India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 11 Dec 2018 21:05

^^are they in some sort of relationship?

uskumar · Post by **uskumar** » 12 Dec 2018 15:15

Pentagon moves India office out, reduces manpower

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 13 Dec 2018 09:08

uskumar wrote:Pentagon moves India office out, reduces manpower

Not trivial at all, If you read the situation with porkis. The itch is there on both side, if you read the signals terroristan was removed from the list within 24 hours after being banned as the pattern has been in the past. Also there is a talk of Afghanistan end play with us envoy in porkistan.

Looks like one of the conditions is have to degraded indo massa relationship and it was business as usual. Porkis know only massa can give them hard cash no one else not even Saudi's so good for India IMHO in long run at least transactional relationship between massa and India would be bear open and will be slap in the face of massa passand cool aid drunk gang.

Peregrine · Post by **Peregrine** » 21 Dec 2018 18:57

Trump throws Kabul, New Delhi under the bus with Afghan withdrawal move - Chidanand Rajghatta

WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump is ordering an American drawdown in Afghanistan, bringing home some 50 per cent of the 15,000 US troops over the next two months. The move will effectively throw the Afghan government under the bus, and beyond that, endanger Indian presence, investment, and stakes in the country, since it is expected to open the floodgates for the return of Taliban and other Pakistani terrorist proxies.

Trump’s decision to start withdrawing from Afghanistan, which even some American experts described as a defeat, comes on the heels of a similar departure from Syria he announced abruptly over Twitter on Tuesday. The twin disengagements, which are in keeping with the non-interventionist outlook he often expressed during his Presidential campaign and after, led to the resignation on Thursday of Defense Secretary James Mattis.

Trump falsely tweeted that Mattis was “retiring,” but the General, who was US defence secretary Jim Mattis quits as Trump announces Syria withdrawal sometimes referred to as the only adult in cabinet who could counsel the mercurial President, sent a resignation letter that laid bare their differences, including the broader issue of treatment of allies and the real threats to the United States.

General Jim Mattis will be retiring, with distinction, at the end of February, after having served my Administratio… https://t.co/PqB9L51hvN Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 1545344467000 “

“My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues,” Mattis wrote. “We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances,” he added, clearly implying Trump was not doing it.

“Because you have the right to a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position,” the departing Defense Secretary, who met his Indian counterpart Nirmala Sitharaman four times this year for talks, said.

The US President remained unconcerned even as the foreign policy and strategic establishments had a meltdown in the hours after announcement, as he battled to secure funding for a border wall from the Congress in the face of a looming government shutdown, engendering jokes that the greatest military in the world was good for only tackling refugees and asylum-seekers.

“Getting out of Syria was no surprise. I’ve been campaigning on it for years, and six months ago, when I very publicly wanted to do it, I agreed to stay longer. Russia, Iran, Syria & other are the local enemy of ISIS. We were doing [their] work. Time to come home & rebuild,” he explained over Twitter, as he was excoriated by even Republican lawmakers and many conservative talking heads, save a few isolationists.

Trump did not refer to the Afghanistan drawn-down, but he asked, “Does the USA want to be the Policeman of the Middle East, getting NOTHING but spending precious lives and trillions of dollars protecting others who, in almost all cases, do not appreciate what we are doing? Do we want to be there forever?”

Does the USA want to be the Policeman of the Middle East, getting NOTHING but spending precious lives and trillions… https://t.co/fNDrsdz1RJ — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)1545307014000

The US involvement in Afghanistan has lasted 17 years and Trump has often expressed doubts about the utility of American troops there, evidently untutored over the 1990s vacuum that led to the rise of the Al Qaida and the 9/11 catastrophe, which has been the basis for the interventionist argument espoused by the likes of Mattis and other top US Generals, as also many leading US Senators, including Republicans.

“The conditions in Afghanistan – at the present moment – make American troop withdrawals a high risk strategy. If we continue on our present course we are setting in motion the loss of all our gains and paving the way toward a second 9/11,” warned Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a key Trump ally on the domestic front.

