The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

[ramana]

Once the Indian Muslims identify more with idea of India than the TSP project goes kaboom. And that will happen sooner than later.

[somnath]

Once the Indian Muslims identify more with idea of India than the TSP project goes kaboom. And that will happen sooner than later.

Is there any doubt on how the Indian muslims (in general) feel? As MJ Akbar put it perceptively once, Indian muslims should thank Allah twice everyday for having left left them on the eastern side of the Radcliffe Line rather than the western side!


BTW, the air corridor idea isnt feasible for maintenance of even a small-scale mission - its too expensive...If that could work, the US would have done it long back...Just fly the planes above Pak and not bother about negotiating the tortuous territory and be blackmailed...The route through Russia and Central Asia too has been tried - AFAIK its been done in a limited amnner as welll - but again, too complicated politically and too expensive...The cheapest land routes to Af is through Pak and Iran...The US can either try a limited deal with Iran, or create its own "domain" in Pak through the Blackwill plan...Either ways, Pakistan would be left stratehgically hamstrung........

[shiv]

90% of Pakistan's population is concentrated along the Indus river and its tributaries in Pakjab and Sind which form about 40 odd percent of Pakistan's land area. 45% of Pakistan's area is Baluchistan. If you look at a map of Pakistan's roads you find that all the highways are in the Sindh-Pakjab region and run North-South.

There is no major link in the West of the country running North-South from Quetta to Gwadar. In fact (IMO) Pakistan's real strategic depth is in Baluchistan and I am yet to figure out why the and who mooted the "Afghanistan as strategic depth" which could be a bogey. North south links in Baluchistan with trunks leading east to Sindh and Pakjab would IMO make more sense (to me) than fighting their way through Afghanistan via roadways vulnerable to Indian attack.

Maybe ramana had the right explanation in pointing out that Pakis have fed themselves with the Mughal history of India and see Afghanistan as the "natural route" for th Mughals to go as they return to their roots and once again move forward for battle of Panipat IV and thence to dominate Delhi.

Or perhaps there is a slightly different explanation. The Pashtun tribes have always been "restive" but at least there have been links with Lahore and Sindh as British agents used these areas as bases to govern the NWFP. The administrative set up already existed in 1947. Baluchistan OTOH was "way out". Baluchistan (known as the state of Kalat) was not definitely and unarguably part of British India even at partition. It was made part of Pakistan after partition and there have been conflicts ever since. Perhaps that is why West Pakistan never formally developed Baluchistan.

Of course Pakis were in a state of uneasy truce with the Pashtuns too, and it was most certainly the cold war that gave the Pakis the power and authority to take over Afghanistan. For this, credit must go to the USA. But before all that I really wonder if Pakis thought that it would be easy to pour down the plains to the east and conquer the inferior heathen races of India.

For all these reasons Pakistani transport infrastructure was developed mainly in the North South axis just west of the Indus, with Karachi remaining the sole significant seaport. That means American goods come in via Karachi and move North along existing roadways to Afghanistan. Large parts of Pakistan's major roadways are within Prithvi I/Su-7/ range of the Indian border. Forget DPSA. A few select routes are Pinaka-ble. If America needs Pakistan to fight a war in Afghanistan, India will need to keep off Pakistan

For China it is a different problem. They are looking at large volume transit though Pakistan. The primary chokepoint is PoK and the Khunjerab pass region where from where roads are frequently blocked by landslides and the journey takes several days from islamabad to the Chinese border. This is not currently a route for heavy, high volume transport. As fas as my knowledge goes there are engineering hurdles involved that will require an army of Chinese to build a seriously motorable road from the border to Islamabad. I say army of Chinese because they are the only ones with the incentive to build that road. My estimate is that it will take a decade from 2010. For those who are interested YouTube has several videos of journeys along the Karakoram "highway". It is worth watching a few before talking of the ease with which the Chinese will slip in. They will slip in alright but not without some effort.

The next Chinese problem is a port. The problem with all minerals, including oil is that they are shipped overland in trains (better) or trucks or in pipes, but when they come to a port they need to have a temporary storage area in which the mineral sits while being shifted from ship to train or train to ship. These area are juicy vulnerable targets in war. Karachi was attacked by Hawker Hunter aircraft in 1971. The DPSA was nowhere in sight. Once the terminals start burning and a ship or two are sunk at the harbor - the port becomes virtually useless for several months and maybe years after a short war. China may desire to dominate India, but it will have to take its shipping out of Karachi to a less vulnerable port.

Since most Pakistan roads are north south along the Indus - those roads are all Prithvi-able. There are no PoK-Gwadar roads. The plan is to ship the goods down from China via Pakjab and Sindh parallel to the Indian border but 100 to 150 km away and then build new infrastructure heading west to Gwadar parallel to Pakistan's coast. The Gwadar must be developed which might be a minor issue compared with the road infrastructure yet to be made. For the foreseable future those roads will be vulnerable to Indian attack.

