Indo-US Operations in J&K

[Amarko]

The significance of this announcement is nothing short of a windfall in the geopolitical equations of the Indian Subcontinent. Not because we may say yes, but because the USofA is finally showing signs of waking up and opening its eyes.

Rumsfeld has special forces offer for India

What are the implications of allowing US troops into J&K and hunting for Al Quaeda members from this side of the border?

Amarko.

Oops: posted into the wrong folder. Admins, can you move this into the strategic issues folder? thanks!

[Sridhar]

This thread should be in the Strategic Issues forum since the strategic issues involved override the military aspects.

I don't think this proposal is likely to be expected. We have had a consistent policy since independence that no foreign soldiers will be allowed on our soil. Even during the 1962 war, there was only limited cooperation between India and the US and that too only for the duration of the war. GoI is unlikely to risk the political storm that would follow any acceptance of this proposal.

Secondly, it should not be accepted because the US has its own interests which do not necessarily align with ours. Cooperation in other forms is already happening and is welcome. Soldiers on our soil is a different issue altogether. As for US special forces in PoK, that is already happening.

[Amarko]

Sridhar,
Just after Sep11 attacks, India has volunteered the use of our air bases to the US. And there was no opposition to this proposal within India.

Joint excercises have been conducted at Agra, and so US soilders have been already allowed on our soil (not in a combat role of course)

So, the idea is not as alien as you seem to suggest. And even in the absence of strong precedents, _if_ circumstances warrent it, I see why not?

Amarko.

[advitya]

Originally posted by amarko:
Joint excercises have been conducted at Agra, and so US soilders have been already allowed on our soil (not in a combat role of course)
.

However, US speical forces were refused training access to Sonamarg and Lahul.

[P Babu]

My 2 Cents..
US soldiers may be allowed on Indian soil for joint training or for some other purposes..but not in J&K. Kashmir problem should be solved bilaterally. Involving US will internationalize the problem, which mushy wants desperatly. It is our misfortune that we have to find peaceful solution with "devil" [it is spelled as P-A-K-I-S-T-A-N].

We should also make is clear that refusing soldiers in J&K doesn't mean that we dont trust US, but it means we are consistent in our policy towards Kashmir problem.

[member_4309]

This event is, as Amarko pointed out, a remarkable opportunity to completely turn the tables on Pakistan!!!

A small/token presence of US SFs to fight/interdict/intercept/whatever... terrorists will have the following implications:
1)- It will forever mean that the western world, whose influence means a lot in our part of the world (particularly in moderating Paki behavior towards us), will stop being ambivalent over the terroist vs. freedom-fighter question which underlines violence in J&K
2)- It will water down, the pretence of Musharraf being the most important ally (or as N^3 says -'al-lie') in the region.
3)- If/When deadbodies of the jihadis start piling up under the noses of indian troops/police and U.S. SFs - there will be more acknowledgement of evidence of ISI linkages with the Jihadis - which means more pressure on Musharraf.
4) - the process will go back to implication 1), followed by 2), 3), 4),...1),2),3),4)... until either terrorism ends, or Musharraf falls in a blaze of glory at the hands of his own beloved freedom fighters.

The only question that needs more introspection, as the article points out, is one of dealing with the legal, sovereign, operational hurdles. but even here, we could pull a fast one - by saying we are only assisting U.S. fight against Al-Qaeda, and lump all of these Jihadi groups with the Al-Qaeda, and really get on with turning the political screws on Musharraf, and his jihadis - until either one, or hopefully both of them, are relegated to the dust-bin of history.

Regards-

Aninda

PS- Musharraf should be careful of what he wishes for, as it may actually come true! (am referring to 3rd party intervention here.) Although, for us its not really 3rd party intervention, just our moral obligation in participating in the 'war against terrorism.'

[Umrao]

the last indication of India's independence is gone with these kind of joint patrols!!

Oh Mrs IG, Nehru, MKG must all be turning in their graves.

for the last 4 yrs of the big three I have been shouting that Kashmir problem is completely internationalised, the amazing thing is that stalwarts here are now churning out the virtues of alignment with the gang of five.

Man o man we are some regional power aren't we?

[member_4309]

Come on JUmrao,
Changing times calls for changing strategies

We either fight on our own, or get others to help out.