The Afghan drawdown became imminent the moment Trump announced the Syria withdrawal with many analysts turning their attention to the fertile ground that gave rise to Al Qaeda and 9/11 much before ISIS appeared on the scene.

“How do you think the US precipitous withdrawal in Syria is viewed by the Taliban? The Taliban must smell blood in the water. Why would it compromise when it sees the US so eager to leave? Since when is negotiating from a position of weakness (the US) considered a clever tactic?” asked Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal, referring to recent US efforts to negotiate with the Taliban often without keeping Kabul in the loop.

Others recorded yet another episode of American inconsistency and unreliability. “If stories about US drawdown from #Afghanistan are true, Pres Trump will have done exactly what Pres Obama did: Send troops in, only to withdraw them prematurely, thereby proving the #Taliban’s maxim: Americans have watches, we have time,” Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US, noted sagely.

Cheers

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 02 Jan 2019 19:57

Trump bolsters strategic ties with India.

https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... y-5519154/

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Jan 2019 22:22

That Rajghatta article is nonsense.
He talks like US was protecting Indian interests in Afghanistan.
Most of the sordid attacks on Indian assets happened during height of US deployment in Afghanistan.
With full knowledge of US.

Drawing down US troops exposes the true nature of Pak involvement in Afghanistan.
And clears the fog in Indian mind.
And more importantly Afghan minds.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 03 Jan 2019 04:31

ramana wrote:
Drawing down US troops exposes the true nature of Pak involvement in Afghanistan.
And clears the fog in Indian mind.
And more importantly Afghan minds.

+1 Ramana

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 03 Jan 2019 04:47

the question is will india act like it did in 90s, supporting NA or something more. Now we have access through chahbahar. how feasible it is to tighten screws with border being fenced (Afpak) and taliban on rise. The thing heavily in India's favor is paki economic deep stress, with no way out except sinificaiton or bending to pick up the soap

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jan 2019 04:55

Sinification ayana maha!

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 03 Jan 2019 10:55

ramana wrote:Sinification ayana maha!

Ramana garu, to add to that,Americans have been forcing India to deploy troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, while not stopping the sale of arms to Pakistan or Naxals and anti-India NGOs. In any case, even if these were stopped, India will not deploy in afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was a big loss to India. Iraq was supplying cheap oil to India, Saddam kept the Sunnis in check and their intel helped Indian intel catch anti-India Sunni terrorists. After the invasion of Iraq, we took a hit in oil prices, the Sunnis started leaking out like mosquitoes and India lost its foothold in the middle east.

Under LEMOA the US will build oil and ammo dumps to store their moolah in our depos, so that American ships can refuel, rearm and operate out of the Indian ocean. Earlier they were begging that India must Americanize all Indian weapon purchases so that America can share the common ammo in case of a war. India refused that. So they came up with a new workaround to allow them to store their weapons for their own use, even if India isn't a buyer of their arms. This is why they wanted India to buy F16 (Still trying) , but India chose Rafale. This is most probably why France is engulfed in yellow jacket riots right now (Americans are expert in color revolutions). The last line is my speculation but the same kind of protests happened when the US was upset that France was selling Mistral ships to Russia. Finally France capitulated under pressure and cancelled the sale.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 03 Jan 2019 12:23

krishna_krishna wrote:
ramana wrote:Sinification ayana maha!
Ramana garu, to add to that,Americans have been forcing India to deploy troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, while not stopping the sale of arms to Pakistan or Naxals and anti-India NGOs. In any case, even if these were stopped, India will not deploy in afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was a big loss to India. Iraq was supplying cheap oil to India, Saddam kept the Sunnis in check and their intel helped Indian intel catch anti-India Sunni terrorists. After the invasion of Iraq, we took a hit in oil prices, the Sunnis started leaking out like mosquitoes and India lost its foothold in the middle east.