If you recall, I have mentioned in an earlier paragraph that war between India and Pakistan will upset US transport of goods via Pakistan. That will remain true for China. Both China and the US have to balance out any aims of opposing India with the utility of Pakistan as a transit route. Too much belligerence against India and the transport gets cut. It's tough but that's how the cookie crumbles. Both the US and China are welcome to continue any war of suppression against India via Pakistan. But their transit plans will have to be on tenterhooks or on permanent hold.

[ManishH]

The Blackwill plan of an integrated "pushtunistan" across the Durand line merits serious thought...

SomnathJi and Shivji:

I think Pushtoonistan won't benefit India one bit. What Pak will do is end up co-opting southern afghanistan into pushtoonistan and into itself. A sudden change of heart and Taliban will turn into TLI (taleban light infantry) deployed on LoC. India is benefiting more in the current state where NWFP fighters are in conflict with US and Pak army.

But I agree completely that pushtoonistan will salvage US - by giving carrot of pushtoonistan, US might get an end to AfPak war on "peace with honor" basis. Pushtoonistan will also play into Pak strategic aims - Pak wants to do to Islamic world what Prussia did in post-napoleonic times with Germany. There are parallels between Caliphate dreams and Gross-Deutschland. Our job should be that Pak meets the fate of Prussia.

I think Indian resources are better spent trying to spread conflict in Sindh/Baluch. The key is Irani help, we need to make Irani fear of Sunni encirclement win over their natural craziness.

[ManishH]

In fact (IMO) Pakistan's real strategic depth is in Baluchistan and I am yet to figure out why the and who mooted the "Afghanistan as strategic depth" which could be a bogey.

There are 3 reasons why Afgh. is touted as strategic depth by Pak ...

1) Human Resource - A factory of ill-educated low-aspiration youth who are ready to fight one day with India. A backup you can say in case the current supply of said youth from Punjab dries up due to prosperity/good sense coming to civilian populace.

2) Ideological - Afgh. was first instance where they think Islamic jihad succeeded against a super-power. And they myth of ghazni/khyber pass.

3) Conduit to central Asia

Baluch for Pak is -edited- just a source of raw materials. It cannot be strategic depth for Pak because there's not much "human resource" over there.

I don't think highways have any strategic consideration today in Pak's wargames with India. It's idea of war with India is 1000 cuts or a nuclear holocaust.

[shiv]

Baluch for Pak is more like what Orissa/Bihar/Chattisgharh is to us - just a source of raw materials. It cannot be strategic depth for Pak because there's not much "human resource" over there.

Saar this is an odious and inappropriate comparison that serves only to devalue any possibility of merit in the rest of your post. Is it completely necessary to take an unfair and ignorant swipe at India to express some opinion about Pakistan? Besides who is "us" when you speak of "what Orissa/Bihar/Chattisgharh is to us ". Please don't include me or the rest of India in that. Leave me out and speak for yourself.

[ManishH]

^^^ No swipe intended at all and I indeed speak for myself. Having spent two great years in
Jharsuguda, Orissa.

It's only an analogy - Baluch rich in natural resources. Just like Orissa/Bihar/Chattisgarh are. The comparison doesen't go beyond that.

I don't see any reason for taking offence

[somnath]

Large parts of Pakistan's major roadways are within Prithvi I/Su-7/ range of the Indian border. Forget DPSA. A few select routes are Pinaka-ble. If America needs Pakistan to fight a war in Afghanistan, India will need to keep off Pakistan

There is no Indo-Pak happening right now..An a US trasnport plan is hardly going to be a cause for starting one...Any transit route through Pak used by anyone will be vulnerable to Indian aircraft during a war...Which is why the US goes to great lengths to prevent a war in the first place...Ditto for China..We did not initiate a war when the Karakoram highway was built...We are not about to start one when/if the Chinese starts putting up a transport network linking up with Gwadar...

The essential point about avoiding Indo-Pak conflict remains true for both US and China, but really the thresholds for conflict are too high for India to be really material...Certainly not US, even China is not itching for a fight with India...What China however does have as an objective is to cut India down to (stratgic) size, which is somehwat opposite to US objevties vis a vis India...Hence, a Chinese-sponsored Pak will be a far more formidable adversary than the current US-sponsored avatar..

Manish-ji, agree with Shiv - no point equating Bihar with BAlochistan (though I didnt know Kalat was part of British India, I thought it was a princely state)...Added later - no worries! All of us usually only speak for ourselves, Shiv-ji needs to remind everyone that that is what is indeed happening!

[ramana]

X-Post....

http://tribune.com.pk/story/129856/emer ... nese-subs/

The Ministry of Defence has asked the federal cabinet, which meets today (Wednesday), to approve purchase of conventional Chinese submarines

How is TSP paying for those PRC subs when its bankrupt? I guess with US money. Have we looked at this aspect? Earlier US aid would get recycled back by buying US weapons. Now it goes to PRC along with US trade deficit!

