The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7115
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by Muppalla »

shiv wrote:What can America verifiably, irrevocably and reliably do for India, to get India to support America? Homilies that there are no permanent friends or enemies will be assumed by me to mean that "America can do nothing for India. America will do nothing for India. America needs to do nothing for India"

Is America doing anything for India? If so what?
From my perspective what America should do for India and offcource for itself (as any country do) is to negotiate the transfer of Northern Areas of JK to India from Pakistan's control using its good books and bad books. It will help US to have a land corridor to Afghanistan from India.

Anything else is anti-India (I explained in my previous posts). Period.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by devesh »

^^^ for foreign powers to recognize their actions as anti-India, India must first recognize said things to be contrary to its interests. Indian interest in this should be carefully mapped out and anything that is anti-India should be virrulently opposed. we must raise hell and the high heavens. create takleef for US ambassador calling him at all times of the day to express our displeasure. seriously, we have such a large bureaucracy. let's put them to good use. commerce minister should call and say that US actions are hurting intercontinental trade in Asia and adversely affecting commerce. finance, defense, MEA, principal secretary to PM, all can chip in. US must be made to understand our interests clearly and that we won't tolerate any harakiri with Indian interests. for good measure, schedule an exercise with Iranian military or something. or send a high level delegation for MoD to map out possible areas of coinciding interests. imvho, this is the greatest advantage of a bureaucracy. we ultimately don't need to do anything. we can merely create the illusion of doing something just by having the bureaucrats involve in some meaningless social gathering or the other, which can conveniently become meaningful at a later date.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

Relevance: Speaking of changing US role in Pakistan

New Routes for USA into Afghanistan
Lalmohan wrote:without a land corridor, we are in no position to offer the US a logistical route to afghanistan
Lalmohan ji,

Providing USA with a supply route into Afghanistan, IMHO, is an imperative with multiple advantages. Considering that India is rather a shy country as far as coercive diplomacy is concerned, it is best to provide ideas and options to our policy makers, which allows for what-I-call "positive" policies, i.e. where we do not have to step on too many toes. Perhaps one can call them synergistic policies.

We don't need to provide USA with a land route with iron-clad assurances. We just need to provide USA with supply routes, which enable USA to avert blackmail by Pakistan on the issue, as well as a means to make them listen to us and to take our considerations seriously.

The Chahbahar-Zaranj-Delaram-Kandhahar Route through Iran should be considered seriously. Question is - why would Iran allow Indian logistic companies to supply American and coalition troops through this route?

This is where we all need to make alliances of convenience! What can we give Iran, which cushions their needs?

1) One of those things would be Gasoline, Diesel and other petroleum products! I would suggest we, we Indians build an Oil Refinery in Afghanistan and provide Iran with petroleum products from there. We cannot build it in Iran because of American sanctions. In order to operate the Oil Refinery, we will have to transport material to Afghanistan. This we do over the above mentioned route. Once this route becomes busy, we can also use it for supplying the coalition troops there.

So Iran gets gasoline in exchange for Supply Routes to Afghanistan.

2) What about strategic incentives to Iran? I believe creation of Pushtunistan would also be acceptable to Iran. First of all, they will get an almost free run as far as influence is concerned in non-Pushtun Afghanistan - the Tajik and Hazara areas. In Pushtunistan itself, including in erstwhile areas of Pakistan, Iranian influence could rival that of Pakistan, enabling Iran to have almost though not quite as much influence in Peshawar as Pakistan would have, after its next Partition. So Iran would be willing to support the creation of Pushtunistan. India just needs to impress on the Americans that a new supply route would be available if they put Pushtunistan on the table. Again we are speaking of an increased influence of Iran to its East, but not any absolute control.

So if we give the Iranians both these incentives, they may relent on the question of supply lines, which are serviced by Indian logistic companies.

As mentioned earlier, the intention is not to give Americans iron-clad assurances on supply lines. With Iran, one can never be sure, and they can always change their mind. The intention is to take away Pakistan's near monopoly on land supply routes, so that their blackmail becomes ineffective. That means Americans would be continuing to transport much of their supplies through Pakistan as they do now, but a new route would become available.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

Relevance: Speaking of changing US role in Pakistan

New Routes for USA into Afghanistan
Muppalla wrote:
shiv wrote:What can America verifiably, irrevocably and reliably do for India, to get India to support America? Homilies that there are no permanent friends or enemies will be assumed by me to mean that "America can do nothing for India. America will do nothing for India. America needs to do nothing for India"

Is America doing anything for India? If so what?
From my perspective what America should do for India and offcource for itself (as any country do) is to negotiate the transfer of Northern Areas of JK to India from Pakistan's control using its good books and bad books. It will help US to have a land corridor to Afghanistan from India.

Anything else is anti-India (I explained in my previous posts). Period.
Muppalla ji,

My suggestion of starting a Pathankot-Bagram air bridge for supplying American troops in Afghanistan is in fact to serve as the thin edge of the wedge! The J&K+PoK+Wakhan Air Corridor can be used for such

Pakistan would protest flights of American aircraft over Gilgit-Baltistan, and ask America to discontinue such flights! America would respond with No. Pakistan would say, America is violating Pakistani sovereignty. America would respond with, that it is not doing so, as Gilgit-Baltistan does not belong to Pakistan. So basically USA would continue to fly this route and depending on how forthcoming India is with logistics and facilities, even expand this route.

This is going to cause major friction between Pakistan and USA, but neither Pakistan nor PRC would dare shoot down American aircraft over that route.

Once America sees that the air bridge is proving very useful for its plans in Afghanistan, and it is not coming with too many undesirable strings and blackmail attached, they may get accustomed to it.

Western support for this air bridge would then give India a foil to start claiming PoK as Indian territory, and to garner Western support for this rearrangement! When Pakistan fails or even falters, we can push across the LoC into PoK!

It is just a way to get the ball rolling!
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by somnath »

shiv wrote: I stated that long ago but it was you who seemed to worry and post counter arguments every time. You show a needless interest in worrying yourself about the views of an anonymous person on a random internet forum whom you have already categorized as someone who overestimates his own importance. You know that. Why on earth do you want to "discuss" anything with me? It's your call. If you choose to discuss with me you have to put up with what I say.

I put it to you that you are just a random troll who likes to argue and does not take kindly to being shown that he is wrong even when you are short on facts but skilled at using Google - a facility available to billions.

All you need to do is to put me on your ignore list. I will soon do likewise - having "sussed you out" as a troll.
Shiv-ji, given that you are quite insistent on not taking any discussion beyond the sloganeering, allusions to "facts" and "google" are a bit rich - maybe if you could google better you would know the correct levels of Pak's military expdt-to-GDP ratios! Or if you read any of the many superb books covering Indo-US relations you would know from how far back in time have we been complaining about US arms to Pak (without having to resort to Google to get an incomplete picture!)! :wink:

BTW, lack of civility comes naturally to you? I think it does - so I will take your advice to put you on the ignore list..
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by somnath »

RajeshA wrote:1) One of those things would be Gasoline, Diesel and other petroleum products! I would suggest we, we Indians build an Oil Refinery in Afghanistan and provide Iran with petroleum products from there. We cannot build it in Iran because of American sanctions. In order to operate the Oil Refinery, we will have to transport material to Afghanistan. This we do over the above mentioned route. Once this route becomes busy, we can also use it for supplying the coalition troops there.

