India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Dec 2008 16:27

Very elequently put Chandra. India is not the AmirKhan's rent boy like the pigsty!

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 30 Dec 2008 16:47

1. No question that IA will serve only under the Indian flag and under independent command. No other way save a UN sanctioned foray to (i) garner political support within India for the move, (ii) convince logistic supply route nations (Iran or Russia) that we might endanger their interests in AF.

2. What would be the mission though for our troops under independent command? Fight the Taliban? If the talibs really are Pushtu nationalists, would making enemies of the emerging nascent Pakhtunkhwa nation be a good strato longterm?

3. Free Balochistan could well be a great supply route. Desi presence in AF gives added edge for this dream to come true. Bakis have already started backpedaling on their 'reluctance to fight taliban on the western front' position. tspa has suspended NATO supplies via khyber to focus on cleaning up Fazlullah's forces apparently.

Interesting times ahead.

R Vaidya · Post by **R Vaidya** » 30 Dec 2008 17:03

This might be of interest---

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030715/main1.htm

No Indian troops for Iraq
Tough talk by Advani, George carries the day
Rajeev Sharma
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, July 14
The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) today rejected the US plea for sending Indian troops to Iraq after an intense debate which saw top ministers taking radically divergent stands on the thorny issue.
The 90-minute vibrant proceedings of the country’s apex decision-making body on issues of national security and foreign policy objectives were marked by the strident “No-troops-for-Iraq” arguments put forward by Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani and Defence Minister George Fernandes.
Authoritative sources told The Tribune that Mr Advani had clearly told US Ambassador Robert Blackwill on Saturday that there was no way that India could send its troops to Iraq.

Finance Minister Jaswant Singh is understood to have urged the CCS today to defer the decision on the issue.

The main reason for saying “no” to the US request was that if India sends its troops to Iraq it would send a wrong signal to the Arab world and India would be seen to be assisting the occupationist forces.
Besides, the current situation in Iraq is highly volatile as hardly a day passes when American/British soldiers are not attacked and in this scenario the Indian troops could also come under attacks.
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee kept to his usual self of not airing his views and listened patiently to every speaker.
The Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary and National Security Adviser, Mr Brajesh Mishra, is learnt to have said at the meeting that if the government had to say “no” it had to be in such a manner that it does not spoil India’s relations with the US and at the same time does not queer the pitch for the government and the ruling party.

At this point of time, Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal butted in and suggested a way out. Mr Sibal said while rejecting the US request, the government should make it clear that India could consider sending troops to Iraq if there was to be an “explicit” United Nations mandate.

Mr Brajesh Mishra supported Mr Sibal’s suggestion and this important clause was incorporated in the brief press statement which the CCS approved and which External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha read out to reporters after the meeting. “Were there to be an explicit UN mandate for the purpose, the Government of India could consider the deployment of our troops in Iraq,” Mr Sinha said.

Mr Sinha is understood to be of the same views as Mr Advani’s on the Iraq issue.
The press statement issued by the CCS said:
“The Government of India has given careful thought to the question of sending Indian troops to Iraq.

“Our longer term national interest, our concern for the people of Iraq, our long-standing ties with the Gulf region as a whole, as well as our growing dialogue and strengthened ties with the US have been key elements in this consideration.

“India remains ready to respond to the urgent needs of the Iraqi people for stability, security, political progress and economic reconstruction. Were there to be an explicit UN mandate for the purpose, the Government of India could consider the deployment of our troops in Iraq.

“In the meanwhile, the Government of India is ready to contribute to the restoration of infrastructure, medical, health, educational, communications and other civilian needs of the Iraqi people. As a concrete gesture of our support to the Iraqi people, we are already planning to set up, jointly with Jordan, a hospital in Najaf in Iraq.”
The Vajpayee government’s decision was immediately conveyed to US Ambassador Robert Blackwill by Mr Brajesh Mishra. The US had formally approached India in early May to send its troops to Iraq soon after the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime. Washington had asked for a Division which means some 17,000 troops.
US Ambassador Robert Blackwill has already gone on record on several occasions having said that if India were to decide against sending troops to Iraq, it would not damage the prevailing “robust” Indo-US relationship.
Planning Commission Deputy Chairman, K.C. Pant, Cabinet Secretary Kamal Pande and Union Home Secretary N. Gopalaswamy were also present at the meeting held at the Prime Minister’s residence and presided over by Mr Vajpayee. Meanwhile, the US reacted rather cautiously to the CCS decision and said it had hoped that despite opposition, New Delhi would have taken a different stand.