Under LEMOA the US will build oil and ammo dumps to store their moolah in our depos, so that American ships can refuel, rearm and operate out of the Indian ocean. Earlier they were begging that India must Americanize all Indian weapon purchases so that America can share the common ammo in case of a war. India refused that. So they came up with a new workaround to allow them to store their weapons for their own use, even if India isn't a buyer of their arms. This is why they wanted India to buy F16 (Still trying) , but India chose Rafale. This is most probably why France is engulfed in yellow jacket riots right now (Americans are expert in color revolutions). The last line is my speculation but the same kind of protests happened when the US was upset that France was selling Mistral ships to Russia. Finally France capitulated under pressure and cancelled the sale.

Thereby, painting a big target on our back.

and we still wind up as their bitch.

We have failed to leverage our position effectively by tamely agreeing to all the alphabet agreements without tangible anything in return and we still remain a soft target of their deep state.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jan 2019 12:25

"Don't Know Who's Using It": Trump's Dig At PM Modi For Afghan Library

WASHINGTON:

HIGHLIGHTS
Trump said the library built by India was of no use in Afghanistan
India has committed $3 billion in assistance to help rebuild Afghanistan
India behind reconstruction of Afghan parliament, high school in Kabul

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday took a jibe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi for funding a library in Afghanistan, suggesting it was of no use.

The US President brought up India's aid during a rambling press appearance at a cabinet meeting as he defended his push for the United States to invest less overseas.

While stating that he got along with PM Modi, the US President said PM Modi was "constantly telling me he built a library in Afghanistan."

"You know what that is? That's like five hours of what we spend," he said.

"And we're supposed to say, 'Oh, thank you for the library.' I don't know who's using it in Afghanistan," Donald Trump said.

It was unclear to which project he was referring, but India has committed $3 billion in assistance to Afghanistan since US-led forces overthrew the Taliban regime after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

arun · Post by **arun** » 03 Jan 2019 19:09

^^^ A longer excerpt of the US President's rant regards our country's efforts in Afghanistan:

“I could give you an example where, I get along very well with India and prime minister Modi, but he’s constantly telling me he built a library in Afghanistan. Ok a library. That’s like, you know what that is? It’s like five hours of what we spend, and he tells it, and he’s very smart, and we’re supposed to say, ‘Oh thank you for the library’.

“I don’t know who’s using it in Afghanistan, but it’s one of those things.”

From the UK's Independent:

Trump mocks India’s prime minister Narendra Modi over library in Afghanistan: ‘I don’t know who’s using it’

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 03 Jan 2019 19:13

ramana wrote:Sinification ayana maha!

??sorry googleshwara didnt help much

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 03 Jan 2019 20:32

Trump is kind of crystal clear, it is the DDMitis of these reports that is groPing around.

In a nutshell, Trump
- is pissed at countries that sent token troops who man some console, deep inside Bagram and claims parity at the high table, while his troops patrol bad lands alone. Pontificating Canada, French and scandies must be at the top of this list since they constantly piss on his shoes with their usual sanctimonious drivel
- thinks lots of countries including India is spending on stuff that does not matter in his opinion
- wants Indian troops in their thousands in Afghanistan, providing actual support instead of the namby-pamby NATO MUNNA types’ contribution. Basically a rich dude doing a “don’t be like my dysfunctional family” to the recently adopted child
- is telling PM that instead of doddering around building libraries that no aysha wants to be caught in during a taliban re-education campaign, India should man up and occupy Afghanistan

He is ranting, but based on what he heard from around his office. Hope the pakis are listening

rgosain · Post by **rgosain** » 03 Jan 2019 20:54

Jsst after Sept 11 2001, Vajpayee offered the Bush Admin Indian forces, bases and support for any mission in Afghanistan. This was opposed by the SD of the USA because of the pro China, Saudi, Pakistan lobby, so today, 17 years on, there is still a veto on Indian forces in Afghanistan thanks to the SD.
India should look at regaining POK as a first step to sending forces to Afg.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 03 Jan 2019 20:58

India has too many issues to handle at present to get involved directly militarily in Afghn. It can only provide support like it did to the NA.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jan 2019 21:22

DT is showing his frustration at his generals and allies but made a mistake in naming India which has done much to cover the US back by ensuring a stable Afghanistan. As I tweeted if there were more libraries for Afghans to study in US troops would not be facing such hostile environment.
Its Indian support to Afghan govts since Karzai that gives the Afghans a hope of alternate model to the US backed Pakistan based Taliban.
He just did himself a disservice and most likely kissed away his support for 2020 elections.