So Iran gets gasoline in exchange for Supply Routes to Afghanistan.
RajeshA-ji, this part isnt so simple...When I had posted about India offering the Zaranj-Delaram route for the US as an alternate, my hypothesis was that a limited rapproachment would be good enough for Iran to come on board...Which has to include some sort of US compromise on sanctions against Iran - under the radar of course..Something that would enable the Iranians themselves to get international funding for refineries to be built in Iran (any oil major can build a refinery in Iran - funding is the challenge)...Building a refinery is Af is more problematic...It means a pipeline needs to be laid between Iranian oilfields and Af - which is another large project in itself...A refinery in Af too would be logisitical nightmare - both for building it and maintaining it, given that no infrastructure exists....

Basically, US has to lower the temperature and rhteoric against Iran, covertly if necessary..In return Iran would do that as well..the benefit for Iran is a gradual easing of financial sanctions, which are biting currently...with the current jasmine revolutions ll over ME, an easing of sanctions would materially help the Iranian regime in keepin the populace happier at the margin..And also a friendly regime in Af...
Klaus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 12:28
Location: Cicero Avenue

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by Klaus »

To be true to the thread title:

1. PRC's economic growth story is known to all. The PLA-CPC combine is seriously thinking of staying on in power for as long as possible and keeping the general populace in a haze (if that term can be used). Power hungry CPC-PLA combine is interested in the opium fields of AFG to re-introduce drugs into the Chinese hinterland, probably re-opening illegal export routes through Macau and Guangzhou.
2. Drugs also needed to keep restive Uighur population hallucinated, opening of an Opium-route modeled on the Silk Route would solve all of the Han's (CPC-PLA's) problems.
3. For (1) and (2) to be realised, the Chinese need the TSPA to keep the Taliban at bay.
4. (3) would mean that the Taliban gets pi$$ed at having been kept off the pie. CPC, TSPA and Taliban agree to come to a commission/revenue sharing arrangement.

We are probably looking at an establishment of Central Asian-East Asian narco-economy (with wink-wink-nod-nod of CPC-PLA) in parellel with their energy and infrastructural development. Just my 2 paise only.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by shiv »

RajeshA wrote: What America is doing for India:
  1. America is keeping Pakistan's main jihadi operations focussed on Afghanistan and against America, instead of against India. This Afghanistan focus is allowing India to keep a certain level of political and social stability in India and to grow economically and otherwise.
Rajesh - from 2001 to 2008 there was a massive increase in the number of terrorist attacks in the Indian interior even as infiltration declined in J&K following agreements with Musharraf - which can probably be attributed to US pressure. i do not accuse the US of increasing the number of attacks - I am only saying that the US must not get credit for what it did not do. The terrorist attacks from 2001 to 2008 have tapered off in 2009 and 2010. Perhaps that is due to US pressure, but after 20 years of terrorism - a two year gap while welcome needs to be sustained for it to mean anything

[*] The inducement of aid and good relations with the West, has encouraged Pakistan to act a little more sensitive to world opinion and thus to keep its export of terrorism to India in check. And regardless of Mumbai 26/11 and all the other acts of terrorism, IMHO, the potential for terrorism in India is far larger. Many would disagree with this point, but IMHO, I think, Pakistan is being forced to keep up its mask, tying up one of its hands.
Rajesh - the long term effect need to be seen. If the US cops out all this may come to naught. I am chary of crediting the US with a plus when we do not yet have the comfort of long term security

[*] Through American involvement in the region, Pakistan is not being allowed to either depend on China fully, nor to take dictation from China completely, nor to make all its services available to China exclusively, as its resources are tied elsewhere for other purposes. This too facilitates a higher level of political security in India.
Pakistan is tied up only in areas where the US is able to tie it up. The US is unable to tie up Pakistan in terms of nuclear aid from China and aid in combat aircraft. And despite the fact that the US is unable to control Chinese supply of combat aircraft or the leakage of US tech to China via Pakistan, the US continues supplies of both to Pakistan. This is not a plus for the US. It is only a minus for India.
[*] American actions in Afghanistan, is directly responsible for the Talibanization of Pakistan, TTP, Punjabi Taliban sprouted only after America entered Afghanistan. This means there is internal strife in Pakistan, thus keeping the anti-India establishment on tenter-hooks.
This is not something that we can depend on as national policy. We can "count our blessings" and "be thankful" that things panned out in this way. But these events were certainly not planned by the US . It is purely accidental and the US does not get credit for this.

[*] Anti-Americanism is slowly replacing anti-Indianism as the most potent hate in Pakistan.
As I see it Anti-Americanism is being added to anti-India sentiment. It is not being replaced. i would be glad to see anti-India sentiment being replaced by Anti-US sentiment. But it's not happening.
[*] Could it be that America has been bribing India in its own way, not to spoil its party in Afghanistan. USA wanted to have Pakistani troops on its Western border, and wished that India does not increase the tensions on the Eastern border, on her own initiative or as reaction to some provocation! Could the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement be a child of such considerations?! I don't know! So could it be that the next Mumbai Terror Attack would get GoI an UNSC Permanent Seat for our restraint?! This is some food for thought for Pakistan!
The US is definitely bribing India and that put the US in a position to punish India too later.
[*] Anti-Americanism has led to a rift between the people and the establishment. It has reinvigorated anti-American jihadis, made them resist government control, and in fact increase the level of instability in Pakistan. This has had the side-effect that investments have stayed away, and the government has been distracted from development. Pakistan GDP growth in 2009-2010 was around 2%. Despite American money flowing in, the ensuing instability is still keeping Pakistani growth low![/list]
If low growth and a poor economy in Pakistan are "advantage" to India - surely stoppage of US aid would make it even more advantageous. However the US is bailing out the Paki economy. This is not a plus point for the US. The US did not plan this. It is an accidental, unplanned occurrence - and we should be thankful like we tahnk rain gods for good rains this year. It may not continue that way every year.

The US needs to do much, much more.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by shiv »

My personal feeling is that India can be a stabilizing factor in Pakistan as Pakistan sinks deeper into chaos. But that will happen only if the US and China do not continue to use Pakistan as a hedge against India.

The US is hesitant to depend on India because the US just cannot accept its own inability and take on India as a "partner". The US does not even consider the UK as a "equal partner". For the US - international relationships have to be rivalry if they are not subservience. With the USSR it was rivalry. With the UK, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Pakistan, KSA it is subservience. It is rivalry with Iran. It was rivalry with Iraq.

France does not show subservience. It shows some rivalry - but there is a alliance of sorts

India mostly tries not to show subservience - but the US is powerful enough to limit Indian choices. Even if India becomes an "ally" that power to limit Indian choices via Pakistan (for example) will not go away. It is easier for the US to accept India as subservient than as an ally.