A US Embassy spokesperson said: “While we had hoped India would take a different decision, the transformation of US-India relations will continue as before. India remains an important strategic partner for the US.”

w.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030715/main1.htm

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 30 Dec 2008 17:11

Philip,
I feel TSPA can only go down once we can sap the Amir khan's energy dry. There is no other way. This is a great opportunity for the Indic civilisation to set both of the wrongs right in one go - Taming of Anglo- saxons and also decimation of scourge of earth, Radical islam.
Once the Bully(US) is tied down, the piglet will not be able to survive. Bhasmasur has to kill himself. Once the retreating Amir khans scorch the earth, they will get into the shell like Nam for next 30-40 years. We just need to make ourselves indispensible- make money abashedly. Where is the famed Hindu Bania gene

I repeat, no forces in AF till the time we can get UN mandated 50-100 km wide land corridor through POK. In today's context we mean nothing to the new sheriff in town(Nobama) except some old man in neighbourhood who can be reason with/threatened too subtly. Get China embroiled somehow in the mess too, "big power ought to help the world...." US must bleed bad and should get tired of dead bodies. They must pay for all the sins that they have committed against us and continued during this crisis also.
I liked the name toofan Wazir, next one should be Halagu Khan. I like him too

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 30 Dec 2008 17:32

R Vaidya wrote:This might be of interest---
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030715/main1.htm

A 5 year old article?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Dec 2008 17:39

vina wrote:Guys.. Guys.. The troops in Afghanistan threat works!..

Breaking News from Pee Pee Cee
Pakistan Suspends Nato Supplies to fight Taliban

No fair

To fast Too quick.

I mean here you have a nation whose PM receives a call from some joker who claims to be Indian FM and then starts having "Air defence patrols" over Lahore. What mightn't they have done had they got wind of the 120,000 Indian troops "news"?

But a u-turn and troops back to the West is too quick.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 30 Dec 2008 17:44

Let's say that India does send a hundred thousand troops into Afghanistan, what happens when the IA contingent starts to take casualties, what about the political & media mayhem that will follow at home? We need to ask ourselves, is the country ready for this?

We do not need to do US's dirty work in Afghanistan to encircle Pakistan, we can do that by other means too. The Afghans are already pro-India, all we need is to pump in more money, create infrastructure, more hospitals & schools and we'd already have a strategic presence in Afghanistan.

Also, the moment Indian troops set foot in A'stan, Taliban will stop all offensives against the Puki Army & vice versa. These pigs will then sit together & make plans on how to target the IA. Some people here say that having a 100k troops in A'stan will open up another front for Pakistan to fight on, well, what are the odds that if hostilities do break out between PA & IA on TSP's western border, that the GoI will have the balls to open up the eastern front? What if the GoI messes it up then? It'll be one big fail.

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 30 Dec 2008 17:52

Chandragupta wrote:Let's say that India does send a hundred thousand troops into Afghanistan, what happens when the IA contingent starts to take casualties, what about the political & media mayhem that will follow at home? We need to ask ourselves, is the country ready for this?

We do not need to do US's dirty work in Afghanistan to encircle Pakistan, we can do that by other means too. The Afghans are already pro-India, all we need is to pump in more money, create infrastructure, more hospitals & schools and we'd already have a strategic presence in Afghanistan.

