India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Locked
asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by asprinzl »

Finally the truth comes out. For all the vilifications and scorn poured on the Soviets for their Afghan misadventure, the truth must be told that they did an awesome job in trying to move the Afghan soceity from 3rd century BC to 20th century AD- empowering women, building hospitals, concert halls, schools, scholarships for both male and female Afghans to study in Russian universities, medical training etc. In the end the Afghans proved unable to move out of their caveman era civilization. 20th century civilization was, is and will be too much for them while we have all moved forward to 21st century.
Avram
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by ramana »

Kanson wrote:This dialogue, "All options are open" was first heard from foreign minister followed by other ministers at different times. Now, what could one make out if the dialogue is repeated by Indian Army chief ? What are all those options available for Army chief ? :rotfl: Later today we have this news

Check Pak from Afghanistan: Army Chief

Increasing strategic presence in Afghanistan is “one of the factors” India may consider to put pressure on Pakistan, Army chief General Deepak Kapoor said on Wednesday. He, however, made it clear that the decision would be a political one.

“Changing our strategic policy towards Kabul in terms of raising military stakes is one of the factors that is to be determined politically,” he said. Indian has provided $850 million assistance to Afghanistan, but has steered clear from direct military engagement with Kabul.

Kudo to BRF admin Mandeep for giving this story traction when it was still an idea. Now the Chief has endorsed it. Lets see it being implemented.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7807
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Anujan »

ramana wrote:Kudo to BRF admin Mandeep for giving this story traction when it was still an idea. Now the Chief has endorsed it. Lets see it being implemented.
I dont want to second guess the army chief, and have been reading through this dhaaga, but is a medium sized force in A'stan sustainable ? If pakis attack our force in the guise of "hot pursuit of terrorists", either directly or through their proxies, does India have the stomach to attack across Rajasthan ? (remember what we did after Mumbai - nada). What about our supply lines, what about fuel (Amri-khans were importing like 1 gazillion barrels from Pakis everyday).

Wouldnt a more viable strategy be to bring in 5000 Afghan soldiers to desh, train them, send them back with desi advisors. Train A'stan's post masters, set up a postal system, set up a railway system, set up a tv station, use part of the trained afghan soldiers for security ? This will take 5 years even to start off, but it should be a part of our multipronged strategy.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by RajeshA »

Like many others, like ^^^, I too am at a complete loss, why we should send our brave soldiers into a Chakravayu; into a cage willingly, so that the barbarians outside can poke them with their sharp spears.

Afghanistan is neither our home turf nor an hospitable terrain. There are no assured supply lines to it, as our age-old civilizational ties may not prove to be strong enough, and are liable to global political winds, like whether some day some Israeli Soldier does some :P to some Hezbollah fighter or vice versa.

Of course, as the Mumbai Attackers could last so many days on dried khajoors, so too can our soldiers for a few years. Yes and a friend of mines is working on how we can use sand as a fuel instead of diesel. We can also always borrow some beer from the Germans in Kunduz and save them from getting killed by cirrhosis of the liver and alcoholic dementia.

The only thing our soldiers will not miss in Afghanistan is Bollywood Films. For everything else, Allah Malik!
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by SBajwa »

India is the biggest force in the Indian subcontinent and we must start acting that way.

120,000 troops in Afghanistan is good why?

1. Troops get extensive training and exposure to Paki tactics.
2. Troops get experience of working in a foreign terrain and among enemy.

Troops are suppose to be "STRATEGIC FORCES" TOO!

along with 120,000 soldiers we should also send Prithvi and other missile and artillery regiments to be deployed along the durand line.

This will be no different than a Madras regiment fighting in Bengal for an average indian soldier.
archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6823
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by archan »

I think it is in Bharat's interest that a democratic govt. gets stronger in A'stan. It is in Pak's interest that a taliban govt. get to power in A'stan. Bharat has to make sure that does not happen. An extremist-unfirendly A'stan will hamper Pak's jehadi plans in a big way. A developing and modern Pakhtoon population will not give them the cannon fodder to burn into this unending fire that is their war against Bharat. If Bharat cannot go to war for the fear of losing economic edge or taking a nuclear strike then at least it has to make sure that is has some friendly neighbors. I don't think that weakening of Karzai govt. is in Bharat's interest so if Karzai needs our help in maintaining democracy, we should think seriously about it.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Rye »

Apologies to Narayananji for the abuse on the SL thread....I have taken a chirr pirr and some koor aid.

On Topic:

Following the "watch what they are doing, not what they are saying" dictum, it is clear UK and its allies have no interest in seeing all of J&K as an Indian state -- that is a death knell to western dreams of power projections in Asia. Clearly, any benefits of sending Indians into a landlocked area must exist in short, medium, and long term. Elsewhere in the great game thread, people want to think of PoK going to NWFP or Pakjab, rather than asserting India's claim over all of PoK. If India does not reclaim PoK -- It is a guarantee that India will never be any kind of power in the world in the long term (IMO,etc.). Just for kicks, if we assume that all of J&K becomes a full state of India like any other at some point down the line (due to Indian actions, obviously -- the question is what Indian actions are required).

In the long term, the outcome needs to be: India and Afghanisthan become neighbours with a boundary in J&K, so that India can maintain a stabilizing presence in Afghanisthan with the entire supply route being under Indian control.