India does not want subservience. India does not want alliance. The only thing that remains is what the USSR and China did - become a rival. The US knows that. The US is ready for India to be a rival - it will fight well, via Pakistan if necessary. But the US will not take India as an ally. India will have to be subservient.

Our relationship with the US will necessarily have to be rivalry to an extent. That extent is more dependent on the US unless India chooses subservience over rivalry.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

shiv saar,

I do agree with most of the comments you made on America's benefits to India.

I'd like to offer an analogy. Consider a scenario. First India was alone in a pond full of piranha. Then America jumped in to catch some. Things didn't turn too well, and now half of the piranhas are attacking America. With only half of the piranhas attacking us, the chances are greater that we can find the energy to swim to the edge of the pond. At least now, we have started holding up our heads above water, and catching some breath.

So should we be glad, that America got into the pond. I'd say Yes. Now the problem with that is, that piranha have started eating America's flesh and getting fatter! And even if they are still mostly focussed on America, sooner or later, they'll all start coming towards us. So it is a mixed blessing!

What we ought to do is to increase the life-expectancy of America in the pond. That gives us some more time to get to shore! And then we need to suck the pond dry, divert the water to someplace else and kill off the piranhas.

Basically getting to shore means coming to our senses and building our capacity; and flushing the water out of the pond means taking out everything out of Pakistan, that gives the piranha their sustenance - the Pakistani State, their Pakistaniyat, their Pakistani identity, Islamism, nukes, support from outsiders.

For all that we need to play our own game. America cannot help us much there!
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by Sanku »

RajeshA wrote:First India was alone in a pond full of piranha.
RajeshA ji the obvious issue with the above analogy is that it is the US which made sure that we landed in a pool of Pirhanas.

Had it not been for US, the Pirahana's would have been faeces consuming macrophages or something like that. It was and is the continuing support of US that has mutated these low lives into something bigger. Even today, US can solve the problem by denying aid and returning the Piranhas to "Punah mooshiko bhav". However US wants to play clever, catch some and leave some.

Who says US presence in the pool to catch some Pirhanas it wants is helping us in any substantial manner.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

Sanku wrote:
RajeshA wrote:First India was alone in a pond full of piranha.
RajeshA ji the obvious issue with the above analogy is that it is the US which made sure that we landed in a pool of Pirhanas.

Had it not been for US, the Pirahana's would have been faeces consuming macrophages or something like that. It was and is the continuing support of US that has mutated these low lives into something bigger. Even today, US can solve the problem by denying aid and returning the Piranhas to "Punah mooshiko bhav". However US wants to play clever, catch some and leave some.

Who says US presence in the pool to catch some Pirhanas it wants is helping us in any substantial manner.
Sanku ji,

America's karma is catching up to it. Its support to Islamism and Army in Pakistan has caused America some lives but more importantly it has also ruined America's predominance in the world through costly wars. The health of its financial institutions and manufacturing leaves much to be desired. And while America is punished by its karma, I don't mind adding our own kick to it as well.

So it is okay to fix blame and to hold other countries to account, but it should never be at the cost of one's own countries interests. Vice versa, should other countries do something, which has some collateral benefit for us, also does not mean, that we start giving them any credits or gratitude.

It is just my assessment that an America sitting in the pond with us is drawing the piranhas towards it, which would otherwise have been attacking us. Anti-Americanism may not have replaced anti-Indianism in Pakistan, but the focus has changed, and for practical matters, the focus of attention matters more than ideology.

It is a similar analogy to what shiv saar gives for nukes. An anti-American Islamist regime in a nuclear-armed Pakistan would be a cause for concern for the whole world and not just India.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by shiv »

Rajesh the US too is stuck between a rock and a hard place. So are we for that matter. To use a lousy analogy India's "hard place" is the US's "rock"

Every analysis about Pakistan is full of references to how much they hate India or increasingly the US. How much we want to be loved! If only the Pakis would give up hate etc etc. The Jesus/Gandhi solution.

But if you remove the fact of popular hatred expressed by Pakistanis of the US and India, it is clear that Pakistanis have hated other Pakistanis for a while now an it appears to be getting worse. It has not yet reached 1971 levels but the fact of Pakistanis hating each other is clear. This is what leads to the much touted "instability" in Pakistan.

The Pakistani nation (such as there is) has been brought up to strive for the ideal of 1965 when the entire nation was united against India. The Pakistani army survives on its reputation as "protector against India" and its sole excuse to keep Pakistanis united is the need to face off demonic India next door. The US of course needs (and has needed), for its own interests, the Pakistan army to perform various other roles. The Pakistan army's cooperation has always been bought by the US using a mix of arms and monetary aid against India and a promise to apply diplomatic efforts to make India less threatening to Pakistan.

In short the Pakistan army performs roles for the US on condition that they get material and diplomatic aid against India. The US has a very delicate game to play and Ms Clinton (and others) have clearly stated that both "The Indians and the Pakistanis" accuse the US of taking the other side.

As an Indian I really don't give a damn. India is not the failing nation. Pakistan is. If the US needs Indian help its policy with regard to the Pakistan army must change. That will likely mean some very broad changes in US policy but from an Indian viewpoint I would not mind India aidng any such "broad change" in US policy provided they do it. But as long as the US sticks to getting its job done by the Pakistan army in lieu of aid against India I would be happy to see the US being defeated in its aims.

It is not my role to start worrying about or "understanding" the angst that the US will have to go through and the internal political battles the US will have to fight in order to implement a broad change of policy to stop supporting the Pakistan army against India to get them to do the US's work. Perhaps this is a thing for Indian Americans to talk about - since they know the internal workings of the US? US politics needs to come into play to change US policies. And the time tested but now failing US policy. Short of handing over Kashmir, India is, after all, bending over backwards to implement US requests with regard to Pakistan. What is the US doing in return?
Last edited by shiv on 15 Mar 2011 19:48, edited 1 time in total.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by Lalmohan »

^^^ why shiv, they are selling us F16/18 suppa duppa hawaii jahajes!??
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by shiv »

Regarding the US role in Pakistan versus the China role, there is a biological analogy.

Organisms that can survive without oxygen are called anaerobes. There are two types:
1) Facultative anaerobes can live in the presence of oxygen, but can survive even if oxygen is absent
2) Obligatory anaerobes obligatorily need an environment without oxygen

Using this description the USA is a facultative PakArmy-phile. The USA I am informed, can manage without supporting the Pakistan army. But the US uses the Pakistan army because it is convenient for the US to get favors done using the Indophobia of the Pakistan army

China on the other hand is an obligatory PakArmy-phile. China's main love for the Paki army is based on China's need to oppose India.

The Pakistan army is uniformly and permanently Indophobic. They will cooperate with anyone who offers them help against India.

Can the US wean itself away? Is the US really capable of dealing with Pakistan and serving its interests without supporting the compulsively Indophobic Pakistani army?
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:If the US needs india help its policy with regard to the Pakistan army must change. That will likely mean some very broad changes in US policy but from an Indian viewpoint I would not mind India aidng any such "broad change" in US policy provided they so it. But as long as the US sticks to getting its job done by the Pakistan army in lieu of aid against India I would be happy to see the US being defeated in its aims.
I agree, however, I'd suspect this "broad change" would be more of a transition than a switch! It may take some time!