[RajeshA]

New Routes for USA into Afghanistan

BTW, the air corridor idea isnt feasible for maintenance of even a small-scale mission - its too expensive...If that could work, the US would have done it long back...Just fly the planes above Pak and not bother about negotiating the tortuous territory and be blackmailed...The route through Russia and Central Asia too has been tried - AFAIK its been done in a limited amnner as welll - but again, too complicated politically and too expensive...The cheapest land routes to Af is through Pak and Iran...The US can either try a limited deal with Iran, or create its own "domain" in Pak through the Blackwill plan...Either ways, Pakistan would be left stratehgically hamstrung........

The viability of USA using a J&K+PoK+Wakhan Air Corridor into Afghanistan is much higher than US flying military aircraft over Iran. As things stand, an air corridor for USA through Iran is politically so off the realms of possibility, that it is a little laughable! The geopolitical tectonic plates in Asia are aligned completely differently.

somnath ji,
I would be very much interested to know more about maintenance issues regarding the J&K+PoK+Wakhan Air Corridor. It is understood that one would need aircraft able to fly at high altitudes. But what does that mean? Does that mean, US have no such aircraft?! Or is it a refueling issue? Or is it the issue of what to do, if the aircraft is shot at and crash-lands?

Has the US tried even test flights over this corridor to pronounce it inviable? Has India thought seriously about offering USA such a test facility?

[somnath]

^^^RajeshA-ji,

Its too expensive to transport every single item - mineral water to F16 spares - by air lifting them all the way..Sustaining it for an extended period will run even "helicopter Ben" out of bills to print

Further, it wont even be J&K-PoK-Af, we will never be able to allow large US military base, even a logistical one to be set up in India, forget in J&K...The planes will need to fly all the way from Diego Garcia! Or Sri Lanka

In fact, if the air corridor was feasible the US would have tried that out right above the current road route that they are using! It would have cut out a lot of risks (and thereby blackmailing ability of Pak) of the ops...

about Iran, it looks substantially implausible...But then, the US has cut side deals with Iran in the past, despite all the rhetoric I had written before - India has spent a lot of time and money on building the Chabahaar route....There is an opportunity for us to at least start offering that as part of a grand (ok, limited) alignment of interests between Iran, US and India...Iran is as anxious to prevent a second Taliban take-over of Af..the alternative is economically feasible, the political cover needs to be built...

[chaanakya]

Baluch for Pak is more like what Orissa/Bihar/Chattisgharh is to us - just a source of raw materials

Having spent two great years in Jharsuguda, Orissa.....
It's only an analogy - Baluch rich in natural resources. Just like Orissa/Bihar/Chattisgarh are. The comparison doesen't go beyond that.

Well I thought India indeed comprises of all states including those highlighted above. However I would like to know who are those "us" to whom these states are "just a source of raw material". I think this is not the way to describe any region of this country. I don't know what type of great years were spent to deserve this comment for Orissa and other states.

[RajeshA]

Relevance: Speaking of changing US role in Pakistan

New Routes for USA into Afghanistan

^^^RajeshA-ji,

Its too expensive to transport every single item - mineral water to F16 spares - by air lifting them all the way..Sustaining it for an extended period will run even "helicopter Ben" out of bills to print

I think we are not speaking of mineral water here, but rather military supplies, urgent supplies, personnel transport and perhaps combat sorties.

I presume that most of the non-military supplies would be transported over land route from Europe through Russia, or even by aircraft, as has been agreed by USA and Russia.

So I am talking about air connectivity between the Indian Ocean and Afghanistan using the J&K+PoK+Wakhan Air Corridor.

I think you have misunderstood the suggestion on the use of such an air corridor. It is not meant to replace the land supply route through Pakistan. For that Russia or the Georgia+Azerbaijan+Caspian+CAR route can be used.

Further, it wont even be J&K-PoK-Af, we will never be able to allow large US military base, even a logistical one to be set up in India, forget in J&K...The planes will need to fly all the way from Diego Garcia! Or Sri Lanka

Giving the Americans a whole air base in India is of course out of the question, but use of an Indian Air Base for refueling and maintenance of American aircraft with a small American ground crew can be discussed. May be with time letting the Americans load their aircraft in India is also possible! Medical treatment of injured personnel in India can also be considered. Except for maintenance of aircraft, I am in favor of using Indian personnel for logistics and medical care.

If American supply lines for the air corridor are routed through India, and American aircraft are allowed to reload, refuel, repair in say Pathankot, then the air hop over J&K+PoK+Wakhan Air Corridor into Afghanistan/Pushtunistan is not really that big!

All this is however possible, only if

1. America establishes an independent Pushtunistan, the logical consequence of the Blackwill Plan, and
2. accepts an increased Indian role in the development and engagement in Pushtunistan, and
3. moves to accept PoK as legally Indian territory, and
4. stops supplying Pakistan with weaponry, designed for use against India.