So the question is what are the intermediate "stages"/"states of being" that are necessary to move from where we are today to the above situation. Clearly, the following events need to happen before the above comes true: (1) All the terrorist camps in PoK need to be cleaned out and wiped clean of all pakistani jihadi elements that are creating murder and mayhem in India (2) The Indian army squeezes out these people with a presence in the north and in the south (3) This means that India needs a presence in the North with a stable supply line (4) Given the clash of interests between India and the US/UK combine (who are the bankrollers of the pakis) in Afghanisthan, India cannot and must not depend on the US for supply routes (5) This mean that supply routes must be diversified before any boots are on the ground...an obvious secondary supply line needs Russian support (6) This means that the first order of affairs is to build the supply route with collaboration with other neighbouring contries like Tajikisthan and other CAR states.

In the above list, it is hard to get to stage (1) with low risk/high reward steps without having gone through stage (2) and so on.

I could also add (7) (to be done before (6) -- (7) Build strong bilateral ties with uzbekisthan and tajikisthan and build capabilities over there to assist Indian presence ahead of time.

One of the important things in evaluating outcomes is the probability of the outcome, which is usually in inverse proportion to the inertia from the current state of the world to a required state of the world. So each individual step has to be of sufficiently low inertia (which means, it must not involve changing the world in order to fix problems, but must be in line with current realities). Building a supply line is doable, and once capability (6) is realized, then low cost and low risk options become available for step (5) and so on.

Of course, the subtext for the entire reasoning here is to aim for low/medium risk and high reward actions with a definite pre-definited outcome. Going to war can be considered a high risk/high reward situation (if the war results in denuking of Pakistan in the world's eyes and reduces its use as a foil against India).

In all of this, "Revenge", H&D etc. have zero value as goals or outcomes and have been ignored.
Last edited by Rye on 17 Jan 2009 04:26, edited 3 times in total.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by RajeshA »

SBajwa wrote:India is the biggest force in the Indian subcontinent and we must start acting that way.

120,000 troops in Afghanistan is good why?

1. Troops get extensive training and exposure to Paki tactics.
2. Troops get experience of working in a foreign terrain and among enemy.

Troops are suppose to be "STRATEGIC FORCES" TOO!

along with 120,000 soldiers we should also send Prithvi and other missile and artillery regiments to be deployed along the durand line.

This will be no different than a Madras regiment fighting in Bengal for an average indian soldier.
Between West Pakistan and East Pakistan, at least there was the direct route of the sea. Between India and Afghanistan there is none. With Iran our relations will remain fickle.
120,000 troops in Afghanistan is good why?

1. Troops get extensive training and exposure to Paki tactics.
2. Troops get experience of working in a foreign terrain and among enemy.
Somehow training at these prohibitive costs can hardly qualify as a strategic goal. Indian forces are being trained in J&K, in the Northeast, in the forests of Congo, in the horn of Africa, and hopefully soon in PoK and Baluchistan. Sending our soldiers to Afghanistan makes sense, if we truly have a goal.

If the goal is to wage war with Pakistan on 1st November, 2009 from both fronts, then please, send soldiers to Afghanistan and pronto, but I would be dead against sending our soldiers in harm's way, if it is unnecessary.

The only strategic gain we can hope for is to save the nascent Afghanistan Democracy and Freedom from Taliban. That is why it is necessary, that we train Afghanistan Army (aka Northern Alliance militia) in thousands, try getting financing for them through international organizations and look for Pushtuns who are anti-Taliban and give extensive arming and training for them.

We need to make a fallback line in Afghanistan: Areas where predominantly Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkomen, Aimaks, Hazara live. Also Pushtun areas of all those tribes, which hate Talibans guest. Behind this line, we have to make certain that we do allow Taliban to sneak in. Afghanistan should be divided into 2 parts; Pakhtunistan, and Northern Afghanistan. We save Northern Afghanistan.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Prem »

Ideally Pashtunistan should have access to Indian Ocean via free Baluchistan.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

Supply is an issue unless the countries to the north agree to pitch in - no allow India to "supply", but actually send food, etc originating from those nations.

I am sure they will do so if the Indian "goal" includes some "goals" that are of interest to them too. That is not an issue at all.

Indian army is trained to fight there - too. IA has had a "second front" phil from 1980 and earlier. Granted Iran was the "second front". A'stan could be the "third front", nonetheless a non conventional front.

Indian Army IS trained to deal with Issues about Pakis (it includes the Taliban and AQ too). They have dealt with them for 20 years.

IA will NOT be in A'stan alone. There should be another 100,000 troops from other nations. And, IF I am to believe Obama and now the UK FM, they expect to ask NATO for more and for offensive purposes (see earlier posts).

The issue from an Indian PoV is not the capability of IA, but the will of the Indian politician. The weak link in the entire chain.

I understand that most people raising concerns about this issue mean well.