India too has options.

A friend has created a graphic that shows all in one glance the support of India vs US
Will try to link it.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 03 Jan 2019 21:40

Tens of thousand dead in Kashmir due to American and Western duplicity, why should we be concerned about 9-11 related events. Use them like the have used us. Let's tell them to hold talks with Taliban, AQ, ISIS........... just like they used to tell us whilst Indian soldiers died in Kashmir.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jan 2019 22:20

Has the graphic I mentioned

https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/1 ... 39744?s=19

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Jan 2019 22:22

france and Canada have contributed large troop numbers to Iraq and Afghanistan over the years. france leads the effort in the sahel for counter ISIS operations in significant numbers. even Denmark and spain send significant troops and take casualties... but clearly no one has unkil's resources or deep pockets... only japan/Mongolia/Bangladesh send 100-200 troops
American media reports selectively

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jan 2019 23:10

BD sends large nos for UN operations. it is one of largest contributors.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 04 Jan 2019 00:07

Supratik wrote:India has too many issues to handle at present to get involved directly militarily in Afghn. It can only provide support like it did to the NA.

Sir, My thoughts on this are slightly different, we should not box ourselves on the constraints put on us. A twin front for paki will significantly accelerate their collapse. But for that we obviously need a strong danda of either US or russia to keep china out of equation.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 04 Jan 2019 00:25

ramana wrote:Has the graphic I mentioned

https://twitter.com/ramana_brf/status/1 ... 39744?s=19

A suggestion - let the text background be made more transparent. That will allow the flags to be seen through. At present it is hard to notice the Indian and US flags and the message does not come through immediately.

nam · Post by **nam** » 04 Jan 2019 00:26

We may not be able to send troops, but what is stopping us from bankrolling ANA with few millions? or getting them some badly needed kit?

Can we not transfer some of our 105MM IFG? or T72s? Can we not pay for a 3-4 regiments of T72 with ANA?

Trump's words may be crude, however he is metaphorically telling us.. that we are all talk.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 04 Jan 2019 03:24

I think the MEA made it clear that India does not send its troops out of country unless it is mandated by the UN. India has had a long history of colonialism and does not want any part in a new world type of colonialism. It is simply not the ethos of India. Trump is lashing out because he knows that the US can no longer support endless occupation and wars around the globe. It's debt servicing is going to balloon in the next few years.

The bulk of the troops that died in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Afghan wars were Indian - and India is not going to do this again. The 4th Afghan war Russians died and in the 5th war the Americans died.

disha · Post by **disha** » 04 Jan 2019 06:34

Key to Afghanistan is breaking up of Bakistan.

Here is the dilemma of a super-power. Without US support to Bakistan, India can easily walk over Bakistan. It is a different matter whether India does it or not, but it is definitely doable by India from US pov.

If India walks over Bakistan, then who wields the big dada stick? In Asia, it will be India holding the big dada stick (Bakistan is no Taiwan) and US has to deal with a new dada on the block (UNSC and all that).

Further it will be losing control over central Asia on behalf of fUK. Remember, fUK partitioned India and created Bakistan as a way to be in Great Game and deny access to Russia (and Soviet Union) and become a player in the central asia.

So if US needs to stay in that great game, US ends up as a sponsor of Bakistan and in Afghanistan. However this is unsustainable.

And then Trump comes along, he wants to get out of Afghanistan (and every where else). He does not want to feed the Bakistani snake. His EU/NATO allies are thumb suckers. fUK still lives in the glory of the raj and fancies itself as the avant garde light cavalry brigade locking up horns with the big bear in Crimea. With the big bear in Central Asia. With the big bear in london. With the big bear everywhere else.

US has to show that it is a big supah pawah by locking up horns with the big bear in Crimea & Syria & Eyeraq and everywhere else. And it does not want to spend time/money and more importantly body bags in Crimea. Or libya. Or Syria. Or anywhere. That is some conundrum.