In fact, if the air corridor was feasible the US would have tried that out right above the current road route that they are using! It would have cut out a lot of risks (and thereby blackmailing ability of Pak) of the ops...

As said, the air corridor is not meant to replace the land supply route!

about Iran, it looks substantially implausible...But then, the US has cut side deals with Iran in the past, despite all the rhetoric I had written before - India has spent a lot of time and money on building the Chabahaar route....There is an opportunity for us to at least start offering that as part of a grand (ok, limited) alignment of interests between Iran, US and India...Iran is as anxious to prevent a second Taliban take-over of Af..the alternative is economically feasible, the political cover needs to be built...

Here is something I wrote a while back.

Here is the deal. India helps America free itself of the dependence on Pakistan for supplies. How?

USA allows India a free hand to trade and deal with Iran. India can build an oil refinery in Iran and in Kazakhstan, and supply petroleum products to Central Asia and Afghanistan. USA builds big gasoline and diesel storage facilities in Northern Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, so that at any given time, it is not dependent on Pakistan. India can supply refined petroleum products to these facilities.

Besides that USA funds construction of railroads and highways in the region with American money, and India does the building. We build a railroad networking Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan in Indian Broad Gauge (1,676 mm). If the Europeans are willing to transfer and give technology to India for high-speed railway, then India could do that in that way also.

Also India helps build the infrastructure for transporting stuff into Afghanistan through the Western route - Turkey (or Greece, Bulgaria, Black Sea), Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan (or Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan), Afghanistan. NATO can also use the railroad through Russia.

By allowing India to trade with Iran, India uses the Chahbahar Port and the Zaranj-Delaram Highway to transport non-military material to USA in Indian Trucks plying in Iran.

Why would Iran cooperate? Well it would give them a lifeline if there is a refinery working in Iran. They too get refined petroleum products. Secondly, India and Iran can agree that even though America should not stay in the region for long, it is important that America weakens the Taliban and Pakistan before leaving. There both have similar opinions.

[shiv]

The US has a long history of managing to supply entities that it supports by air. I believe they could do that ibn Afghanistan but they would not IMO allow Pakistan to get away with it. Things would have to reach a new low and the benefits of staying in Afghanistan would have to outweigh the costs.

But the primary objection I have to supplying Afghanistan by air is that it means nothing to the major center of problems - Pakistan. In an ideal world neither air nor land routes are required. All that is needed are open sea lanes and a bridgehead in Pakistan while the Pakis get their asses whupped. But we do not live in an ideal world

If the Pakistan problem is solved, Afghanistan will solve itself.

[ManishH]

I think this is not the way to describe any region of this country. I don't know what type of great years were spent to deserve this comment for Orissa and other states.

By no means do I make an evaluation of the merit or importance to India of the states. All are children of mother India and I'll be the last person to insult any having the privilege of lived in one of those fine regions. It's only meant to indicate their importance for raw materials.

Now I'm new to the forum with no bias from past discussions, so hoping newbies are given benefit of doubt.

Instead of going OT, I'd like to stress the importance of pinching Pak in their coastal states and in NWFP, striving for status-quo, ie. present state of insurgency. Pushtoonistan will benefit Pak the most as they are slippery enough to just co-opt it; US maybe if they handle it well; but for India (us it'll probably be bad news.

[somnath]

I presume that most of the non-military supplies would be transported over land route from Europe through Russia, or even by aircraft, as has been agreed by USA and Russia.

So I am talking about air connectivity between the Indian Ocean and Afghanistan using the J&K+PoK+Wakhan Air Corridor.

I think you have misunderstood the suggestion on the use of such an air corridor. It is not meant to replace the land supply route through Pakistan. For that Russia or the Georgia+Azerbaijan+Caspian+CAR route can be used.

The Russia-Central Asia route has been explored by the US..They are using it too in a limited format...But it is too complicated politically...As well as geogrpahically.....the price that Russia can/will extract in politico-strategic terms is too high for a full-fledged cooperation...

And maintaining the entire set-up by air is simply beyond the means of even America..No one can afford it..

The viable options are really two-fold:
1. Creation of a "pushtnistan buffer" - which will immediately buy the US goodwill of the Pushtuns...Not just that, it will also mean a partial realisation of the old Afghan dream of a united pushtun community - the Taliban will lose a lot of its political support by this one act...Then the US can use the buffer region to maintain itself in Kabul...But an "independent' state is not possible, not in the near future in any case...Pak will not agree..A soft border based strategy is more likely..

2. The Iran route via Chabahaar, the railroad and then Zaranj-Delaram highway...This is something where India can play a vital role...

[RajeshA]

Relevance: Speaking of changing US role in Pakistan

New Routes for USA into Afghanistan

the price that Russia can/will extract in politico-strategic terms is too high for a full-fledged cooperation

The price that Russia is extracting is American willingness to involve the Russians in anti-narcotics drive in Afghanistan, something that is of vital importance to the Russians.