I also understand that what India has to pay for what she wants will not be cheap. And, IMHO, these moves by the Islamic fundoos has to be stopped. Thinking of sending 120 K to A'stan IMHO - just the thought - is a very good move. As a warming session perhaps the IAF should place 40 MiG-29s out there.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by RajeshA »

NRao wrote:Supply is an issue unless the countries to the north agree to pitch in - no allow India to "supply", but actually send food, etc originating from those nations.
Supplies includes food, fuel, military hardware, housing material, and a zillion different types of operations supporting equipment. The Central Asian States would not be able to support all these requirements. We could contemplate putting up a refinery or two for petroleum products in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Military hardware would have to be supplied through (imported from) Russia and through Iran, and most of it would have to be stored in store houses perhaps in a neighboring country where security is better. Indian forces should always have two months supplies of everything in storage.
I am sure they will do so if the Indian "goal" includes some "goals" that are of interest to them too. That is not an issue at all.
The most important country with which our goals have to be fully in sync with is Russia. I mean not just a subset of goals, but rather we need a complete overlap of our mission with respect to Pakistan and our plans for its dismemberment. Second country with which we need substantial agreement is Iran. With both Russia and Iran, we would need to have a relationship of a quality, trust and proximity at a level many many notches higher than we have right now. The UPA Govt. cannot deliver on that.
Indian army is trained to fight there - too. IA has had a "second front" phil from 1980 and earlier. Granted Iran was the "second front". A'stan could be the "third front", nonetheless a non conventional front.

Indian Army IS trained to deal with Issues about Pakis (it includes the Taliban and AQ too). They have dealt with them for 20 years.

IA will NOT be in A'stan alone. There should be another 100,000 troops from other nations. And, IF I am to believe Obama and now the UK FM, they expect to ask NATO for more and for offensive purposes (see earlier posts).
None of the countries currently in Afghanistan have the same goals as India, and they will never have since many are dependent on Pakistani goodwill. Our goal is to put up multi-front stand against Pakistan eventually destroying it as well as support the Afghan Nation with state infrastructure and political stability. Their goal is to capture Al Qaida and support the civilian government with infrastructure. So only on goal is common, while we have a serious conflict as far as the fate of Pakistan is concerned.
The issue from an Indian PoV is not the capability of IA, but the will of the Indian politician. The weak link in the entire chain.

I understand that most people raising concerns about this issue mean well.

I also understand that what India has to pay for what she wants will not be cheap. And, IMHO, these moves by the Islamic fundoos has to be stopped. Thinking of sending 120 K to A'stan IMHO - just the thought - is a very good move. As a warming session perhaps the IAF should place 40 MiG-29s out there.
The Islamic fundoos doing harm to India are not living in Afghanistan. The fundoos there are busy with their own stuff and USA. The fundoos we want are living in Pindi. So unless somebody tells me, that the way to Pindi is through Kabul, I would have serious doubts as to what we want to do in Afghanistan!

This idea of sending our Jawans to Afghanistan sends the alarm bells with me. It smells more like the need of some to smoke a superpower joint, than a plan with a well thought out mission, a date to end the mission and a way to bring back our soldiers.

What I want to hear is not so much, why we should our soldiers there (which I admit is important but still a mystery to me), but rather when and how are we going to bring them back; not to speak of the very premature status of an overall political consensus with Russia and Iran, but also with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Question is also whether such an understanding would sit well with NATO and USA.

You just had Mulli-in-Bund in India and his thoughts on Pakistan. Would not Britain, the Paki Appeaser in Chief, spoil the consensus party?

Whenever the mission is to go and destroy, it can work out fairly well, but if it is to go and do nation-building in a mountain range full of savages, it doesn't work out. All that we have seen since USA and NATO moved in into Afghanistan should have given us, should have taught us some lessons.
chandrabhan
BRFite
Posts: 206
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 10:59

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by chandrabhan »

Ramana sir and Philip,
This thread is now going in rounds and rounds. I for one, in the very begining of this thread had mentioned that we must go to A'stan with clear objectives. Opening a second front is not something that can be only done by putting troopers on ground, We can achieve that with 'Toofan wazirs' (Covert operations). If our aim is to pressurise the Amir khans then we must look at other options too.. Meanwhile, we should do a cost benefit analysis.
1. Our long term ideas on the political map of this reason and the related costs we are willing to pay
2. Do we meet our objectives of re-uniting POK with India?
3. Does it serve us to have US in our backyard for long? In case we see it as a long term threat , how do we make sure that the 800lb Guirrilla is made to shed weight and sap his energy? How do we make sure that we are able to put across some bargaining chips?
4. UK is the real Bad-ass. Looking at the statements of Milliband, I am sure that the they are not ready to stop playing the great game. UK has already accepted Chinese lordship over Tibet( considering Britain was the power that had a formal agreement with Independent Tibet) and that can open up a window for China for Arunachal. We can not, rather must not let this opportunity go off. Will putting our troopers on ground help someway in check mating them? Can we meet objective number 2 and nulliffy the The great game theory by gaining an access to CA.
5. We must use Durranis/Tajiks/Ujbeks/ Hazaras to protect our interests and let Talibans Kill more of Brits along with Amirkhans. More US troops means larger target for IED mubaraks and ROG for their Musharaf.
6. Does it help us more to let Baluchis assert independence? Can we assure some prominent baluchi tribes to embrace any of the Hindistic religions - Sikhism/ Hinduism or whatever we wanna call them for us to ensure their independence. We can put troops there to protect co-religionists from genocide? Moreover Pakistan will have no moral and religious claims to this land.

As of now, ifeel fine seeing Talibanis and Anglo-saxons kill each other. We msut be trying to fuel it. Till the time Amir khans cry for help from us of they use BW to cleanse the teritorries we should use covert methods. Even if we help we must have a land supply route thru POK and for that to some we need to wait for Brits and amir khans to die in large numbers.