I'd like to add something to it! I don't wish to underestimate the effect the withdrawal of US support to Pakistan could have on Pakistan, but I also don't think it solves our problems. I think our problems would change somewhat in nature, but they will remain there.

The major change in our whole security environment can only be effected, if India starts playing her own game! And that is where, I would rather that India puts its major focus - in devising and playing her own game. Thinking about what that game could be, is my personal focus.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by shiv »

RajeshA wrote:
I'd like to add something to it! I don't wish to underestimate the effect the withdrawal of US support to Pakistan could have on Pakistan, but I also don't think it solves our problems. I think our problems would change somewhat in nature, but they will remain there.

This in fact is the crux of the problem and as stated by many people on BRF over many years, this is the exact manner in which the Pakistan army has managed to grip the US's balls and manages to squeeze them to make the US squirm and jump.

The Pakistan army has decimated all civilian political opponents to its power in Pakistan and has placed itself as the only entity that can ensure Pakistan's unity and stability. And the army now says to the US that if they don't give them what they want Pakistan will implode/break up/fail/undergo dire consequence. That is what is meant by "negotiating with a gun held to their heads". The US of course is dead scared of all the consequences and is therefore literally being blackmailed by the Pakistan for support. This is all old well known stuff. Nothing new here.

Also old and well known are the consequences of Pakistan's "break up"/"failure"/"implosion"/whatever. The thing that seems to give the US the heeby jeebies are the nukes.

This is where my personal opinion is that the much feared "loss of control" of Pakistani nukes will have fewer dire consequences for India and greater consequences for the USA. If the US has the Pakistan army under control and is absolutely certain that Pakistani nukes are safe then it means that the US will be safe. But will India be safe? That depends. That depends on whether the US "looks the other way" or not in an India Pakistan conflict. We have to assume that the US will not look the other way and depend on US goodwill to not look the other way and act as they did in 1999.

However all this is conditional to the US actually having firm, if indirect, control over Pakistani nukes. If that is not the case all bets are off. The risk to India remains high and the risk for the US is getting higher.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

shiv saar,

I think, that it would then help if we do some psyops here! Whenever there is some terrorist attack in Pakistan, we write about it, make our fun about it, but also underline how far the attack is from the nearest Pakistani nuclear site!

Whenever some Qadri attacks some politician, we speak about how the whole Pakistani security apparatus has already been completely infiltrated by Al Qaeda and their associates!

We should talk so often about it, that the Americans become really jittery! We have to bring the topic from some NSA security briefings to the US President to the level of popular talk! This shouldn't remain a topic about which some CNN moderator asks some US bigwig every six months whether Paki nukes are secure and the American bigwig simply says yes, and then they turn to the next topic. No, loose Paki nukes should be constantly front and center in the news, media, blogs, and BRF!
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by Sanku »

RajeshA wrote:I think, that it would then help if we do some psyops here! Whenever there is some terrorist attack in Pakistan, we write about it, make our fun about it, but also underline how far the attack is from the nearest Pakistani nuclear site!!
If this is thought to be a good idea, now would be a particularly good time, given the current events in Japan and the highlighting of issues of nuclear matter.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

Perhaps a dedicated thread on "Pakistan Nukes & Jihad" would be a good idea!

Perhaps what also needs to be highlighted in the thread is that American leaders are all lying about the nukes, that they are safe! Any articles that American leaders have been less than honest about Pakistani nukes would also be good.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by Lalmohan »

not to mention that pak nuke reactors are built in high earthquake and flooding prone areas...
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

somnath wrote:
RajeshA wrote:1) One of those things would be Gasoline, Diesel and other petroleum products! I would suggest we, we Indians build an Oil Refinery in Afghanistan and provide Iran with petroleum products from there. We cannot build it in Iran because of American sanctions. In order to operate the Oil Refinery, we will have to transport material to Afghanistan. This we do over the above mentioned route. Once this route becomes busy, we can also use it for supplying the coalition troops there.

So Iran gets gasoline in exchange for Supply Routes to Afghanistan.
RajeshA-ji, this part isnt so simple...When I had posted about India offering the Zaranj-Delaram route for the US as an alternate, my hypothesis was that a limited rapproachment would be good enough for Iran to come on board...Which has to include some sort of US compromise on sanctions against Iran - under the radar of course..Something that would enable the Iranians themselves to get international funding for refineries to be built in Iran (any oil major can build a refinery in Iran - funding is the challenge)...Building a refinery is Af is more problematic...It means a pipeline needs to be laid between Iranian oilfields and Af - which is another large project in itself...A refinery in Af too would be logisitical nightmare - both for building it and maintaining it, given that no infrastructure exists....

Basically, US has to lower the temperature and rhteoric against Iran, covertly if necessary..In return Iran would do that as well..the benefit for Iran is a gradual easing of financial sanctions, which are biting currently...with the current jasmine revolutions ll over ME, an easing of sanctions would materially help the Iranian regime in keepin the populace happier at the margin..And also a friendly regime in Af...
somnath ji,
I think a US-Iran rapprochement in any direct sense is impossible or at least highly unlikely. America's grip on GCC is to a large extent based on the fact, that Arabs consider America to be a bulwark against Persian influence. America would not want to loosen that grip.

So any tango between USA and Iran would have to take other forms. There is a lot USA can do, what favors Iran's national interests, and Iran can also help out USA in its military missions in the region. Some of this mutual help already takes place but so indirectly that it seems it is despite any covert understandings between them.

USA has been singing a tune about TAPI for a long time. UNOCAL also has been negotiating for a pipeline for a long time. Considering that it is difficult that an anti-American, and increasingly Chinese oriented region, would allow the transport of the Oil out of the region seems very unlikely. Not to mention that with Pakistan in between none of the Oil & Gas in the Central Asia is going to reach India. So what to do?

If Oil cannot come to India, then India should go to the Oil!

What India needs to become an economic player in the region, is
  • some level of control
  • route through Iran
  • American agreement
How can India keep Iran bound to India, so that Iran does not all of a sudden tells the Indians, we can get lost, no more supply route? The only way is if Iran remains under sanctions, and India provides an economic lifeline to Iran. Something Iran needs is refined petroleum products. By putting up an Oil Refinery just beyond Iran in Afghanistan, India can provide Iran with gasoline, etc. That is what can keep Iran allowing the transit through its territory.

In fact, the transit through Iran should be accommodated in a Transit Agreement between Afghanistan and Iran. Iran would agree simply because Iran too wants to increase its influence in Afghanistan and does not want Afghanistan to remain dependent on Pakistan. Under this agreement India should be especially named as a country which can service the logistics between Afghanistan and the Chahbahar on the Arabian Sea.

So with gasoline and influence in Afghanistan, Afghanistan and India bribe Iran to allow them a free passage between Afghanistan and Chahbahar, especially for any produce in Afghanistan including petroleum products from that Oil Refinery in Afghanistan. The Oil Refinery should be a joint Indo-Afghan undertaking, and could be built near Herat.