Considering that Chechnya has again become active, the Russians would be happy to scour Afghanistan for Chechens as well.

So the Russian land route is politically considered, a good game.

And that is all that is needed.

1. Russia as main land supply route.
2. Alternate land supply route through Georgia-Azerbaijan-Caspian-CAR
3. Alternate land supply route, serviced by Indians through Iran - Chahbahar-Zaranj-Delaram-Kandhahar.
4. Air Corridor between Indian Ocean and Afghanistan through the J&K+PoK+Wakhan Air Corridor.

Pakistanis can be taken out of the equation completely. Or they can be kept on board, but they can be told in unmistakable terms that their days of blackmail are over.

[somnath]

Obvioulsy we arent the only smart strategists around!

Seems the US has already evaluated and even used all the alternatives we spoke of, barring the Iran route..

http://www.europeaninstitute.org/Februa ... stans.html

Obviously, all the Russia-CIS/CAR routes are too complicated and expensive to be viable...Iran is the most economically viable proposition - India should propose the grand bargain!

[ramana]

ManishH, 24 hours to edit or get warned. I would ban you but forum rules say have to issue warning.

Thanks, and hope you understand that not showing remorse compounds it.

ramana

[shiv]

Quotable quote from the guru of quotable quotes

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/man-ch ... 2011-03-09
Check the dates of smuggling in the article. There has been laxity to the extent of ludicrousness.

We have seen that whenever US interests demanded it, the US was 'lax to the extent of being ludicrous'. At other times, it is seized by a desire to stop proliferation. Pakistan knows those moments when it can maximize its profits with the US. Pakistan has been brazen about this and so has been the US in its complicity. It is all there in the 'Pakistan Proliferation' thread. In the time period of 2005 to 2008, Pakistan was indispensable. The US strategy is simple. Pakistan is needed for the geostrategic interests of the US. The US cannot transfer nuclear weapons directly to that country. So, it employs wink-and-nod technique wherever US equipment or western technology is needed, and allows PRC to do the rest. If Pakistan is not needed anymore or if Pakistan secretes more testosterone than desired, a slight rap on the knuckles is given to make it fall in line.

[Muppalla]

The US will not take India's help against China unless the US can be sure that India can always bend to US will if things were to change at a later date. The US is not on the lookout for allies, but for vassal states or temporary allies. Aside from favoring a slave who can be relied on to implement US will, the US only looks to balance out one power against another. It's called "Holding the ring"

You need put this as signature. This is the most fundamental postulate that should be pumped into all Indians whether they are citizens are not. Then only a real favorable and India's own narrative can be built.

[RajeshA]

Relevance: Speaking of changing US role in Pakistan

New Routes for USA into Afghanistan

Obvioulsy we arent the only smart strategists around!

Seems the US has already evaluated and even used all the alternatives we spoke of, barring the Iran route..

http://www.europeaninstitute.org/Februa ... stans.html

Obviously, all the Russia-CIS/CAR routes are too complicated and expensive to be viable...Iran is the most economically viable proposition - India should propose the grand bargain!

somnath ji,
thank you for that link!

Northern Distribution Network is supposed to carry a third of the supplies to Afghanistan.

I too think, Iran could offer a good alternate route. India can provide a suitable go-between, and service the logistics of that route.

I wrote to Bill Marmon, the author of that piece, which is about an year old, suggesting him that.

I also asked him to consider a Pathankot-Bagram Air Bridge using the J&K+PoK+Wakhan Air Corridor. As the crow flies Pathankot-Bagram is just around 50 minutes flight time. Rerouting it over the J&K+PoK+Wakhan Air Corridor could mean an additional hour.

So for military supplies, urgent supplies, personnel transport, medical care of wounded soldiers, and perhaps air combat sorties, an India-Afghanistan Air Bridge can be a good supplement to the air bridge that passes over Pakistan, and is useful should Pakistan deny American overflight-rights.

[somnath]

^^Thats good RajeshA-ji, because I thought you "laughed" the initial proposal (on Iran) away! Wise men think alike (of course I wont extend the corrollary )

Question is, anyone in the policy establishment thinking about it?

Just as Pak played the crucial "bridge" role in US rapproachment with China, India can do the same with Iran...For the US, it isnt just about cutting out Pak blackmail..It is also about creating a new security architecture in Asia that can counter China...

[Samudragupta]

Just as Pak played the crucial "bridge" role in US rapproachment with China, India can do the same with Iran...For the US, it isnt just about cutting out Pak blackmail..It is also about creating a new security architecture in Asia that can counter China...

Ping-Pong Diplomacy succeded because of the presence of 800 pound Gorilla of FSU in the room. Has China attained the strategic threat to US as was FSU to US yet?