I know Point number 6 is difficult but we need to be thinking out of the box and audacious in our approach. This point was mentioned by someone on net also and I feel this can really help us shape the future of this region. Every Baluchi must embrace new religion. An independent buffer, Hindistic majority state...
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by RajeshA »

NATO and USA cannot do a thing in Afghanistan. The project should now become an India-Russia-Iran operation.
chandrabhan
BRFite
Posts: 206
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 10:59

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by chandrabhan »

Why are we not taking the china factor into account? If we closely look at the nature of beast - Chinese nation as well as Islam both have a yearning for powerful central authority and they have much in common. Mutual respect for instance. Why are we assuming that chinese will only try and make some movement on arunachal front but US/ISAF/NATO can ask them to hold.
In the light of recent developments (Comments ) by Miliband on Tibet and Cashmere, Goras have their own plans for China. They don't want to disturb the status quo - Providing bn of $ for economic bailout. In case admins feel this post is out of place , please pardon me.

Putting troopers in A'stan is very tricky indeed and China factor should determine the strength and numbers
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

Supplies includes food, fuel, military hardware, housing material, and a zillion different types of operations supporting equipment. The Central Asian States would not be able to support all these requirements. .............
You forgot toothpicks.

Have en EX-IA friend who used to say in 1980s that the IA is ready to land in Iran - with toothpicks as he put it - and start a second front. That was 1980s. (BTW, India and Iran have a treaty for India to use Iran to start a second front - I have posted links plenty of time so those who are interested please google first.)

Today the Chief of Army has stated that they are ready - that it is a political decision, so why are we having second thoughts? (Granted most are not aware of the toothpick stuff.)

The weakness in this chain is Indian politicians and to some extent Indians (this is NOT a knock on anyone - just a statement of what I consider to be a fact - and I hope I am totally 500% wrong.)
We can achieve that with 'Toofan wazirs' (Covert operations). If our aim is to pressurise the Amir khans then we must look at other options too..
IA cannot go there to put pressure on Uncle, or anything to do with Uncle. IF India wants to "teach the US a lesson" then it has to be covert - will take 5+ years to do that.

However, I think this is one issue that the Indo-US views are converging - FOR A CHANGE. This is a very rare opportunity where the US actually thinks, feels, knows that the kind of groups like the LeT are ISLAMIC terrorists - not some freedom fighters as they have subscribed to for decades. They also are feeling the pinch of the ISI. Which is why I feel that the risk India has to take is worth it.

But, the goals have to be clear and the job has to completed - no half way, UN style, Roy-Ghosh-win-some-international-award thinking. The mess has to be cleaned up for good. No 2012 thinking.

Mess = terrorist groups + ISI. No way can ISI stay in place.

It will mean 10s of thousands that will have to cleaned.
Why are we not taking the china factor into account?
Because the Chinese do not have the guts to play the game. They always hide in a skirt (NSG is an example) and play their silly games. They would love to get rid of the terrorist, but not the ISI. I doubt they will act militarily, that will open all their cards and expose their duplicity.
The Islamic fundoos doing harm to India are not living in Afghanistan. The fundoos there are busy with their own stuff and USA. The fundoos we want are living in Pindi. So unless somebody tells me, that the way to Pindi is through Kabul, I would have serious doubts as to what we want to do in Afghanistan!
May be I should be glad that you did not identify a street address within Pindi for India to attack and spare the rest.

Kidding aside, first of all I do not agree with your assesment. ISI which is the primary target is all over the place. I no longer differnetiate between Taliban/LeT and ISI - ISI is the umbrella under which these guys operate.

ISI was behind the blast at the Indian Emmb in Kabool. SO, Pindi ro whatever, just get rid of them.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

Folks,

Let me put it this way. I am not sure if anyone really wants to send any Indian troops to A'stan. Granted the IA Chief says IA is up to the task IF the politicians are ready for it. (I have no reason to doubt that thinking of his, but that is a diff matter.)

My arg is that is eons - perhaps for the first and last time - there is a convergence of goals between India and the rest of the world (that matters, China does not). India should act or pay for lack of action down the road.

The reason I think India must act is that the dynamics have changed. India is no longer up against "Pakistan". India - today - is up against Islamic forces whose sole aim is to convert India into an Islamic state.

BTW, I do not even trust the SA people. SA is buying time to convert India too. Which is why I would like to totally annihilate the terrorist groups - no jail terms, etc. No Paki justice. Heads have to roll. The removal of ISI should be a blow to SA too. As an extension IF Pakis decide to use a nuke, India should nuke SA along with TSP.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Kanson »

My arg is that is eons - perhaps for the first and last time - there is a convergence of goals between India and the rest of the world (that matters, China does not). India should act or pay for lack of action down the road.