Now if US gets out of Afghanistan, who owns it? That country is land locked. Bakistan cannot own it. Bakistan broken up means India is the asiatic lion and definitely not a US munna like Japan or Korea (it has a mind of its own) which cannot be allowed.

And that is a pamir knot.

Trump will continue uttering inane utterances as long as it will lead him to believe that umrika is great and nobody is doing a great damn job of keeping Upghanistan free and fair and democratic and it is only them who can do that great damn job and rest of the world safe and the world better acknowledge it. At the same time, pay america to keep the world safe.

The recent Trump tweets should be seen in that regard.

Indian strategy should be objective detachment. Point out where it is helping and continue to help 'humanitarianly'. An unstable afghanistan is west's problem. If China wants to enter afghanistan via Bakistan, so be it. It again is west's problem (including Russia's this time). Since Bakistan cannot have two sugar daddies. It is either umrika or it is cheen. And neither wants to keep the bakistan suckling milk from their economies*.

*Saudi Barbaria thinks it can get a nation the size of Bakistan cheap. For Saudi Barbaria, $5B is chump change to own Bakistan as a country.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 04 Jan 2019 06:37

ArjunPandit : Sinicization, sinicisation, sinofication, or sinification is a process whereby non-Chinese societies come under the influence of Chinese culture, particularly Han Chinese culture and societal norms.

Also to add to above discussion here is snippet from dip state :

1) they believe they can co-operate (allies) with Chinese (incl Koreans, japans ityadi) and Saudi's .
2) Enemy no one russkies
3) Salafi form is what tis not liked, Islam does not equate to atankwadi's. They are ok with religion of peace
4) Current form of leadership attitude means transactional ,umbrrika first and alone ( this style is not preferred by deep state)
5) multilateral co-alition, transformational is what deep state prefers, there will be a day when top realize that time has come for transformational role (formal receding from numero uno spot) in the community of states.

Worries :

1) N proliferation , others are watching eye ran and Korean example and they believe these weapons give them some form of impunity
2) Climate Change and climate migration
3) Mega slums (countries in which cities grow beyond control or local govt cannot provide necessary services strangely he provides Mumbai as an example)
and become breeding ground for extremist recruitment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjrAKDC0Dx4

Must see for all the gurus.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 04 Jan 2019 10:20

About 20% of the allied casualties in Afghanistan have been non-US/UK troops (and I am not counting uniformed Afghans who have perished by the ton). See http://icasualties.org/, this is very reliable and up to date.

As for Indian involvement in Afghanistan, we don't need overt boots on the ground; however covert/training/humanitarian assistance kind of military outfits should be fielded (and probably are) under Indian command or UN command only. This is an unwinnable war and the Afghans don't take kindly to foreigners interfering in their primitive way of life; however we don't get to be a major power when we don't try to protect our interests in our own neighbourhood.

So what are our interests in Afghanistan? Trade - exports of food products, finished goods, machinery, import of minerals and agricultural produce (dry fruits); awarding of infrastructure projects to Indian companies; service/soft power export - education, medicine, entertainment. Containment of anti-India platforms, nurturing of anti-Pak forces, and monitoring/throttling of Chinese inroads in the region. There is a lot of upside for us, and anything we don't pick up will be purchased for lower prices by the Chinese or Pakis who will then sell it to us at a fat profit.

If we don't seem to bring value to Afghanistan, US will sanction Chabahar right away and shut down the one route we have. Chabahar is a strategic device that cuts two ways - we need to do just enough to keep the US happy, so Chabahar will continue to function - and US can itself benefit from having another access route into Afghanistan via Chabahar. In that sense, our Iran relationship rests on how we can solidify our Afghanistan strategy.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Jan 2019 10:59

rgosain wrote:Jsst after Sept 11 2001, Vajpayee offered the Bush Admin Indian forces, bases and support for any mission in Afghanistan. This was opposed by the SD of the USA because of the pro China, Saudi, Pakistan lobby, so today, 17 years on, there is still a veto on Indian forces in Afghanistan thanks to the SD.
India should look at regaining POK as a first step to sending forces to Afg.

which part of the ameriki perifidy over the years have you not understood??

what do we gain from "occupying"afghanistan??