Casualities are bound to hapen and many of the members including me, have pointed out the infrastructure build up theme along with Covert build up. Point is we should just watch as of now. Open up lines of communication with Eran and Ruskies for the future of AF. How do we plan to devide the land? How much goes to Baluchis, Pakhtoonkhwa and AF areas under Northern alliance.
US is non consequential in all this. Sit tight and let the game unfold.
Actually we should have taken this topic to 'Game...' discussion

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Dec 2008 17:58

As CG has said,Indian troops in Afghanistan will also be a magnet for other Islamist forces like AlQ and assorted Islamists from all quarters of the region and the globe to fight the "Hindu" invaders of a Muslim nation.Imagiune the reprcusiions it would have in the Gulf states where millions of Indians are working and earning billions in FE sent home to their families.India seen as an openly anti-Muslim nation collaborating with the hated latter day "Crusaders" is an act of extreme imbecility.If we want to help the Karzai govt. survive,what we are doing now with our developmental and infrastructural work,logistic assiatance and training (in India mostly) of the Afghan forces,plus covert operations and as mentioned before,air support from bases in the Northern Alliance countries would be ample in "turning the screw" on Pak/Taliban forces.Let the Anglo-saxons and NATO nations and their allies do the ground/grunt work.Let them fight the Pakis by proxy. High time that India had a hearty long laugh from the sidelines at both of them!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Dec 2008 18:16

Chandragupta wrote: Also, the moment Indian troops set foot in A'stan, Taliban will stop all offensives against the Puki Army & vice versa. These pigs will then sit together & make plans on how to target the IA..

In fact this is what the Pakistanis and Taliban are doing to the US. But the US is too stupid to figure out that the money it is paying the Pakistanis is being used to bribe the Taliban not to attack the Pakistani army.

But that is for the US duplicity thread.On this thread you are supposed to display the same stupidity that the US is displaying.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 30 Dec 2008 18:39

Our Afghan policy should be one with no mercy for anyone except for the Afghans, for they are the only ones who have suffered over the years. As someone said, the US must be kept embroiled in A'stan, they created the Taliban & AlQ themselves, why should we finish them for the Amrikis? Let the US take more casualties, sooner than later, they will have to go inside Puki territory for that's where the pigs are coming from, that's the breeding ground of these pigs. You take out the breeding ground, you take our terrorism. Meanwhile, India should sit down with Russia, aid the Northern Alliance, back the Karzai Government & pump in huge investments in and around A'stan. Ofcourse, at the same time, RAW builds up their covert network in Pakistan.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Dec 2008 19:07

I have tried to bring up the question of opening the Afghan front by India in threads before, but was met with silence. I realize that the main reason is the fear of "negative consequences". But we will have negative consequences only if this troop movement is not backed up by a clear vision of long term strategic policy about Pakistan.

The fact that in spite of supporting Palestine Islamic cause, not supporting US in the Iraq War, not participating in Afghan war against the Talebs/Qaeda has not prevented us from being attacked by Islamic Jihad, and will not prevent us from being attacked by Islamic Jihad. We have tried all arguments, Leftist, Economist, social disadvantage - everything, and none of that can explain the continued inveterate hatred from Islamists - only ideological motivations can explain that. Sometimes when you consciously lie to others as part of propaganda, you start believeing it yourself - this is what happened with the Congress and its foreign allies - in trying to whitewash the Jihadi core of Islaimc agenda as represented by its face on the subcontinent - Pakistan.

I have repeatedly tried to broach this idea of the IA presence on the North-east and South East of Afghanisran, formally as part of the "war against terror" almost from the time of joining BR about six weeks ago. It gives a foreign relations cover of not targeting Pakistan, but "terror". It gives opportunity to test the hypothesis in many that Pastuns can be turned around. It provides possibility of building up local networks, that can be part of the longer term strategy of isolating Pakjab from the rest of Pakistan - and from its supply routes. More importantly it splits PA into two fronts which is more favourable for the IA with its larger resources (not necessarily current but prperly built up for this).

However this can only work, if GOI has the ultimate target of incorporating Pakjab and Sind as provinces of India, supporting a Pakistan-side independent state of Balochistan (to reassure and get Iran on board for the moment), and work towards a military buildup to isolate Pakjab in a pincer with one arm cutting off entrance to POK valley, and the other moving south and east to isolate Baloch+Sind from Pakjab, and joining up with IA on Rajasthan border.

A top dressing would be to negotiate with the Talebs to allow safe passage to NE China, or face liquidation. The Afghan Talebs would survive very well in the NE China, and this will be part of the next stage of arming Tibetans and opening two fronts for the Red Army to deal with.