The reason I think India must act is that the dynamics have changed. India is no longer up against "Pakistan". India - today - is up against Islamic forces whose sole aim is to convert India into an Islamic state.
Yes, if strategy vaccum is not filled by Inida, then someone is going to fill it.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Rye »

NRao wrote:
However, I think this is one issue that the Indo-US views are converging - FOR A CHANGE. This is a very rare opportunity where the US actually thinks, feels, knows that the kind of groups like the LeT are ISLAMIC terrorists - not some freedom fighters as they have subscribed to for decades. They also are feeling the pinch of the ISI. Which is why I feel that the risk India has to take is worth it.
The official noises made by the likes of Boucher indicate that you are indulging in wishful thinking -- creating a false differetiation between "good army"/bad ISI or "good taliban"/"bad taliban" will be the centerpiece of any tactics the US uses in Pakistan --- the USA seems to have no large strategic goal other than to screw Indian interests in the Afghanisthan region -- time for Indians to quit repeating horsesh1t about how hooking up with NATO in Afghanisthan is beneficial to India. Next thing you know, the worthless Indian politicians will be doing a repeat of the IPKF situation and getting a lot of Indian soldiers killed for no good reasn.

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fo ... F%29&sid=1
We want to see the source of this terror eliminated. We want to see the groups that helped organise this from Pakistani soil eliminated. The most effective way, in our mind, to see that happen is to work with the Pakistanis, get the Pakistanis to take forceful action.
Does this look like there is any alignment between US and India w.r.t Pakistan? EU/Germany just handed over submarines to Pakistan and 1.5 BILLION $ in aid to the pakis per year-- the entire EU/US/NATO Madarch***d cabal is out to screw India...that much is certain going by the actions and rhetoric of that lot.....India needs to work with other countries in the region that have an interest in a stable Afghanisthan, NOT a stable pakistan (which is the US/NATO interest).
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

Rye,

I said "converging", does not mean they are the "same". "Convergence" necessarily means that India is there ONLY to promote Indian goals. BUT, since, such goals have this "convergence" Indian participation along with US and NATO will help all for those "converged" goals.

Since "convergence" is NOT the same as "same goals", there is no issue about "wishful thinking".

Is there a risk - sure there is a risk - absolutely. What does NOT have a risk. Not doing anything has a risk: Mumbai attack. Surgical attacks have a risk, frontal attacks from India (with fantastic supply routes, NO US/NATO, etc) carry a risk. Just thinking of "all options" has a risk: British Foreign Secretary Miliband dictating to India. (The funniest of them all :) )

At some point in time India has to act, or you are bound to get entangled with yahoos like Milibund. And waste time.
creating a false differetiation between "good army"/bad ISI or "good taliban"/"bad taliban" will be the centerpiece of any tactics the US uses in Pakistan ---
Do not understand this.

the USA seems to have no large strategic goal other than to screw Indian interests in the Afghanisthan region
Yes, when goals do not converge there is a risk that the bigger power will step on the toes of smaller nations, which is what perhaps you are referring to when you say "screw Indian interests".

But, that does not mean that India - in this case - cannot get her pound of flesh, using the US/NATO.

India has already got a presence that is not talked about in public.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by RajeshA »

NRao ji,

In Afghanistan, we would be walking into a guerrilla war on enemy's terrain, on Taliban's turf, which you could consider an extension of Pakistan's interests, but the Taliban may not look too different than the rest of the Afghans. Whom are you going to hit?

In this guerrilla war also, the enemy is invisible, and our Indian eyes just do not have the recognition software, just as the Americans and the rest of the NATO also do not have.

Which Islamists do you want to attack? There are variations of them all over the place. By the time you have killed 2% of them, you have converted 20% of all neutrals into enemies, and 40% of your friends into neutrals. So in the end, the only way of winning is killing everybody out there. In which case, we might as drop all our nukes on the hilltops, go home and drink chai.

The only way this thing can work is if this deployment is for 6 months.
First 2 months, you build up your presence, and collect intelligence and draw battle-plans.
Next 2 months, you hit Pakistan from the North, East, West and sea, with everything you have.
Last 2 months, you clean up and start leaving.

Everything else is 'Ley Bayl, Mujhe Mar'! This deployment has to be from the starting Pakistan-specific and not Afghanistan-specific, and as far as I think, none of our friends in NATO will be willing to see our Powerpoint presentations about it.

The only thing I agree on, is that we need to change the ground situation, especially in PoK and Baluchistan, and push the Taliban to skin the Pakjabi Jernails from the North. Only if we show the Goraas, that we are fired up for a fight and willing to take it to the enemy, will they be willing to consider supporting us.

At the moment, our dilly-dallying attitude on Mumbai Attacks and our whines on international pressure on Pakistan, have shown to the British and the Americans, that we do not have a stomach to fight, so they might as well put their eggs in Pakistan's basket, which has the appetite to play the game in Afghanistan and Central Asia. UPA's attitude has lost us the support of the West.

So we should do something! And we should do it with Russia and Iran! USA doesn't matter anymore in Afghanistan. All its NATO allies have completely lost the appetite for a fight in Afghanistan. Obama wants to stick around to get a few hair from OBL's beard, and only because of 9/11. They have other problems. By mid 2010, the will to fight will be gone and even the USA will start packing to go.

So we need an alternative arrangement in Afghanistan, so that Pakistan cannot install Taliban back on the throne in Kabul. For that we need to start the process with Iran and Russia very soon.

If India goes into Afghanistan now, NATO will just hand a broken Afghanistan to India and be gone in no time, but only we would have gone in as friends of NATO and USA, and not with the support of Iran and Russia.