The important point is what Iran can contribute to the new security architecture and that too based on American plan where Iranians are probably more Anti American than the Chinese? I mean US is trying to shut down the Chinese in the Taiwan Strait and East Turkestan and they have an able ally in the Russians..... so why the Americans will allow a stronger Iran because patch up between US and Iran means re-arming of the iranians and going back to the era of Shah, which effectively means Iranain power is reaching Mediternean....Can the West allow this?

[shiv]

There appears to be a chain of logic in finding new routes for the US to use to get material to Afghanistan that appears quite rational on the face of it - but I am losing the connection along the way.

Unless I have misunderstood, the chain of logic is as follows.

1) The US needs to be in Afghanistan to stabilize Afghanistan so the free world can be free.
2) The poor US is caught in a fix because of perfidious Pakistan. The US is forced to aid Pakistan because the US is depending on the latter to keep the supply routes open
3) Therefore if alternative routes could be developed or offered to the US via India, CIS, Russia or Iran, the US would no longer be dependent on Pakistan to stabilize Afghanistan.

So far so good.

But how would this make Pakistan any better for India? If this exercise is not going to make the Pakistan problem any better for India it means that we are discussing, in great detail, how to make life better for the US. Someone please explain to me that this isn't so and why it isn't so.

[somnath]

1) The US needs to be in Afghanistan to stabilize Afghanistan so the free world can be free.
2) The poor US is caught in a fix because of perfidious Pakistan. The US is forced to aid Pakistan because the US is depending on the latter to keep the supply routes open
3) Therefore if alternative routes could be developed or offered to the US via India, CIS, Russia or Iran, the US would no longer be dependent on Pakistan to stabilize Afghanistan.

The chain of thought is actually as following:

1. US needs to be in Af for a variety of geostrategic interests of its own..And despite the rhetoric, the long term plan is not to "go away" leaving the field open to the Chinese..
2. The US presence in Af is dependent today on Pak for supply routes...It enables Pak to apply blackmail effectively..
3. Alternate supply routes will cut that dependency...
4. A less dependent on Pak US is likely to pay less attention to Paki needs, including F16s
5. A continued US presence in the region prevents a free play of China and Pak in Af...
6. #4 and 5 are both in India's interests...

Has China attained the strategic threat to US as was FSU to US yet?

Oh absolutely, as a threat perception, China looms vey large on US consciousness...And a sense of "declining" relative US power makes them even more conscious for the need to pre-empt..About Iran, if the US could cozy up to the Vietnamese so soon, there isnt all that daylight between the US and Iran..In any case, in this instance it is only going to be a win-win deal for a limited purpose for all parties concerned - Iran, US an India.

[shiv]

4. A less dependent on Pak US is likely to pay less attention to Paki needs, including F16s

This is the part that I am unable to figure out.

If the US gets alternate routes it is "likely to pay less attention" to Pakistan. On what basis is this connection being made? After getting all those bright ideas about all those alternative routes and living to see them become reality what if the "likelihood" clause turns out to be trash and the US continues to feed Pakistan as usual "including F16s "?

When a salesman comes to me with a proposal like this - I would have no hesitation in calling it snake oil. At best its a long shot. If it works, fine. What if it doesn't work?

Secondly - apart from prohibitively expensive the "Berlin airlift" via India - India has no control whatsoever on any of the other routes other than perhaps a pimp's role with Iran in the manner Pakistan played pimp between the US and China. The US can create all of these route for itself without Indian intervention. What's in it for India?

The primary objection I have to all this is that these alternative route ideas are only helping the US's plans in Afghanistan. They fail to even mention the fact that the problem is Pakistan. It is American political snake oil to pretend that Afghanistan is the problem and not Pakistan. Why should Indians pretend that this is the case? To me that is a horrendous mistake. At best.

[somnath]

This is the part that I am unable to figure out.

If the US gets alternate routes it is "likely to pay less attention" to Pakistan. On what basis is this connection being made? After getting all those bright ideas about all those alternative routes and living to see them become reality what if the "likelihood" clause turns out to be trash and the US continues to feed Pakistan as usual "including F16s "?

The connection is being made based on history and current US objectives (of course my interpretation of them, before you tell me likewise )...When the Soviets left Af, and US with them, Pak fell into a the sort of benign neglect (vis a vis US largesse) that would suit India fine today...During KArgil for instance, we know from Tufail Haidar how hard pressed they were to even keep their F16 fleet flying in a limited objectives scenario...The US need for Pak today is primarily predicated on its objectives in Af...And much of it is about logistics...If that equation is disrupted, US largese will also start reflecting the frustrations that they have on Paki behaviour...And with the US still there, the Pakis problems with their "strategic assets" will continue...So we have a situation where Pak is embroiled in the similar mess with TTP etc, while not getting the same level of "support" from the US..And China remains "deterred" substantially by the continuing US presence...All thse are favourable outcomes for India...

About India's role - more in terms of provding the fig leafs to all aprties involved if there is a US-IRan arrangement...Maybe do the heavy lifting of logistics and security till Zaranj...

[svinayak]

This is the part that I am unable to figure out.