BTW, ABA never "offered" the Bush Admin Indian forces, bases and support for any mission in Afghanistan. Bush very badly wanted Indian troops in eyraq and thankfully we passed on that very generous offer.

Every power involved in AF want "Indian boots on the ground" without specifying the terms or even the benefits that would accrue to us of such a rash action.

We are not a colonial army anymore. We should not fight other's wars nor should we ever fight in countries that have done us no harm.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Jan 2019 11:10

yensoy wrote:About 20% of the allied casualties in Afghanistan have been non-US/UK troops (and I am not counting uniformed Afghans who have perished by the ton). See http://icasualties.org/, this is very reliable and up to date.

As for Indian involvement in Afghanistan, we don't need overt boots on the ground; however covert/training/humanitarian assistance kind of military outfits should be fielded (and probably are) under Indian command or UN command only. This is an unwinnable war and the Afghans don't take kindly to foreigners interfering in their primitive way of life; however we don't get to be a major power when we don't try to protect our interests in our own neighbourhood.

So what are our interests in Afghanistan? Trade - exports of food products, finished goods, machinery, import of minerals and agricultural produce (dry fruits); awarding of infrastructure projects to Indian companies; service/soft power export - education, medicine, entertainment. Containment of anti-India platforms, nurturing of anti-Pak forces, and monitoring/throttling of Chinese inroads in the region. There is a lot of upside for us, and anything we don't pick up will be purchased for lower prices by the Chinese or Pakis who will then sell it to us at a fat profit.

If we don't seem to bring value to Afghanistan, US will sanction Chabahar right away and shut down the one route we have. Chabahar is a strategic device that cuts two ways - we need to do just enough to keep the US happy, so Chabahar will continue to function - and US can itself benefit from having another access route into Afghanistan via Chabahar. In that sense, our Iran relationship rests on how we can solidify our Afghanistan strategy.

sanctioning India is not that easy anymore.

If there is any move by the US to hurt Indian interests on chabahar, the quad in the indo pacific will just as easily become a triad and all those alphabet soup agreements that the amerikis forced on us will remain just paper bound only.

India's non alignment days are long over. If not the US, it will be russia.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 04 Jan 2019 12:05

chetak wrote:sanctioning India is not that easy anymore.

If there is any move by the US to hurt Indian interests on chabahar, the quad in the indo pacific will just as easily become a triad and all those alphabet soup agreements that the amerikis forced on us will remain just paper bound only.

India's non alignment days are long over. If not the US, it will be russia.

Who said anything about sanctioning India? Sanctions exist against Iran, and US can take actions as it sees fit to impose those sanctions; and these can hurt countries that do business with Iran including us. Chabahar is in Iran, the same place we import a ton of fuel from (in rupees, at low prices I may add). Banks and intermediaries (Chennai petrochemical corp for instance), their international finances, their officials can be acted against under the sanctions that already exist. US have very magnanimously

given us a waiver for 6 months, and we fully expect they will continue - but this can stop.

I am only enumerating the specific threat to us from the US in the scope of Afghanistan.

Will the US be able to hurt us strategically? No, that ship has sailed and the worst is history: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 192594.cms.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 04 Jan 2019 13:04

krishna_krishna wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjrAKDC0Dx4
Must see for all the gurus.

Wow that's a return to good old Cold War mentality, best suited for Foggy Bottom:
1. Russia is the threat
2. Iran is a menace
3. China we can do business with despite everything
4. We are most worried about nuclear proliferation

yeah right we know how
5. This president sucks (he didn't say that explicitly, but it's pretty clear), wait for the next one
6. as mentioned earlier the gratuitous reference to Mumbai

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Jan 2019 13:52

Trump's latest insult to India, PM Modi about his " library" gift to the Afghans, actually their parliament building, making fun of the PM nust shows how superficial this do-called strategic friendship with the US and its pres. actually is.He cares a sh*t about India, humiliates our PM and is derisive about our people.

