 2017 08:18

What I see is a realization that the war should be fought by the armed forces, with less micromgmt and stupid restraints from the politicals. DT said that several times, in several ways. Left to themselves, the American soldiers know very well that the Pakis are enemies. If things are actually allowed to work, we may see cross-border strikes into TSP from A'stan, or just strikes on TSP from Dronacharya in good numbers. As for India, I read this as near carte-blanche to set up bijnej - and protect it, which means make friends with Pakhtoonistan and Baluchistan. To set up a viable trade route, security of Indian transport across POK must be ensured. When the Pakis hit that, India will use that and go in to clean up POK. It does require some initiative from Dilli. Better than the BO regime's policy which was to let the Taliban win.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 23 Aug 2017 08:56

Cosmo_R wrote:
Viv S wrote: Also, the costs of shipping in supplies by air about 10 times higher than the conventional route - $3/lb to 30¢/lb for surface transport. Those are not sustainable figures for a prolonged period of operations.

It's not just the cost of air delivery. What do they fly over? And why would Pakistan allow it?

Forget air, Pakis have to allow transit cargo to Afghanistan as a signatory to UNCLOS - for free (apart from port and haulage charges of course). If Trump decides to, he can enforce this with a big stick and a few carrot shavings thrown in to sway some high level decision makers. Or he can let foggy bottom get blackmailed once again but the dealmaker he is I don't think he likes to get taken for a ride.

There will be no Indian boots on the ground - India will not bite but more importantly US will have to keep Paki sensibilities in mind and Pakis fear nothing more than Indian boots in Afghanistan. At least that is the public posture. Every time US tries to pressure us to putting men in Afghanistan, we will leak a news story to the Paki press and abduls who will go berserk, block highways & do their sh!t and the US will back off.

This pressure comes at a time when Pakland is close to bankruptcy, which will give huge leverage to Western powers at the IMF/IBRD. Yeah Pakis can go running to Uncle Xi but I doubt he will be any more receptive without getting a huge pound of flesh.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 23 Aug 2017 09:35

yensoy wrote:
Forget air, Pakis have to allow transit cargo to Afghanistan as a signatory to UNCLOS - for free (apart from port and haulage charges of course). If Trump decides to, he can enforce this with a big stick and a few carrot shavings thrown in to sway some high level decision makers. Or he can let foggy bottom get blackmailed once again but the dealmaker he is I don't think he likes to get taken for a ride.

...
This pressure comes at a time when Pakland is close to bankruptcy, which will give huge leverage to Western powers at the IMF/IBRD. Yeah Pakis can go running to Uncle Xi but I doubt he will be any more receptive without getting a huge pound of flesh.

I suspected as much, but did not know the relevant regulations. Bottom line is, Pak does not have the capability to do this. Paradoxically, US dependence on Pak goes higher the larger the number of troops in Afghanistan! Smaller the number, the lower the logistics requirements, and consequently, lower the dependence and higher the freedom of action. Paks can not even stop US war planes from bombing their sovereign territory, if they shoot down or otherwise hinder the logistics for the US war effort under this new administration, the consequences will be severe.

tandav · Post by **tandav** » 23 Aug 2017 09:59

Austin wrote:
chetak wrote:
Body bags coming out of afghanistan is a zero sum game.

Indian boots on the ground, either under amreki command or under amreki directions means more Indian body bags and less amreki ones.

what Indian military objectives can we/do we have in afghanistan?? some quickly made up mickey mouse ones to justify the deployment??
India wont put any boots on ground on a foreign country after IPKF fiasco no political party has the stomach for it, The only way for India to be in Afghanistan would be under UN Mandate. In the past GWB Jr wanted India soldiers in IRaq and we refused it then.

What I was trying to say was US has spend $2 trillion in Afghanistan in past 16 years and had lakhs of troops there , The new strategy wont do any good like in the past , They did not do any nation building in Afghanistan the ruling elite just took the money and ran away there , Only India did Nation building work in Afghanistan from its own pocket.

US should cut its losses and get out of Afghanistan thats the only way they can save American soldier there and cut the financial loss , There is no Win coming from Afghanistan for US/NATO

I for one disagree with the above... India has to reclaim and protect its historic ties with Gandhar. Had the $2 trillion that the USA spent in Afghanistan had been routed through India with US making and supplying equipment and logistics and India taking the lead in manpower, we would have been far more successful in bringing peace back to Afghanistan. Instead we see the sorry state that Afghanistan is in by outsourcing this activity to a rapidly ISIS-fying Pakistan. Trump can convince KSA to start taking security support from India+USA in return for oil to fuel this effort. It is in India's interest to pacifying the murderous strain in Islamism outside its borders, India has to protect Moderate Muslims from the extremists who are desecrating the religion itself and not allowing peace to reign. CIvilizationally Indians understand Afghans far more than the Americans, we can help bring modernity to the region. Heck with Indian troops even Russia may want to support this

Indian Military objectives are but obvious
1) Retake POK and so that a land bridge can be created between India and Afghanistan
2) Retake Balochistan and Sinndh so that the Baloch/Sindhis can get their rights (Constrain Pakjabis)
3) Counterbalance Chinese role in the region
4) Be net security providers for Middle East and Central Asia
5) Many radicalized Muslims want to fight... we should encourage them to go to say Dar ul Harb like Tora Bora where the full spectrum military options can be used against them, they will be more than happy to die fighting the good fight and get their 72 and we can limit the collateral damage in our homelands.