Delhi and Kabul should start to publicly request Russia to intervene in Afghanistan, (as partners of NATO, blah, blah). From there we can take the strategy forward. By mid-2010 when NATO and USA are out of Afghanistan, India, Iran and Russia can move in.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by RajeshA »

Rye wrote:time for Indians to quit repeating horsesh1t about how hooking up with NATO in Afghanisthan is beneficial to India. Next thing you know, the worthless Indian politicians will be doing a repeat of the IPKF situation and getting a lot of Indian soldiers killed for no good reasn.

Does this look like there is any alignment between US and India w.r.t Pakistan? EU/Germany just handed over submarines to Pakistan and 1.5 BILLION $ in aid to the pakis per year-- the entire EU/US/NATO Madarch***d cabal is out to screw India...that much is certain going by the actions and rhetoric of that lot.....India needs to work with other countries in the region that have an interest in a stable Afghanisthan, NOT a stable pakistan (which is the US/NATO interest).
Rye,

you are spot on, as far as I am concerned.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Rye »

NRao wrote:
Do not understand this.
If you go back and read the rhetoric coming out of the US -- they are very clear that they *know* who the "good and moderate" jihadis are and the who the "bad and evil" taliban are.....clearly, their definition of good and bad jihadis are based on the level of threat they pose to the USA, not to India (it is even more likely that the PAKIS will be driving the definitions of the good and bad jihadis). RajeshA has explained better as to what happens if you follow the american script in afghanisthan -- India will end up hurting a lot of the goodwill it has created with the Afghans in the past few years in one shot.
Yes, when goals do not converge there is a risk that the bigger power will step on the toes of smaller nations, which is what perhaps you are referring to when you say "screw Indian interests".
If they step on our d1cks or toes or whatever, we need to be able to put a bullet in their head in response -- this is our neighbourhood and denying these scum a presence in our backyard in the long term should be India's top priority, not assist them in prolonging their presence in the region.

"arre, so what, yaar, the americans are shoving a bamboo pole up our butts but that is only because they have to protect their interests...Indians should focus on what brand of KY Jelly to buy, how far to bend over and the most comfortable separation between the legs" rhetoric is nauseating, but seems to be increasingly prevalent POV hereabouts.
But, that does not mean that India - in this case - cannot get her pound of flesh, using the US/NATO.
Did you bother to think through this? If Indian soldiers have to depend on NATO/US supply lines, whatever pound of flesh you think you can extract will be more than neutralized by American control of India's supply lines. All the US has to do is cut India's supply lines and force India out of Afghanisthan down the line -- all these castles being built in the air will come crashing down.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

If you go back and read the rhetoric coming out of the US -- they are very clear that they *know* who the "good and moderate" jihadis are and the who the "bad and evil" taliban are.....clearly, their definition of good and bad jihadis are based on the level of threat they pose to the USA, not to India (it is even more likely that the PAKIS will be driving the definitions of the good and bad jihadis). RajeshA has explained better as to what happens if you follow the american script in afghanisthan -- India will end up hurting a lot of the goodwill it has created with the Afghans in the past few years in one shot.
I know. The US has come a looooong way, which is why I am not that worried. Forget "they are very clear that they *know* who the "good and moderate" jihadis are and the who the "bad and evil" taliban are..", it used to be that the US used to call them freedom fighters and support them, until 911. The US script has failed, they have no script to follow as we post. It is an Indian script that the US has translated into English and thinks they have written a script. Look at ALL their good scripts - they are ALL Indian from 1990 or so.

I just cannot see the US pulling itself out without Indian help and it certainly has nothing to do with Kashmir.

The US and Britain (specially) is bankrupt as far as strategic thinking in this region.

As far as the US goofing up India goodwill in the region, I do not think that will happen. Culturally it cannot happen - even with Iran. But, clearly there are areas where India will have to deal with the US for the benefit of India.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

Did you bother to think through this? If Indian soldiers have to depend on NATO/US supply lines, whatever pound of flesh you think you can extract will be more than neutralized by American control of India's supply lines
What NATO/US lines? The only nation currently that has a "line" seems to be Germany - that too they can transport ONLY non-military items. So, clearly I did not ever say to depend on anybodies lines. India has a standing in that region that goes beyond the US and NATO, why would India depend on the US/NATO?

Out of curiosity, IF there are SO many issues, why is the IA Chief confident that it can be done?
chandrabhan
BRFite
Posts: 206
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 10:59

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by chandrabhan »

NRao wrote:
Out of curiosity, IF there are SO many issues, why is the IA Chief confident that it can be done?
In fact I am also wondering how come General Kapoor sounds so confident about landing troops in A'stan? Is it merely posturing or is it for real? I just wanna say that we must go for the right reasons and clear objectives. Make them as SMART as possible and get out as soon as possible. Supply chain is the only big worry that i have along with the Niyat of Amirkhans. More i look at the statements emanating out of UK/US all my bhai-chara goes for a toss and this Obama is going to be a pain in the Ar**. All democrats with the exception of Kennedy has been.
I have simple formula for smelling trouble, Anyone who is liked, eulogized by Commies and liberal intelligensia is the person to run away from. We have an opportunity to tie down the Anglo-saxons right here and let them bleed. Obama's accession to throne would be greeted with loads of IED mubarak's. I don't want my country to pay for the grand bargain reached out by TSPA and Amirkhans.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Rye »