Our gallant MEA has sprung up in indignation and retaliated by remaining as silent as the night! Cowards all. Had Trump said this about the Chinese, his ambassador would've had his backside burnt and effigies of Trump would be birning all over India.

I sincetely hope that this damaging incident brings back the senses of the pro- Yanqui clique in the Delhi durbar,

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 04 Jan 2019 14:06

Philip wrote:Trump's latest insult to India, PM Modi about his " library" gift to the Afghans, actually their parliament building, making fun of the PM nust shows how superficial this do-called strategic friendship with the US and its pres. actually is.He cares a sh*t about India, humiliates our PM and is derisive about our people.

Our gallant MEA has sprung up in indignation and retaliated by remaining as silent as the night! Cowards all. ...

Come on, don't be so jazbaati (or is your outrage coming from some other angle?). Trump made a fool of himself; it makes us look great - people will remember that Modi built a library in Afghanistan and was proud of it. There was not a single snicker in the room when he made his "joke". Trump cares sh*t for anyone but himself, established fact.

As for MEA response, it's been extensively covered if you cared to look https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south ... pe-at-modi

<added later>

Trump was on a rant. In the same meeting, he said that he basically fired his defence secretary because he failed at his job. Now that is something Mattis should be pissed about; not only Mattis but every military officer and military family. Who in his or her right mind would like to serve as the next (permanent) defence secretary? Certainly not anyone who has achieved anything meaningful in life - nobody would like their life's worth destroyed by a brash nutcase boss. Trump will have to recruit bottom feeders like Mnuchin (whose career highs include terms at KMart and Sears) to replace Mattis.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/p ... erals.html

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 04 Jan 2019 14:51

surprised to see so much traction here to trump blathering comments ..i mean what is new here?

I guess there are still folks who are not yet tired of the all the winning..

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Jan 2019 16:11

ArjunPandit wrote:
Supratik wrote:India has too many issues to handle at present to get involved directly militarily in Afghn. It can only provide support like it did to the NA.
Sir, My thoughts on this are slightly different, we should not box ourselves on the constraints put on us. A twin front for paki will significantly accelerate their collapse. But for that we obviously need a strong danda of either US or russia to keep china out of equation.

Apart from self-restraint, it is also a constraint of geography.

Every time this question of India deploying troops to Afghanistan has cropped up I have always wanted to know how we will maintain the supply lines for the troops?

A token deployment for ceremonial marching might be supplied via China or Bakistan or Iran or we might even buy expensive provisions from Russia for a token presence. But how will we supply a deployment that will take the fight to Taliban and make a difference?

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 04 Jan 2019 16:34

wouldnt the only sustainable way would be through PoK? The next alternative, very costly though, is through chahbahar. Retaking PoK no matter how costly, is the first step in eliminating the limitations placed on us by British Raj. With regards to trump comments, Trump is playing to its gallery and making no diplomatic pretences. He's right in saying that even India's $3Bn fade in front of what US spends. Of course he's not wise to understand why do they need to spend that much in first place or perhaps too cunning to not mention that even after knowing that.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Jan 2019 19:20

Only viable option is through POK.

Where was the last (or was it the last but one) Taliban head coming from when he was taken out by drone inside Bakistan? Iran! Iran supported NA against Taliban and now supports Taliban against America. Chabhar is open for resupply till it suits the Iranians.

Our Afghan strategy can be passive or active but focus of both has to be Bakistan while the operations inside Afghanistan has to be a holding one.

1. We can passively wait for Bakistan to break apart while continuing our march to building a better economy and a bigger say in the constantly changing world order.
2. We can actively assist Bakistan on its path to its 72.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 04 Jan 2019 20:34

^^very similar to my thoughts. In fact a presence in afghanistan will make pakis focus on two ends. Their economy can not sustain a two front war. If not they will have to direct some more proxies back to afghanistan. Imagine the cost they have to incur on the fencing of afghan border. Now we know that fencing is just one part of it. There are patrols, electricity etc all needed for it. Can pukis afford it?