Costs will be massive! but this effort will also provide employment/military discipline to many youth in our over populated land. It is a price that we have to pay to reclaim our heritage.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Aug 2017 10:15

Tandavji,
USA may have spent $2T on Afghanistan, but it was not for the betterment of that country. Most of it went to the military industry and other private companies, so there was never any question of routing anything through India. DT has now said no more nation building, as if that was ever a goal.
Gautam

tandav · Post by **tandav** » 23 Aug 2017 10:20

g.sarkar wrote:Tandavji,
USA may have spent $2T on Afghanistan, but it was not for the betterment of that country. Most of it went to the military industry and other private companies, so there was never any question of routing anything through India. DT has now said no more nation building, as if that was ever a goal.
Gautam

Yes! Let the USA make them weapons and lease it to India and IA for use in Afghanistan. Win Win

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 23 Aug 2017 10:40

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 23 Aug 2017 10:55

The expectation that the US should free Balochistan and fight India's fights is beyond ridiculous

Just as ridiculous as the expectation that India fight the fights of the US, as and when decreed by the US - like it expects from it's rent-boy states.

Now look here you Injuns, you made billions from us. Now it's time for you to earn your keep by covering our ass.

arun · Post by **arun** » 23 Aug 2017 11:28

Indian Origin US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley:

"We've got to put the pressure on India that they have to be part of the political solution"

I wonder where the f**k this US arrogance that they can “pressure” a country like India comes from such that it can even warp the judgement of an Indian Origin individual like Nikki Haley

I hope this arrogance is not a case of the “Saudi Half Wit Prince” type abjectly grovelling type flattery of Donald Trump regards North Korea by our PM Narendra Modi, boomeranging back on us in India as the US assumption that it can pressure India when it has not been able to pressure the much smaller Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is plain ludicrous.

See 5:15 of the below CNN Video for the Nikki Haley’s arrogant comment on pressurising India:

NIKKI HALEY FULL INTERVIEW WITH CHRIS CUOMO - NEW DAY (8/22/2017)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Aug 2017 11:31

US Had To Put Pressure On India For Afghan Role: UN Envoy Nikki Haley

WASHINGTON: US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said on Tuesday that the Trump administration had to put pressure on India to step up its role in bringing about a political solution to end the prolonged war in Afghanistan.

Her comments came as Trump on Tuesday unveiled his new Afghan strategy retracting from his initial instinct to pull out from Afghanistan. Instead, the US president said, the American troops will "fight to win" the 16-year-long conflict.

In a prime-time address, Trump called out Pakistan for providing safe havens to terrorists but also said that India was making "billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan..."

"We've got to put the pressure on India that they have to be part of the political solution," Nikki Haley told CNN.

The Indian-origin US ambassador to the UN said that Trump was taking a regional approach to end the Afghan conflict. "This is not just about Afghanistan. This is about the region, and so that means that we've got to put the pressure on Pakistan," she said, adding that Pakistan can no longer harbour safe havens for terrorists.

"We need to continue to let Iran know that all of this terrorism and their sponsorship of it is not something we're going to put up with. And we need the international community to step up and say, look, if we're going to do this, we're doing it together. It's not the US alone," Nikki Haley said.

She said America's enemies were no longer going to know "what the timeline is".

"What our enemies are going to know is, we're not putting up with the terrorism anymore and we're going to do whatever it takes," she told the network.

Senator Ben Cardin, a ranking member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supported Trump's Afghan policy.

"I think the president, is calling on regional cooperation. That is the right thing. We need to have Pakistan as a more cooperative partner in dealing with Afghanistan. India could be an important partner in dealing with this," he told on MSNBC News.

"What I find difficult to follow is what he's doing on the military side. It looks like he is dealing another surge with additional troops being put into Afghanistan," he said.

Ben Cardin said the US needed a diplomatic surge. "That, to me, is going to be the key, whether he can implement a surge and have the confidence of our regional partners that we can really bring peace to Afghanistan," the Democratic Senator said.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2017 11:33

Ha!Ha! Good one Manish.Expecting Modi to be "Tonto" to the Lone Stranger ,the Donald,ain't gonna happen.Nevertheless,the dawning in the US estab. that India has a powerful role to play in the Afghan imbroglio,as it has been erstwhile doing for centuries,must result in a better understandiong of India's needs too.Firstly,the cleansing of the Paki terror stables.Either Pak starts putting its genuine anti-terror act together or the US and India should do it for them. The US can easily bring Pak to grovelling and prostrating before it by cutting off all mil and eco aid,plus blacklisting/re-carding its key generals who are sustaining the terror cancer and responsible for N-proliferation with NoKo.