GoI obviously did not want to go with the former option... so what do you have left???

[Yash]

NO way Jose...this reminds me of the proverbial camel who ended up taking the tent. IMHO, US would not make a suggestion in public fora without being convinced that it won't be slapped down by MEA. Two possibilities stand out:

a) US realizes that the war against terror is not over until the scum in Indian Kashmir, POK, Northern/Western Pakistan are eliminated. Therefore, India should counter-suggest that the US troops patrol the other side of LOC. We'll take care of things our side, as we always have.

b) US, encouraged by Armitage's success, undermines India's resolve in solving terrorism bilaterally ONLY. Hence, this public proposal of what was talked about only privately till now.

[kgoan]

Wonder what would happen if a bunch of these US SF guys were killed by Pak terrorists while on the LOC? Would the US go apesh!t? Would this be worth the loss of soverignity? What do people think?

[Rangudu]

Originally posted by John Umrao:
Oh Mrs IG, Nehru, MKG must all be turning in their graves.

Pardon my grammar, but wasn't it Nehru who made this whole thing internationaly by going to the UNSC? A few more weeks and we could have be set.

[Umrao]

Originally posted by Rangudu:

Originally posted by John Umrao:
Oh Mrs IG, Nehru, MKG must all be turning in their graves.

Pardon my grammar, but wasn't it Nehru who made this whole thing internationaly by going to the UNSC? A few more weeks and we could have be set.

Rangadu, I was also of the same opinion but looking at ABV I say Nehru was better hawk.

Imagine a nascent India, with British COAS, with .303 enfield rifles and Douglas DC-3 and yet he saved 2/3 of J&K for India.

In contrast ABV set off what was there already, and we are ready to march to the Yankee Doodle theme.

I am convinced that ABV is Nehru par excellence sans the rose on him.

[JE Menon]

I do not think US forces will be in J&K in a combat/institutionalised observer mode. It is the DDM bull. Any foreign patrolling will be on other side of LOC. Let's see. If it happens that GoI allows US military forces to patrol on our side of LoC, it effectively means we have acknowledged defeat in the proxy guerrilla war by Pakistan. Can't see that happening. Joint patrolling on our own territory is a totally different ballgame from exercises in Agra or Alaska. We can expect clarification.

[P Babu]

I agree with John. We are regional power and by allowing US troops in J&K, we are not strengthening our position. We should tell the whole world that TSP is the one who should be curtailed and if there needs to be some monitoring then it should be on TSP's soil.

This should be our offer..
India will be more than happy to join US troops on POK, to help curtail CBT.

[Sunil]

It appears as though the author, Siddharth Vardarajan, is `seeing' one of the many elements of Indo-US cooperation albeit in bowdlerized form.

Lacking a context to really place it in, Siddharth has put it into the `Al Qaeeda Jamboree'. Nothing wrong with his approach, but one must remember that he is merely making the best of a bad situation.

It is best not to read too much into this article.

[Michael]

I don't think the US would dare risk its troops in JK. Besides it would drive our Paki "allies" nuts. You think Indians are hostile to the idea? Imagine the reaction in Pakistan. It has Yankee-Yindoo conspiracy written all over it.

[member_4339]

I havent seen one concrete argument for or against US troop participation in J&K in this thread yet.

May be the problem is so complicated, we are unable to comprehend. Hope our leadership is better prepared.

I can think of one issue though. India has been rejecting US request for permanent bases. Reasoning given is we do not want to create Manilas in India. Well, that is certainly a valid concern, which could be handled in other ways.

US had radars installation in J&K prior to the 1962 war to evesdrop on chinese communications. They would still be interested in having a base in Kashmir, to remind china that it is not geographically seperated from its reach. A full fledged US base would actually be create a major hurdle for chinese and pakistani grand designs of splitting J&K amongst themselves.

Current US administration might have sincere intentions, but can we trust them over next several decades? Not unless Indians develop a powerful lobby.

[Amarko]

Lets summarize the Fors and Againsts so far:

Against:
1. We have a policy against foreign troops on our soil. (Can some one explain what exactly this policy is and what its covenants are?)