If the US gets alternate routes it is "likely to pay less attention" to Pakistan. On what basis is this connection being made? After getting all those bright ideas about all those alternative routes and living to see them become reality what if the "likelihood" clause turns out to be trash and the US continues to feed Pakistan as usual "including F16s "?

Fundamentally this assumption is wrong. The Pak need in the "middle east" is due to Sunni power to balance the Shia Iran super power. This balance of power has gone wrong with Pak being out of control.

[ramana]

Once Bahrain asserts itself this balances broken and we will see the realignment.

[shiv]

When the Soviets left Af, and US with them, Pak fell into a the sort of benign neglect (vis a vis US largesse)

A statement that is repeated often enough starts getting accepted as the truth and this is one such statement and I would like to (once again) examine this statement for its validity.The statement you have made is 100% (nay 400%) correct - but not from India's vantage point. Once again you speak from an American/Pakistani viewpoint.

Please allow me an analogy here illustrate your use of the words "benign neglect"

Imagine a beggar man who likes to rape a beggar woman on the pavement across from him. Imagine also that the beggar man is normally too sick and hungry to do that - until he finds a sponsor. Let me not be too graphical about how the sponsor uses the beggar, but he is fed, and gains the strength to rape the beggar woman in the pavement across from him. Then, abruptly, the sponsor stops paying the beggar who once again is hungry and unable to rape the other beggar. The beggar man is now a victim of "benign neglect". This is the exact context in which you have used the term "benign neglect" of Pakistan

The US first paid Pakistan who promptly raped India and when the US stopped paying Pakistan it is being described (by you and by many American scholars) as a situation of "benign neglect". The beggar rapist who does not get funds to rape is being "neglected". Poor poor beggar. Poor poor Pakistan. Neglect is always bad. The very idea that Pakistan is thought to have suffered from "neglect" indicates a mindset that looks at the issue from the Pakistan and American point of view. India is nowhere in this. And if you introduce India in the picture you only get the conclusion that "Neglecting Pakistan makes India happy". Nowhere in this sob story is even a small chink of light allowed to illuminate the fact that the beggar nation Pakistan when "not neglected" only rapes India.

Not providing arms to Pakistan is not benign neglect. It is an active necessity.

Proclaiming that Pakistan is somehow being "neglected" or "deprived" by not getting US aid is great publicity for a beggar nation like Pakistan to flood the tear ducts of the US. But an Indian (such as you are) swallowing this snake oil and repeating it on here shows the extent to which this skewed situation has been hammered into intelligent Indian minds that they are able to say it without any insight into the perspective they are promoting.

[ramana]

Shiv after the US abandoned the Pakis they bailed them out by hiding their nuke trade. Recall the ring magnets from PRC case. US experts would go to Congress and lie about the missiles that TSP was getting from PRC.
They got Pakis UN troops role in Somalia which they botched by killing civilians and led to Black Hawk Down!

US Admins in the 90s did their best to promote insecurity in India by promoting Hurriyat, questioning J&K accession, losing the detonator which was evidence of Mumbai blasts. They were the most undiplomatic diplomutts.

[ramana]

Somnath regarding my earlier post you can misinterpret as you feel. I note you take special effort to take extra meaning to my posts.

[shiv]

Shiv after the US abandoned the Pakis they bailed them out by hiding their nuke trade. Recall the ring magnets from PRC case. US experts would go to Congress and lie about the missiles that TSP was getting from PRC.
They got Pakis UN troops role in Somalia which they botched by killing civilians and led to Black Hawk Down!

US Admins in the 90s did their best to promote insecurity in India by promoting Hurriyat, questioning J&K accession, losing the detonator which was evidence of Mumbai blasts. They were the most undiplomatic diplomutts.

ramana thank you for saying all this plainly. It is of course well known to most of us. But everything is worth repeating endlessly either to educate those who don't know, or to merely thwart their miseducation.

[somnath]

Shiv after the US abandoned the Pakis they bailed them out by hiding their nuke trade. Recall the ring magnets from PRC case. US experts would go to Congress and lie about the missiles that TSP was getting from PRC.
They got Pakis UN troops role in Somalia which they botched by killing civilians and led to Black Hawk Down!

US Admins in the 90s did their best to promote insecurity in India by promoting Hurriyat, questioning J&K accession, losing the detonator which was evidence of Mumbai blasts. They were the most undiplomatic diplomutts.

Ramana-ji, not sure what you mean by "misinterpreting"...

Anyhow, the problem unfortunately (rather fortunately from India's perspective) that objective scenarios are not cast in stone...Certain actions might be similar, but the outcome of those action depend on the objective conditions of the day - tautological...