This is the "First Commandment" that India must obtain from the US,that Pak must obey,obey,obey.The rest will come once this commandment has been shoved up the nether end of the Paki military pinned to the sharp end of a bayonet!.Until and unless Pak is labelled and treated as a "rogue state",the situ will further deteriorate and conflict will b with us forever.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 07481.html

Rex Tillerson laments 'erosion of trust' with Pakistan as he calls for peace talks between Taliban and Afghan government
'Fighting is going to take everyone nowhere', the Secretary of State said

Alexandra Wilts Washington DC

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson leaves after speaking at the State Department AP
Donald Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said it is time for Afghanistan and the Taliban to begin hammering out a peace accord and that Pakistan can play an important role “in delivering the Taliban to the negotiating table”.

“Fighting is going to take everyone nowhere,” Mr Tillerson told reporters at the State Department in Washington, DC, adding that the US wants to facilitate a reconciliation and peace process but it will ultimately be the responsibility of the Afghan government and the Taliban “to sit down and sort this out.”

“We are going to be there to encourage others,” Mr Tillerson said. “But it is going to be up to the Afghan government and the representatives of the Taliban to work through a reconciliation process on what will serve their needs and achieve the American people’s objectives, which is security – No safe haven for terrorists to operate anywhere in Afghanistan now or in the future.”

READ MORE
Trump says rapid Afghan exit would leave 'vacuum' for terrorists
He also said has been an “erosion of trust” between the US and Pakistan in recent years “because we have witnessed terrorist organisations being given safe haven inside of Pakistan to plan and carry out attacks against US servicemen, US officials, disrupting peace efforts inside of Afghanistan.”

“Pakistan must adopt a different approach, and we are ready to work with them to help them protect themselves against these terrorist organisations ... We are going to be conditioning our support for Pakistan and our relationship with them on them delivering results in this area,” Mr Tillerson added, suggesting that the US would cut off its monetary aid to the country if it does not alter its behavior.

“The idea of US leverage in Pakistan is deeply exaggerated,” Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the US-based Wilson Center's Asia Program, said in an email to the Associated Press. “No matter the punishment, policy, or inducement, there's little reason to believe that Pakistan will change its ways.”

*(Then what do you do> You then have to exterminate Pak with the utmost prejuudice.Threaten to send Pak back into the stone age as was done after 9/11)

“Pakistan has an unshakeable strategic interest in maintaining ties to militant groups like the Taliban because they help keep Pakistan's Indian enemy at bay in Afghanistan,” he added.

The US has been accusing Pakistan of providing safe havens to terrorists for years, and both Democratic and Republican administrations have attempted to address the issue.

On Monday night, Mr Trump declared, “We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately.”

In a reversal of his stance on Afghanistan, Mr Trump said this week that he would carry on the nearly 16-year-old war, promising that American troops “will fight to win”.

While Mr Trump did not specify how many US troops he would send to the country, Mr Tillerson said the troop levels would be announced when the decision is made.

Defence Secretary James Mattis also declined to say how many more troops will be deployed in Afghanistan.

“I'd prefer not to go into those numbers right now," Mr Mattis said during a press conference in Baghdad, adding, “There is a number that I'm authorized to go up to.”

There are an estimated 8,400 US troops currently serving in Afghanistan. While a portion is involved in counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda and Isis-Khorasan, the Isis affiliate in the country, the majority are part of a mission that trains, advises and assists Afghan security forces in their fight against the Taliban insurgency.

The question is whether US and Afghan forces, even if bolstered by a new strategy involving more troops to target the Taliban, can bring enough pressure to push the war towards a settlement.

Critics of an escalation have argued that even the Obama-era surge did not bring any Taliban concessions.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Aug 2017 13:46

yensoy wrote:Forget air, Pakis have to allow transit cargo to Afghanistan as a signatory to UNCLOS - for free (apart from port and haulage charges of course). If Trump decides to, he can enforce this with a big stick and a few carrot shavings thrown in to sway some high level decision makers.

UNCLOS also says -

"Transit States, in the exercise of their full sovereignty over their territory, shall have the right to take all measures necessary to ensure that the rights and facilities provided for in this Part for land-locked States shall in no way infringe their legitimate interests."

Which would be no doubt be used to refuse transit for any non-civilian goods. Also, given that the US isn't signatory to the UNCLOS its locus standi in terms of enforcing UNCLOS mandates is questionable, to say the least.

This pressure comes at a time when Pakland is close to bankruptcy, which will give huge leverage to Western powers at the IMF/IBRD. Yeah Pakis can go running to Uncle Xi but I doubt he will be any more receptive without getting a huge pound of flesh.

And Pakistan is willing to give him his pound of flesh. They mortgaged their sovereignty before, to the US, they'll happily mortgage it again, to China this time.

Bottom-line is, as long as China is backing them (and it is), the US will have limited leverage over Pakistan, regardless of how clear policy directives from the top are.