2. Letting US into J&K is internationalizing the Kashmiri dispute which should only be resolved bilaterally.

3. US coming in will rankle Pak to no end and having two (opposing) swords in the same GOAT scabbard is impossible.

4. Once let in the US will never leave and India will become another Philippines with the permanant status of a vassal of the US

5. Its not befitting for a nation with major regional power ambitions to sell out like this

6. Its more useful if US patrolled the other (Paki) side of the border since the jehadi scum comes from there.

For:

1. This policy of not allowing foreign troops on our soil is not a constitutional binding. It can be reversed if required

2. Isn't the Kashnir dispute not internationalized enough already?

3. If the US can ram the demand of routing Taliban from Afghanistan up the backside of the Paki establishment, there is no reason it can't do the same once more wrt Kashmir. India & Pak will be sandwiched by the US forces & diplomats, so we don't really have to get along like lovers to advance the GOAT.

4. It depends on what kind of troop prescence we agree to. If it is defined a priori as a limited military coperation to attain predefined goals wrt GOAT, with no promises of allowing US bases all over the countryside, we can reduce US prescence to mere token prescence or even zero once all this is over. Moreover, we can really get China off our back!

5. It will be a sell out only if our national interestes are compromised to serve US interests. If we are confident of achieving our objectives, there is no sell out.

6. We know that US patrolling in POK will be largely dependent on help and access provided by local Pak Army commanders. They can and will lead US to believe that its an area of total peace in the land of the pure. US will be like a blinkered horse.

voila!
Lets hope we can find more arguments one way or the other...

Amarko.

[AnantD]

Posted by KGoan:
"Wonder what would happen if a bunch of these US SF guys were killed by Pak terrorists while on the LOC? Would the US go apesh!t? Would this be worth the loss of soverignity? What do people think? "

Exactly what has happened in the past: it would be denied that anyone was killed or the number reduced to something un-alarming, like one or two. The families would be informed several weeks later and the official report would come out under the next administration.

As far as US SF being on the Indian side of the LOC, if this happens or dosen't this won't be for public/media consumption. BTW, there were US SF along LOC earlier in a "communications" role looking for AQ/OBL a few months ago. I think they found what they wanted to find, and the Amritraj visit to bench-press Mushy's tushy may have been facilitated by this first hand information.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_2038000/2038841.stm

[Umrao]

What if the USSF killed accidentally Indian civilians? This happened in Afghanistan, due to Sf as well as USAF/Marines.

[Amarko]

How is that any different from civilians accidentally killed by Indian Security Forces? GOI has to watchout for negative propaganda by vested interestes. Thats all.
Amarko

[Kaushal]

Imagine a nascent India, with British COAS, with .303 enfield rifles and Douglas DC-3 and yet he saved 2/3 of J&K for India.

You mean he lost 1/3 of J&K and subsequently lost another 15% to China. As for the rest , how was that different from Pakistan. Yet with the same equipment they got 1/3 of J&K just by sending a ragtag bunch of tribals - the same bunch whose grandchildren are now being mowed down by the IA. You are falling into the same trap of deifying and depending on one man for all of India's problems. i would much rather India be like Switzerland. Can anybody name the President of Switzerland, arguably the richest country in the world.

The India of today is vastly different than 50 years ago. ABV has nowhere near the same power or the adulation that Nehru had, and that is as it should be.

Kaushal

[P Babu]

amarko, there is one more point against : What is the guarantee that US won't spy on us once they have their troops in J&K? And what is the guarantee that US will share "EVERYTHING" that they find out with us? Remember, US has its own interest and our interest comes in last in the list..It is our duty to look into our own..

Now Kashmir issue is internationalized, but not in a way TSP wants..It is in our favor, the whole world wants us to resolve it bilaterally..If we agree for US troops, that means TSP won in their campaign to get third party involved..And we will be deviating from Simla agreement..

[Sanjay Joshi]

I dont agree with this. The US can always be asked to leave since we are not dependent on them for our daily livlihood.

Originally posted by amarko:
4. Once let in the US will never leave and India will become another Philippines with the permanant status of a vassal of the US

[AnantD]

Re: US Troops

I don't ever foresee a "large" US SF presence, like in Afghanistan. India has the manpower, US may provide only specialists and liason type SF. This automatically precludes civilian casualties, like in Afghanistan where a motorcade was taken out by C130 gunships. The whole scene is entirely different.