Americans can build the pipeline between Turkmenistan and Herat supplying the Oil, something they always wanted to get involved in, and the Oil Refinery Company can pay the Americans for their pipeline services. Similarly Gazprom of Russia can build another Oil pipeline from Iran to this Refinery. They have the muscle to escape American sanctions on Iran. The Oil Refinery can also provide the American and coalition forces with all the diesel and gasoline they require for their mission in Afghanistan, further making them independent of Pakistan.

So India is both tapping in into the Central Asian Oil Reserves and getting the petroleum products out of the region. That is the economic aspect. Any Oil that gets processed in this Oil Refinery is Oil that is not transported to China through their pipelines through Kazakhstan. The Gasoline powers both Iranian cars and American tanks. An Oil Refinery in Afghanistan just across the border from Iran also does not invite any sanctions. This Oil Refinery can be big enough to support a large part of the needs of the whole region. Also this would be a solid Indian stamp on Afghanistan.

This way, Indians, Afghans, Turkmen, Iranians and Americans can all play tango at the cost of Pakistan's influence over America. I believe getting funding for such a project should also not be so difficult!

The main thing is, India has to be in the center of all this, for it to work.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by Lalmohan »

rajesh-ji, hat-tip is due
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by Sanku »

Lalmohan wrote:rajesh-ji, hat-tip is due
Yes Sir, a lot of thinking on how to change rather than just analyze.
PrasadZ
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 08:42

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by PrasadZ »

Lalmohan wrote:rajesh-ji, hat-tip is due
mine topi too !
Klaus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 12:28
Location: Cicero Avenue

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by Klaus »

RajeshA wrote: If Oil cannot come to India, then India should go to the Oil!

The Oil Refinery can also provide the American and coalition forces with all the diesel and gasoline they require for their mission in Afghanistan, further making them independent of Pakistan.

So India is both tapping in into the Central Asian Oil Reserves and getting the petroleum products out of the region. That is the economic aspect. Any Oil that gets processed in this Oil Refinery is Oil that is not transported to China through their pipelines through Kazakhstan. The Gasoline powers both Iranian cars and American tanks. An Oil Refinery in Afghanistan just across the border from Iran also does not invite any sanctions. This Oil Refinery can be big enough to support a large part of the needs of the whole region. Also this would be a solid Indian stamp on Afghanistan.

This way, Indians, Afghans, Turkmen, Iranians and Americans can all play tango at the cost of Pakistan's influence over America. I believe getting funding for such a project should also not be so difficult!

The main thing is, India has to be in the center of all this, for it to work.
This also makes AFG a key stakeholder in its own future development. Also, if the Indian Army could raise an Afghan regiment (from your e-book 8) ), we could see private Afghan security companies in charge of the defence batteries around the strategic refinery. Something like the Jamnagar refinery, built with international cooperation.

GoI would need to move fast on this idea, the ground conditions at the present are very favourable for the TAPI as we speak (courtesy the Japan quake 'n' tsunami and the expected blowback which is going to come from anti-nuclear lobbies across the world). India needs to move at this time when the world is still in a stupor.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by Lalmohan »

sure, but it will take about a decade for any refinery to become operational...
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by somnath »

^^^RajeshA-ji, intricate thinking, but requires too many people to tango to succeed...If US-Iran rapproachment is far fetched (whcih I agree on), a US-IRan-Russia-India tango is even more so...

Lets take the pipeline first...Who g'tees the security of the pipeline from Turkmenistan to Herat? And the olther one from Herat to (say) Zahedaan? Who g'tees the security of the refinery? Above all, who funds the project...A complicated and terror-risked project will fail to raise any funding at all..And building a refinery in Afghanistan, even a smallish one - should be at least a 6-7 years project, in fact more....Something like Jamnagar, Klaus-ji will take 30-40 years :)

On the political side, if Russia were so pliable, US would have utilised the NDN route that I posted earlier much before a lot more extensively....Second, a US-sponsored pipeline supplying oil to Iran is a huge optical endorsement of Iran...Third, India's role isnt clear...

It will be far easier for the US to enter into a sort of arrangement that it did during "Iran Contra" affair...A nudge and a wink on certain types of sanctions that can take a bite off Iran, at least on the econoimic side..That itself will enable Iran attract enough and more investments in refineries....As a quid pro quo, Iran allows India to use the Zaranj-Delaram route to transport supplies for US troops....For both Us and Iran, it would be relatively minor climbdowns from current stated stands, optically at least...And it would put India as the operator of the key logistics plan...

At the end however, India to retain influence will need to put boots on the ground in Af...That is key...Currently, it is beyond India's capacity, military and economic...But it needs to start....With a long term US presence, India can offer to "share" part of the burden to the US...It is going to be mighty complicated, as the Pakis will cry blue murder....But we can start with a small detachment placed in the friendlier locations like Panjshir, supplied through the CIS routes....
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

Lalmohan wrote:rajesh-ji, hat-tip is due
Sanku wrote:Yes Sir, a lot of thinking on how to change rather than just analyze.
PrasadZ wrote:mine topi too !
Klaus wrote:This also makes AFG a key stakeholder in its own future development. Also, if the Indian Army could raise an Afghan regiment (from your e-book 8) ), we could see private Afghan security companies in charge of the defence batteries around the strategic refinery. Something like the Jamnagar refinery, built with international cooperation.

GoI would need to move fast on this idea, the ground conditions at the present are very favourable for the TAPI as we speak (courtesy the Japan quake 'n' tsunami and the expected blowback which is going to come from anti-nuclear lobbies across the world). India needs to move at this time when the world is still in a stupor.
Bhaiyon, thanks for your vote of confidence for the idea.

Expanding on the idea a bit:

Mission:
Integrate Northern Afghanistan, i.e. Non-Pushtun Afghanistan into Indian sphere of influence, almost as if it is an Indian post in Central Asia, or an Indian State :wink: . Make non-Pushtun Afghanistan into the refining hub of Central Asia.

Why Afghanistan?
India needs to build up our presence - economic, political, cultural and military, in Northern Afghanitan for various reasons:
  1. To provide a means of committing Iran to providing India with a supply route to Afghanistan in exchange for gasoline from Afghanistan and influence in an America occupied Afghanistan.
  2. To provide America with a separate supply route serviced by India, making America independent and impervious to Pakistan's pressure tricks, thereby decreasing America's supply of weaponry to Pakistan which can be used against India.
  3. To tap into the energy resources of Central Asia
  4. To prevent all those energy resources from being diverted to China to feed only Chinese growth
  5. To build up non-Pushtun Afghanistan, to act as an alternate center of economic power and commercial activity for the Pushtuns viz-a-viz Pakistan, thereby pushing back Pakistan's influence from the whole of Pushtunistan, including parts of it, right now in Pakistan itself.
  6. To get a better handle on Pushtunistan, and Pushtun politics, and make it more antagonistic towards Pakistan, neutralizing Pakistan through a hammer and anvil strategy, with Pakistan stuck between an antagonistic Pushtunistan and the enemy India. To destabilize Pakistan from Afghanistan.
  7. To get a beachhead on Baluchistan, and manage Baluch struggle for Independence from Pakistan through Afghanistan.
  8. To have a different route into Gilgti-Baltistan other than LoC. Build up pressure on the Karakoram Passage from both sides - from Afghanistan and from India.
Stabilization of the Area
During most of Afghanistan's history it has been in a constant tug of war between various regional and global powers. Non-Pushtun areas of Afghanistan are for the time being living through an unexpected period of stability. If the area has to be kept stable, USA, which is not seen as hostile by most of the non-Pushtun Afghans, should stay put in non-Pushtun areas of Afghanistan as a stabilization force. Furthermore, American presence in Afghanistan, has also meant a steady flow of Western money into Afghanistan. This too helps, and stabilizes the economy. Thirdly coalition presence is a very important market for local services.