NRao wrote:
What NATO/US lines? The only nation currently that has a "line" seems to be Germany - that too they can transport ONLY non-military items. So, clearly I did not ever say to depend on anybodies lines. India has a standing in that region that goes beyond the US and NATO, why would India depend on the US/NATO?
If India can carve out its own supply lines, then why bring in NATO/USA into play - they should not be relevant, yes? How come none of the Afghan plans here talk about an independent Indian set of actions that does not depend on the goodwill of NATO or USA? If the claim is that India will survive without third party support, such claims must be based on a existent set of capabilities under Indian control that can be put to use in Afghanisthan.
I just cannot see the US pulling itself out without Indian help and it certainly has nothing to do with Kashmir.
But..but..isn't the US this super-duper hyperpower that can tie its own shoelaces with both arms tied behind its back? It takes care of its interests...a few 1000 Indians may get killed because of American aid to pakis but then they are allowed to do that since America is a superpower...did I get it that right?
Look at ALL their good scripts - they are ALL Indian from 1990 or so.
That's a new one for me. What are these events with a supposedly Indian script? By all accounts, the US stategeriatrics figured out that there was no such thing a strategic thinking in India back then in the early nineties (as has been posted on multiple threads here), so the above claims are surely bogus.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Sanjay M »

I don't see where the harm is if India deploys in the Northern part of the country, and let's the Americans fight it out with the Pashtuns. I don't see why anyone should be worried about the US getting a free ride off India from this, because the fight with the Pashtuns isn't winnable at all, unless Pakistan's borders are re-drawn.

So the only 2 possible outcomes from an Indian deployment would be:
1) US troops get mired even deeper in the fight with Pashtuns, and are ultimately defeated
OR
2) US is forced to re-draw Pakistan's borders in order to achieve victory

I don't see room for any other major options here.

With Obama now succeeding Bush in the Whitehouse, and being favorable towards increased deployment in Afghanistan, it's like JFK following on the heels of LBJ - like a backwards Vietnam.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

If India can carve out its own supply lines, then why bring in NATO/USA into play - they should not be relevant, yes? How come none of the Afghan plans here talk about an independent Indian set of actions that does not depend on the goodwill of NATO or USA? If the claim is that India will survive without third party support, such claims must be based on a existent set of capabilities under Indian control that can be put to use in Afghanisthan.
I do not see why all of the nations cannot share - in fact I think the problem is so serious that they all should set aside their differences (take a page from The Prophet) and win this stuff.

However, since there have been arguments (NOT a knock on anyone - just an observation) that there are issues with getting the US supply line into the picture, I made that statement. India has had a presence in that region for decades - to support the NA.

Now, that is about supply. The issue about whose flag does the Indian contingent fight under and what are the "rules of engagement" - I have always been of the opinion that India should be there under her own flag. But, I do not know how that can work and if it does not what are the realistic alternatives. But, I do feel the situation is serious enough to find a way out.
But..but..isn't the US this super-duper hyperpower .............
Yeah. True. But superpowers at times have to take a back seat in some fields. The US has spent all her "get out of jail" cards. IMHO of course.
That's a new one for me. ..................
Well. Let me try another angle. The US always felt that Pakis were part of teh solution, IF NOT THE solution. That has failed: per Gen. Powel and now Reidel himself. In between there have been instances such as Kunduz, Indian Emb in Kabol, etc. ALL of them have been a U-turn on teh US part to come to the Indian view. Am I wrong?

More l8r if need be.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by RajeshA »

NRao ji,

Saar, I have some poocch!

a) In a sentence, what is the mission of the Indian contingent in Afghanistan?

b) Where will they be deployed in Afghanistan?

c) What will be their rules of engagement, what level of fighting awaits them and with whom?

d) What support will we require of other countries?

e) According to your guestimate, how long do you think those countries will stay put in Afghanistan and support India?

f) When can the Indian soldiers come back?

g) What strategic goals of India will be achieved by the deployment?
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by John Snow »

"TWO SWORDS DO NOT FIT IN ONE SHEATH".

There is no space for India and Uncle to operate in the same topography. Its different matter if uncle wants to support logistics.

Uncle's GOAT is Taliban and Al Qaeda not ISI + Terrorists +TSPA.

Uncle will run with the hares and hunt with hounds just likeJulius Jayawardene and LTTE did to IPKF

Keep at a safe distance
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6095
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by sanjaykumar »

"TWO SWORDS DO NOT FIT IN ONE SHEATH".



Stranger things have been observed in Rawalpindi's bedrooms.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Sanjay M »

John Snow wrote:"TWO SWORDS DO NOT FIT IN ONE SHEATH".

There is no space for India and Uncle to operate in the same topography. Its different matter if uncle wants to support logistics.

Uncle's GOAT is Taliban and Al Qaeda not ISI + Terrorists +TSPA.

Uncle will run with the hares and hunt with hounds just likeJulius Jayawardene and LTTE did to IPKF

Keep at a safe distance

Uncle is being attacked by the hares, and therefore cannot run with them carefree.

After all, do you expect the Americans to abandon Israel, Gulf allies, etc?
That's preposterous. And therefore AlQaeda won't be accommodating them anytime soon.

I'm in favour of any policy that gets America closer to the Pak border, and even across it.