If the US wants to spy on anyone, why do it in Kashmir, there is nothing to hide or gain by doing so. What is more realistic is causing problems with the dragon that backire on India instead. The small US SF teams would work with the Indian Army, what do you think all the joint training is about!!

[pran]

From the Article written by Arnaud de Borchgraveat http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/17/165547.shtml the statments which concern India and her future are:-
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The U.S. wants to divide Pakistan into seven states: Punjab, Sind, Northwest Frontier Province, Baluchistan, Fata (Federally Administered Tribal Areas), Karachi and Kashmir. Kashmir, under the U.S. plan, is to become an independent state.
  What US does with their pet Ally is none of India's business but it becomes a concern when they try to show both sides of the conflict the picture of the devil and try to barge in.
  </font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Kashmir declaration of independence is ready, and the United States will demand that Pakistan and India sign it. The U.S. Army will control the region.
  This is the scariest part that a demand will be made.The Indian Govt. should not give in to such as it did during POK-II.It is neither in the interest of TSP,India and China to have an unreliable entity in their backyard.
  </font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CIA is fanning ethnic tensions and planning civil unrest, riots and killings between the Muslims of Pakistan and Indian Kashmir to prepare all parties for Kashmir independence.
  As always the case more the money the more the use of its influence to increase the infighting among the people of the region.How is Indian counter Intelligence reacting to this?
  </font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The United States and India want Pakistan to become a small Nepal-type state under Indian influence.
  This seems to be the proverbial carrot being dangled before the Indian politicians.First scare India with ISI,TSP nukes then give the notion that we'll clean up TSP for you so you can control.The question is what is there to control,Indians have accepted the existence of TSP except some fanatics who can jump the gun when the opportunity comes,the only sticking point is CBT and status of Kashmir.So this turbulence on the western borders of India is a controlled phenomenon which can be turned on and off as needed.
  </font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Out of 4,000-plus workers for NGOs, or non-governmental organizations, working in Pakistan, approximately 1,000 have been identified by ISI as U.S. intelligence agents implementing the U.S. agenda. These American agents are trying "at all levels" to destroy the unity of Pakistani armed forces.
  Any reason Indians should not believe that the same is not happening in India?Some intelligence reports indicate that it already happenning.Some of the funding coming under the guise of Islamic fundamentalism serving both ends.

  From the intelligence thread:-
  Tuesday June 18, 12:14 PM
  
  AP major shelter for ISI: Report
  
  Revealing this, a recent report on the operation of ISI and funding to militant organisations - prepared after the Gheelani episode states, "At least nine major organisations and about 27 small groups are working for ISI in the country. Besides receiving funds from ISI, the small groups are also getting financial assistance from over dozen USA, UK, Malaysia, UAE and Pakistan based organisations through hawala channel."

  </font></li>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Even though it is a drag on the economy and defence personnel morale because of the engagment in Kashmir.The presence of a threat has shaken the Indian defence establishment into rapid mobilization and this is a growing concern among world powers whose nose have been thumbed before.

[ramana]

The UPI link is provided here: Analysis: Al Qaida's privileged sanctuary

"The latest reports from Pakistan are ringing alarm bells throughout the Western intelligence community. Disinformation about U.S. intentions is being circulated by "midlevel" Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency operatives and some field grade army officers. Samples:

-- U.S. forces are not to be trusted "at all."

Pakistan's nuclear program is the key objective...."

As one can see the stuff in the quotes in the previous post is ISI rumors being created to oppose the US presence in TSP. And the report about AP being the hub of ISI ops is quite misleading. If one reads the report in its entirety that hoor goes to Mumbai and the UP and then only to AP. Its good to be paranoid but not so much that it prevents clarity of vision.

[dev]

IMHO, I don't think the USSF has anything special to offer to the indian army militarily. I'm ofcourse not knocking the USSF, after all the Green Berets, Delta Force, Navy SEALs and whatever else are formidable. Nevertheless, our own special forces and troops are doing their utmost to curb terrorism and the militancy. We have more experience especially battle experience than the USSF in this sutuation.

However we could certainly use the latest equipment. I don't think we should be opposed to that. We can handle the work and the U.S can provide us with special equipment and weapons...free of charge or on a discount of course