Second leg of stability in Northern non-Pushtun Afghanistan would be Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police under the control of a central government.

Third leg of stability for Northern non-Pushtun Afghanistan can be the Afghan Regiment, a regiment raised by the Indian Army, fully integrated into the Indian Army, whose members would be Afghans recruited from all over Afghanistan. They get their training in India, but they return to Afghanistan to work for the Indian Army, something on the lines of British Indian Army. India is not to be an occupying force in Afghanistan, but the Afghan Regiment can be active as part of the coalition forces but under Indian command. Thanks to Klaus for reminding me, of this angle.

Perhaps a major contribution to stability of Afghanistan would come if there is a bifurcation of the country as per Blackwill Plan, with the Pushtun areas of Afghanistan integrating politically with the Pushtun areas of Pakistan to form a Pushtunistan, which then can form a sort of confederation with (Northern non-Pushtun) Afghanistan. This arrangement contains the extent of Taliban expansion to the Pushtun areas themselves, allowing the rest of Afghanistan to develop.

India and Geopolitics of Afghanistan
We often think, that it is Pakistan that has cut us off from Central Asia. That is correct! But it is not the whole truth. Northern non-Pushtun Afghanistan and Tajikistan are the backyards of Iran. The Tajiks speak so to speak a Persian dialect. The one major difference between Tajiks and Iranians is the sect. Iranians are mostly Shi'a while Tajiks are mostly Sunni. So the Iranians would automatically have a very major influence in the region.

Now why would Iran like to share the region with India. In the 90s it served their interests to have Russia and India on board supporting the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. But now that Northern Afghanistan is relatively strong and stable, why should the Iranians allow Indians in?

One reason is because right now, the place is full of American and coalition troops, and Western money is propping up Afghanistan's economy, so that has pushed back Iranian influence. So while coalition troops are in Afghanistan, India has a leg-up on Iran there, because our presence is welcome by the coalition troops, but Iran's overt presence would be a red herring. Under the circumstances, Iran doesn't mind India being in Afghanistan because our presence there counteracts Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan, at a time when they can't show too much presence there to do the same.

So as long as America is there in Afghanistan, Iran would allow India to also remain active in the region as a counter to Pakistan. Once America leaves, Iranians would move in in to non-Pushtun Afghanistan provided they have the muscle to keep Taliban at bay, and keep India out!

We are fighting in Afghanistan, not just against Pakistan but we are also up against Iran, not to speak of the Chinese, Russians, Saudis and the Turks.

But as long as USA gets some cooperation from Pakistan, Iran cannot really push America out of Afghanistan, which just proves that the Tango that India needs to do is with the whole gamut of players - a tango where we may need Pakistan to blunt Iranian influence in the region enough that they allow us in in order to stop American dependence on Pakistan. In fact we may even need a little bit of Saudi help to keep Afghanistan and Tajikistan in the anti-Shia non-Iranian bloc. Also the whole machine will work only if Western money keeps various mouths watery and enticed!

So America should stay in Afghanistan as long as India does not have a route to Afghanistan either through PoK+Chitral+Badakhshan or through Baluchistan.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by Lalmohan »

((PoK+Chitral+Badakshan) .AND. Baluchistan)
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

somnath wrote:^^^RajeshA-ji, intricate thinking, but requires too many people to tango to succeed...If US-Iran rapproachment is far fetched (whcih I agree on), a US-IRan-Russia-India tango is even more so...
I don't think so. Some dances like rueda salsa can be danced better with many dancers.
somnath wrote:Lets take the pipeline first...Who g'tees the security of the pipeline from Turkmenistan to Herat? And the olther one from Herat to (say) Zahedaan?
UNOCAL Regiment! :mrgreen: Turkmen troops, who are part of the coalition in Afghanistan could do that! If not available ANA troops can do it. If not available Indian Army's Afghan Regiment (still non-existent) can do it. If not possible, private security companies could do it!
somnath wrote:Who g'tees the security of the refinery?
Possibly Indian troops - again the Afghan Regiment!
somnath wrote:Above all, who funds the project...A complicated and terror-risked project will fail to raise any funding at all..
That is why, I think the creation of some form of Pushtunistan would go a long way in bringing some stability to non-Pushtun regions of Afghanistan! The Blackwill Plan! Besides providing diesel for American tanks and SUVs in Afghanistan is a top priority for America! Right?
somnath wrote:And building a refinery in Afghanistan, even a smallish one - should be at least a 6-7 years project, in fact more....Something like Jamnagar, Klaus-ji will take 30-40 years :)
We should build smaller refineries in the beginning! If it receives priority and resources, it probably can be done much more quickly!
somnath wrote:On the political side, if Russia were so pliable, US would have utilised the NDN route that I posted earlier much before a lot more extensively....Second, a US-sponsored pipeline supplying oil to Iran is a huge optical endorsement of Iran...Third, India's role isnt clear...
Russia is not being asked to be pliable, but is rather being given a chance to build pipelines and not allow Americans monopolize Oil!
somnath wrote:It will be far easier for the US to enter into a sort of arrangement that it did during "Iran Contra" affair...A nudge and a wink on certain types of sanctions that can take a bite off Iran, at least on the econoimic side..That itself will enable Iran attract enough and more investments in refineries....As a quid pro quo, Iran allows India to use the Zaranj-Delaram route to transport supplies for US troops....For both Us and Iran, it would be relatively minor climbdowns from current stated stands, optically at least...And it would put India as the operator of the key logistics plan...
A refinery in Afghanistan in an American-occupied region is for Americans a bigger lever against Iran than letting them build their own refineries! Better to plant the apple tree in one's own garden and then let the neighbors take a few apples now and then. One gets gratitude! If you let them plant apple trees, you will only see entitlement and arrogance.
somnath wrote:At the end however, India to retain influence will need to put boots on the ground in Af...That is key...Currently, it is beyond India's capacity, military and economic...But it needs to start....With a long term US presence, India can offer to "share" part of the burden to the US...It is going to be mighty complicated, as the Pakis will cry blue murder....But we can start with a small detachment placed in the friendlier locations like Panjshir, supplied through the CIS routes....
I think, India needs to build up a military presence in Afghanistan, which has an independent procurement and logistics network - an Afghan Regiment in the Indian Army, serving in Afghanistan! As much as possible, they should be able to procure stuff locally, or from the CARs!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by shiv »

My geography may be a bit shaky here. I thought the best route to Afghanistan from India is via Pakjab.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:My geography may be a bit shaky here. I thought the best route to Afghanistan from India is via Pakjab.
It is the shortest route saar, but it would take India another 30-40 years to get to Afghanistan through that route! Very very shrubby! But we will get there through that route too!
Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7115
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by Muppalla »

arun wrote:X Posted from the Pakistani Role in Global Terrorism thread.