America's NATO allies are bound into helping it, because NATO has to sing for its supper.
But India is under no such similar constraints, so any Indian deployment in Afghanistan could do as it pleased. Furthermore, an Indian deployment being resupplied by Russia/CARs would be in a position to give vital supplies to US/NATO forces. They would be dependent upon us, not the other way around.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Rye »

NRao wrote:
I do not see why all of the nations cannot share - in fact I think the problem is so serious that they all should set aside their differences (take a page from The Prophet) and win this stuff.
The problem is so serious that the US is giving 1.5 Billion $ to these terrorists that they are pretending to fight (Hillary Clinton has already stated as such)? Does not sound all that serious if all the US needs to do is throw money at terrorists to "solve" their problem. Throw some money, pretend to shoot some al-kayda, declare victory, leaving the entire region under the control of the TSPA and a "cleaned up" ISI -- the very same bunch of terrorist vermin that form the core of "Al Qaeda". Is that all it takes to be a so-called "superpower"? Why should India lift a finger for such a country? The TSPA needs to be destroyed in the long term -- in between, we may just have to listen to our pansy politicians weep on camera and grind our teeth in our sleep thinking about it.

Once the "bad" al-qaeda has been extracted out of the "good" ISI, these "sanitized ISI generals" will then write poetry about their pretty canadian girlfriends called Eric and smell pretty flowers while posing for Indian DDM photographers....that is where all this is hooking up with NATO/USA is headed.

JMTs etc.
Last edited by Rye on 18 Jan 2009 07:22, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

Hares and hounds? Where did they come from? There are ONLY Islamists out there. Have we already forgotten that it was Bin Laden that sent a letter to Bush to convert? And AQ#2 informed the US to convert and join the Islamic economics?

Why are we falling for Milibundisms?

ToI :: Now, ISI training women for jihad in J&K
Daily Pioneer :: Fake notes, real problem
Hindu :: The Lashkar-e-Taiba’s army in India

All Jan, 2009.

Then A list predator strikes. All by Uncle alone, no Indian help or scripts there!

Uncle or no Uncle India needs to act. Is there any doubt about that? Hate to say this, but I think the solution is not to round up bad guys and dump them into a prison. There is no political solution to it, no social solution to it,

RajeshA, will come to your list, BUT IF there are ANY doubts then there is no use going any further.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

The problem is so serious that the US is giving 1.5 Billion $ to these terrorists that they are pretending to fight (Hillary Clinton has already stated as such)?
I ASSUME this is about the $15 Billion for 10 years deal?

That was passed by a committee in Jul of 2008 - some 6+ months ago. It is meant for civilian purposes ONLY - none for military. It has NOT been approved so far - because of Paki behavior. When Biden was in PakiLand Pres Z specifically asked him to get it released - that should tell you some thing.

Actually it is $7.5 Billion for 5 years with a probable extension for another 5 years, the prior has been approved, but not passed.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Rye »

Matters little what the US schedule is to pay this 15 Billion $ extortion money to Pakistan -- such an entity that sucks up to terrorist scum like the TSPA cannot be trusted or allied with unless their actions match their words. So far, their actions are orthogonal to their words.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

Rye,

I share your concerns, just that I am a higher risk taker.

My read is that Uncle has concluded what India knew eons ago: ISI and TSPA HAS to come under civilian government. There are other issues like ret. TSPAians hold on the Paki economy, but that will have to wait for some time. BUT, there can be no compromises on the prior plan.

One of the reasons that the GoI cannot make any progress with "peace talks" is that the TSPA and ISI dictate terms. Reidel's and Powel's statement are referring to just that. This does NOT mean that India and Uncle see eye to eye - they DO NOT. But the one thing they seem to have come to an agreement on is that the ISI+TSPA as we know it must go.

IMHO this is what the 120K is all about. By extension it does include all the terrorist groups + Taliban, etc. They have to go.

As an aside, I am not sure if you are aware of the amount of funds they are using within the US to prevent another 911. It is huge, huge. And, they have developed a special allergy for Pakis. So, I would keep some salt with me when I read about US politicians saying this and that. For their agenda is now being run by Pakis, of the bad variety. The US has no shoe laces to tie.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

Rye wrote:Matters little what the US schedule is to pay this 15 Billion $ extortion money to Pakistan -- such an entity that sucks up to terrorist scum like the TSPA cannot be trusted or allied with unless their actions match their words. So far, their actions are orthogonal to their words.
My point being that India can sit on the side lines or act when there is a chance. So what? Let the Pakis get $15 Billion, as long as the ISI ceases to exist.

The alternative is too costly.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Rye »

Sanjay M. wrote:
Furthermore, an Indian deployment being resupplied by Russia/CARs would be in a position to give vital supplies to US/NATO forces. They would be dependent upon us, not the other way around.
If that is how this is supposed to unfold (Russian involvement with India at the pivotal position), then India has a good chance of playing reality to our advantage.

However, the questions asked by RajeshA need to be answered honestly and accurately by the Indian politicians, at least to the political opposition, if not the general public. Knowing the way losers in the INC, like MMS and SG, play politics, they may well think is very "chankian" (party before country, right?) to create a death trap for Indian soldiers in Afghanisthan so that their political competitors will get screwed if they end up inheriting the UPA's afghanisthan policies, and the following elections is theirs to capture.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

ONLY as a FYI:

Non-violence cannot tackle terrorism: Dalai Lama
The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.
Locked