The US-India (as also US-Pak) dynamic of the '90s is a far cry from the same of 2011...In the early '90s, the US was a newly minted "hyperpower", one that had won the war of both ideas and resources...It therefore had embarked on this drive to shape the world according to its wishes...Nuclear non proliferation was a key policy objective, so was its dominance in Central Asia...India, on the other hand, was emerging from its worst nightmares - both economically as well as in terms of an insurgency challenge...Therefore, while the US largesse to Pak stopped substantially, the "hyphenation" was firmly in place...the insurgency in J&K provided a perfect platform to play the global cop, impartial and all, which it tried to do...It was also around the same time that China was starting to really scale up its massive mercantilist relations with the US - large orders for Boeing aircraft during the slowdown in 1992 for example...Parallely, the US started to cultivate all the CIS states in order to position itself as the overlord of the new great game....Therefore for the US, the '90s were a case of establishing itself as credible "neutral" global cop, expanding trade with China to overcome the slowdown and ensconcing itself firmly in Central Asia....India got treated as the individual dynamics of the event(s) dictated...that is the big picture if you will..

The individual incidents (promoting hurriyat, losing the detonators, Robin Raphael et al are merely details)...

India of 2011, and its relaions with the US are a very different kettle of fish, primarily because India is a different country today, and so is the US...The nuclear deal is but one example of that...

A "benign neglect", or "activy necessity", I wont quibble on the semantics, over Pak will again defang the Pak politico-miliary capacities (indluing F16s which should be a laudable objective per most here!)..More importantly, IMO it will leave Pak to still deal with its internal issues vis a vis TTP/Taliban while having a much lesser degree of backstop support, economic and political, from the US..

the bigger obejctives (for India) of course are different - continued US presence in the region, preventing China from having a free run...And above all, retaining the umbrella cover for India to play its own role in Af....

[shiv]

Somnathji - may I ask again, how the US will remain in the region if it is no longer in Pakistan and gets its supplies via Iran/Russia/CIS. Which region would the US remain involved in? And how would that be relevant to India?

And once again excluding Pakistan as a transport route for the US does not mean that the US will stop supplying F-16s to Pakistan. That is "high hopes" in my view and "likely" in yours. Semantics, but nevertheless significantly different.

On the subject of F-16s and Kargil - you seem to be presenting some fairly precise information about Kargil that I have not read, even as you state that "we" know all this. What was it exactly that Tufail Haider wrote? I seem to have missed that.

During KArgil for instance, we know from Tufail Haidar how hard pressed they were to even keep their F16 fleet flying in a limited objectives scenario

[somnath]

On the subject of F-16s and Kargil - you seem to be presenting some fairly precise information about Kargil that I have not read, even as you state that "we" know all this. What was it exactly that Tufail Haider wrote? I seem to have missed that

I am sure you have read this - but yet again..

http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.com/200 ... force.html

F-16 CAPs could not have been flown all day long as spares support was limited under the prevailing US sanctions. Random CAPs were resorted to, with a noticeable drop in border violations only as long as the F-16s were on station. There were a few cases of F-16s and Mirage-2000s locking their adversaries with the on-board radars but caution usually prevailed and no close encounters took place. After one week of CAPs, the F-16 maintenance personnel indicated that war reserve spares were being eaten into and that the activity had to be ‘rationalised’, a euphemism for discontinuing it altogether. That an impending war occupied the Air Staff’s minds was evident in the decision by the DCAS (Ops) for F-16 CAPs to be discontinued, unless IAF activity became unbearably provocative or threatening.

Those not aware of the gravity of the F-16 operability problem under sanctions have complained of the PAF’s lack of cooperation. Suffice it to say that if the PAF had been included in the initial planning, this anomaly (along with many others) would have emerged as a mitigating factor against the Kargil adventure.

may I ask again, how the US will remain in the region if it is no longer in Pakistan and gets its supplies via Iran/Russia/CIS. Which region would the US remain involved in? And how would that be relevant to India?

The US interest is less in Pak, it is in Central Asia, with Afghanistan as the fulcrum...The relevance to India is at one level similar - to have a foothold in the new "great game"...We can do that under the umbrella of a US presence, not if the place is left "free" for Pak and China to run...at least for now..Maybe at some stage in the future we will have enough money to sustain an influencive presence for ourselves exclusively, but currently we just dont have the wherewhithal - political, military, economic...And second, retain enough influence in Afghanistan to at least not be surprised like we were in the early '90s, when influx of jihadis into Kashmir from Af changed the insurgency dynamics completely..

[Lalmohan]

well, one obvious conclusion to be inferred from the last few posts is that with the US, pakistan is armed but restrained. although restraint means pakistan only attacks us with terrorists and not regulars.
in the absence of the US, Pakistan becomes armed and provocative through chinese backing - where under the nuclear banner we might see even more terror.

both sources of arms and life support aid have to be stopped. or, pakistan has to be broken up - and the nuclear armed core state has to be defanged.

for the long term safety of india, this conclusion is now inescapable

[svinayak]

These are too early conclusion and are not supported by facts
The entire gme plan of US in the region is not known and it is still vague

[Lalmohan]

regardless of the US gameplan, i am proposing an Indian game plan