Comment of Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of American and coalition forces in Afghanistan, to the members of the US Senate Armed Services Committee about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan‘s penchant for fomenting Islamic Terrorism:

“There is, I think, a growing recognition that you cannot allow poisonous snakes to have a nest in your backyard even if they just bite the neighbor’s kids, because sooner or later they’re going to turn around and cause problems in your backyard.”

Read it all:

New York Times

Also before the members of the US Senate Armed Services Committee, US Senator John McCain alludes to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s penchant for fomenting Islamic Terrorism:

“A second key challenge stems from Pakistan – the growing instability of the country, the insurgent safe havens that remain there, the ties to terrorists that still exist among elements of Pakistan’s military and intelligence services, and the seeming deterioration of our relationship amid the continued detention of U.S. Embassy official Raymond Davis. But here, too, a measure of patience is needed. We have sought every means to compel Pakistan to reorient its strategic calculus, short of cutting off U.S. assistance, which we did before to no positive effect. To be sure, Pakistan deserves praise for some steps it has taken to fight al-Qaeda and Taliban groups on the Pakistani side of the border. But what we must increasingly recognize is that perhaps the most effective way to end Pakistan’s support for terrorist groups that target our partners and our personnel in the region is to succeed in Afghanistan. Ultimately, it is only when an Afghan government and security force is capable of neutralizing the terrorist groups backed by some in Pakistan that those Pakistani leaders could come to see that a strategy of hedging their bets in this conflict will only leaving them less secure and more isolated.”

Read that all:

Senator McCain’s Opening Statement at the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing
The bolded and blue colored statement again proves my point. The entire US engagement in Pak or say Af-Pak is just one reason. India and nothing else. CA oil is distraction. Everytime I want to un-convince myself more and more straight news comes from uncle.
somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by somnath »

RajesA-ji,

1. You put too much importance on Iran's requirement for fuel products...While there is some stress, it is nowhgere near deparate times...What is biting Iran more is the wide ranging sanctions regime that is creating more restiveness in the populace..

2. For the above, what Iran needs really desparatrely is some relief from the sanctions...For the US, a bit of nudge and wink is far more plausible than a wide ranging infrastructure project that benefits Iran..

3. Security given by an Indian Afghan regiment!?? After a decade and billions of dollars, the ANA is not even fit to provide security to Hami Karzai...How can they provde security to a project that has BULLS EYE written all over it? The relatively modest Zaranj-Delaram Highway cause how many casualties? A refinery project will be almost impossiblt to realistically even build in reaonsably time...

4. In any case, the refinery is besides the point - it only provides the sort of optics that is unnecessary for US, Iran AND India...The key point is an alternate route for US logistics..

5. The Blackwill plan does nothing to US logistics really...without Iranian suport, the supply chains still need to pass through Pak..

Ideas that are simple have better chances of success...The objective is an alternate supply route for the US, and how India can be the lynchpin of the strategy thereafter...
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5405
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by ShauryaT »

RajeshA wrote:
shiv wrote:My geography may be a bit shaky here. I thought the best route to Afghanistan from India is via Pakjab.
It is the shortest route saar, but it would take India another 30-40 years to get to Afghanistan through that route! Very very shrubby! But we will get there through that route too!
The Doc asked for the best route, not the shortest one :) Now, the Doc has to explain, what does he mean by the "best"?

RajeshA: Consider this theory. Afghanistan cannot be controlled without the help of the Pashtuns. 60% of the Pashtun population is on the east of the Durand line. Also, consider this, the geo-politics of NA is affected by the Pashtuns in a major way, so a line to the non Pashtun areas from NA is almost an impossibility, just lookup the geography of the region. A majority of the people in Baluchistan speak Pashto.

My question is, could you realistically exclude the Pashtuns from the equation?
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

somnath wrote:RajesA-ji,

1. You put too much importance on Iran's requirement for fuel products...While there is some stress, it is nowhgere near deparate times...What is biting Iran more is the wide ranging sanctions regime that is creating more restiveness in the populace..
It is not just the fuel products that will cement Iran's dependence on Northern Afghanistan! Far more important is to make Iran accommodating of the Tajik aspirations for independence and development. Should Iran, say block the export of fuel products produced in Northern Afghanistan, or demand too high transit charges, the Tajiks, who are Sunnis would start leaning towards KSA. It is in Iran's interest that the Tajiks stay connected to their common linguistic and racial bonds with the Iranians. So Iran would continue to allow transit through Chahbahar-Zaranj-Delaram Highway. In fact, Iran would possibly give Northern Afghanistan the facility of free transit for exports and imports. This would include export of petroleum products from Indian Refineries in Afghanistan to India.

Gasoline is just one hold on Iran, ethnic vs. sectarian inclination of Tajiks is another!
somnath wrote:2. For the above, what Iran needs really desparatrely is some relief from the sanctions...For the US, a bit of nudge and wink is far more plausible than a wide ranging infrastructure project that benefits Iran..
What Iran needs desperately is exactly what one (USA) would/should not give Iran. That is at the moment USA's prime hold over Iran, and they will not throw it away lightly!

The thing is relief from sanctions for Iran does not give USA an assurance that the supply lines through Iran would continue! A nudge and a wink is no basis for a long term supply route strategy for USA. It can be good for a one-time exception, where Iran allows certain equipment for USA to pass through, in exchange for USA turning a blind eye to some import of necessary equipment by Iran.

What we are trying to achieve is a situation where USA shakes off its dependence on Pakistan for its supply lines! An on-and-off understanding with Iran does not give America the assurance it needs, that should Pakistan start blackmailing or making outrageous demands on it, it can rely on the supply route through Iran. USA cannot depend on either the generosity of Iran nor certainty of success in any negotiation for one-time access. What USA could depend on, is an Iran, which would feel compelled to hold on to its side of the bargain for free access to Afghanistan, the compulsion being based on an Iranian assessment of grave harm to its core interests, should they balk. A bitter confrontation between Tajik-dominated Northern Afghanistan on the one side and Iran on the other, with KSA's shadow looming large in the background, could just be what the doctor ordered.
somnath wrote:3. Security given by an Indian Afghan regiment!?? After a decade and billions of dollars, the ANA is not even fit to provide security to Hami Karzai...How can they provde security to a project that has BULLS EYE written all over it? The relatively modest Zaranj-Delaram Highway cause how many casualties? A refinery project will be almost impossiblt to realistically even build in reaonsably time...
ANA is not part of the US Armed Forces, the same way the Afghan Regiment could be part of the Indian Army! The Afghan Regiment would be led by Indian Officers!
somnath wrote:4. In any case, the refinery is besides the point - it only provides the sort of optics that is unnecessary for US, Iran AND India...The key point is an alternate route for US logistics..
Making Northern Afghanistan a refining hub would lead to an Iranian commitment to a free transit corridor between Chahbahar and Zaranj!
somnath wrote:5. The Blackwill plan does nothing to US logistics really...without Iranian suport, the supply chains still need to pass through Pak..
The Blackwill Plan tries to restrict the instability in Afghanistan to only Pushtun areas, making Northern Afghanistan under ISAF a region of more stability. The creation of Pushtunistan itself and an ISAF retreat from Pushtunistan would lead to an inward reorientation of Pushtun attention and calm Pushtun passions. The resulting calm in Northern Afghanistan would allow the place to be stabilized and be developed.
somnath wrote:Ideas that are simple have better chances of success...The objective is an alternate supply route for the US, and how India can be the lynchpin of the strategy thereafter...
The objective is an alternate supply route for the US, that is a credible long-term alternative. Anything less than that, and Pakistan would continue with its blackmail, and America will continue with giving in to that blackmail.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:My geography may be a bit shaky here. I thought the best route to Afghanistan from India is via Pakjab.
RajeshA wrote:It is the shortest route saar, but it would take India another 30-40 years to get to Afghanistan through that route! Very very shrubby! But we will get there through that route too!
The Doc asked for the best route, not the shortest one :) Now, the Doc has to explain, what does he mean by the "best"?

RajeshA: Consider this theory. Afghanistan cannot be controlled without the help of the Pashtuns. 60% of the Pashtun population is on the east of the Durand line. Also, consider this, the geo-politics of NA is affected by the Pashtuns in a major way, so a line to the non Pashtun areas from NA is almost an impossibility, just lookup the geography of the region. A majority of the people in Baluchistan speak Pashto.
Image

The Pushtunistan I have in mind bifurcates Afghanistan into Southern Afghanistan with Pushtun areas and Rest Afghanistan with mostly Tajik, Hazara, Aimak, Turkmen, Nuristani, Baloch areas. South Western Afghanistan (Provinces of Nimroz, Farah) goes to Rest Afghanistan, from now on known as Northern Afghanistan.

So there is a large area, where the Pushtuns are not the majority and do not dominate.

I presume when you use NA, you mean Northern Afghanistan. There is a route to Northern Afghanistan, say Herat, through Iran.

Even from Pakistan there is a route to Northern Afghanistan through Baluchistan hugging the West of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pushtuns are in Northern Baluchistan but not in North-Western Baluchistan. There is a route from Pakistan through Chitral, another district of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, and Badakhshan in Afghanistan. Both these routes can join up with Northern Afghanistan without necessarily going through Pushtun areas. Chitral for example should remain part of Pakistan when a Pushtunistan is being created. These are the areas that India should inherit when Pakistan collapses. So Baluchistan and Chitral could one day provide access to Northern Afghanistan without going through Pakjab and Pushtunistan areas.
ShauryaT wrote:My question is, could you realistically exclude the Pashtuns from the equation?
I think we should indeed exclude the Pushtuns from Northern Afghanistan, except may be as a factor which favors India.

When we create Pushtunistan, the attention of the Pushtuns would be diverted to nation-building and politics of the new Pushtunistan. Secondly, I am all for creating an ISI+TSPA hunting industry in Pushtunistan, diverting their attention even more towards Pakjab and away from Northern Afghanistan.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5405
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by ShauryaT »

RajeshA: Please do not mind my critique as it is only an attempt to learn and inform.

By NA, I meant Northern Areas of J&K state and the fact that the rule on these areas and a transit to Afghanistan, even via Chitral (which is part of Pashtun lands, even if tribal) is difficult without Pashtun support.

You may desire to exclude the Pashtuns from Northern Afghanistan, but as the Northern Alliance experience shows us that even after the passive support of three states Iran, Russia and India the Northern Alliance ruled not more than 10% of the territories of Afghanistan with the rest under the control of the the Pashtun dominated Talibs.

Before that, it was again Pashtuns with other groups that led the Russian resistance. Now, we see a repeat of the same, where the Pashtuns or at least a portion of them lead the resistance. The control of the Pashtuns by TSP is the reason, why it is so easy for TSP to control Afghanistan, either to make it stable or unstable.

One thing that helps is to remove the artificial Durand line from our minds, when we think of this area. Now, the map (Ralph Peters?) and possibilities change and it is very easy to recognize that without Pashtun support, stability is not possible in the adjoining areas in west and North Afghanistan and also Baluchistan.

Also, the map you have of the ethnic distribution is a broad approximation the reality is the Pashtuns are splattered all over the non-pashtun areas, with significant minorities in the overall region and the majority in areas of a sub region. So it is more complex.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

Post by RajeshA »

ShauryaT ji,

there is a general understanding amongst the Afghans, that the Afghan Tajiks would not go and dominate Pushtun areas. Right now, ANA which consists of mostly Tajiks, is being used in Pushtun areas, and IMHO, they don't really feel good about it. It is one thing to protect one's own lands, but quite another to try to dominate the lands of your neighbors as well. So I think, ANA would be most effective if it is an army protecting only non-Pushtun areas of Afghanistan.

I also think, that of the two, the warrior culture is more pronounced amongst the Pushtun, so a reasonable way to ensure stability in Northern Afghanistan would be:
  • Build the fighting capacity of the Tajiks - ANA, ANP
  • Keep coalition troops in Northern Afghanistan as back-up.
  • Keep the attention of the Pushtuns away from Northern Afghanistan, more concerned with politics of Pushtunistan itself.
  • Keep the Pushtuns focussed southwards, towards Pakjabis.
I frankly don't see Pushtuns as helpful in Northern Afghanistan. Pushtuns are good at causing instability, and for that reason, India should avail of their services viz-a-viz Pakjab, and not for Northern Afghanistan.

Secondly we should encourage setting up of Pushtunistan, clearly demarcated from Northern Afghanistan, but in a Confederation with Northern Afghanistan, so that there is not too much friction and conflict. Also towards the South, we should encourage Pakistan to retain maximum land, especially enabling Pakistan a passage to Tajik areas from the East, through Swat, Dir, Chitral, and Badakhshan. To the West, Pakistan should retain a corridor to West Afghanistan through North-West Baluchistan!

Why am I in favor of such goodies landing in the lap of Pakistanis?
Well a Partition of Pakistan with some Pushtun areas being kept within Pakistan for the sake of corridors, would mean TSPA could cause more Pushtun displacements and refugees, institutionalizing Pushtun-Pakjabi hostility. Secondly any Pakistani collapse in the future after that could mean that those areas would be taken back by India sometime in the future, whenever that is, giving India a passage to Northern Afghanistan, which avoids both the population dense areas of Pakjab, as well as unstable and violent areas of Pushtunistan!

In Gilgit, Baltistan, Chitral, Kohistan, the Pushtuns are fewer and mostly migrants.
Post Reply