Without this strong long term determined policy the troop movement to Afghan will not be successful.

skher · Post by **skher** » 30 Dec 2008 19:23

Meanwhile, India should sit down with Russia, aid the Northern Alliance, back the Karzai Government & pump in huge investments in and around A'stan.

Considering the latest abduction case by Taliban,how many security companies would we need to support the developmental activites? Or will Uzbeks,Tajiks,Russians & Iranians help us here?

Map of North South Corridor from official website

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... 160534.htm

Representatives of two Iranian companies this week arrived in Tajikistan to assist in the construction of the 5-kilometer Anzab tunnel, providing a direct link between Tajikistan's capital Dushanbe and the northern city of Khujand. Tehran is giving $31 million in loans and grants to Tajikistan to complete the work by 2006.

The new link will bypass the existing route via Uzbekistan, which requires a transit visa for Tajiks traveling from one part of their homeland to another, and sometimes closes the border without notice, creating traffic chaos and trade disruptions.

Iranian Road and Transportation Minister Ahmad Khorram mentioned last month that the Anzab tunnel is part of a broad transport blueprint, in which Afghanistan plays a central role. The plan consists of establishing a transit route running from Iran through Herat in western Afghanistan, Mazar-e Sharif and Sherkhan Bandar in northern Afghanistan to Tajikistan, and from there up to China.
..

"There are at least three projects: the Caspian oil-and-gas-pipeline project; the so-called north-south corridor linking Northern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Iran, the Persian Gulf, and then India [by sea]. Iran's [road] plan in Afghanistan is in keeping with a third project, the so-called new Silk Road. It is a question of making Iran a transit country for two Central Asian states, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, via Afghanistan, and then to extend this route to China," Djalili said.
..
Central Asia already is connected to Iran's highway and rail networks via Turkmenistan. However, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan seek to access Iran's developed transportation infrastructure and the Persian Gulf by a shorter land link through Afghanistan.

Peimani noted that China's expanding international trade could generate billions of dollars in transit fees for Iranians, while uplifting their regional status and political influence. It will also help stabilize Afghanistan.

"In the long run, if the connections become reliable and Iran conducts huge international transactions to and from China or the Central Asian countries via that road, that operation would generate a huge amount of income for Afghanistan in terms of transit fees," Peimani said.

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 30 Dec 2008 19:32

Chandragupta wrote: As someone said, the US must be kept embroiled in A'stan, they created the Taliban & AlQ themselves, why should we finish them for the Amrikis? Let the US take more casualties, sooner than later, they will have to go inside Puki territory for that's where the pigs are coming from, that's the breeding ground of these pigs. You take out the breeding ground, you take our terrorism.

What if Unkil bails out by creating a Talibanistan and declares victory. Now, imagine Talibanistan under the Paki Nuke umbrella unleashing attacks all over India.
The whole ME is anyway against India, funding terrorist attacks, abetting Dawood gang, and bailing out Pakis. This move will just bring that hostility in open ...

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 30 Dec 2008 19:54

People still seem to assume that India has no stakes in Afghanistan independent of US' interests. This is ludicrous and displays an "I hate US even at the cost of ignoring my own interests" attitude. To say that US "created" Al Qaida is ignorant. LeT's growth in terror capabilities and its role as ISI's right hand is a direct result of its Afghan ops and cross-training with the Haqqani group's experienced cadre.

Sending 120,000 troops or even a much smaller number to Afghanistan is a serious matter and may or may not make sense under various circumstances. But only a fool or an ignorant man would assume that Indian troops in Afghanistan would be purely a favor for USA. We are talking about sending troops there to a) protect Indian interests and infrastructure projects, b) Serve as a base to ramp up our ability to punish TSP with proxy wars, c) Help India's allies in Afghanistan and minimize their losses in the case US decides to bug out and d) Make sure we maintain our influence in the CARs

BTW, we should keep track of those wusses who are afraid of Indian troop casualties and then make sure they are called out if they ever complain about Indian inaction against TSP in the face of Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Kabul, Assam etc. At least the Wagah Kandle Kissers are consistent in their cowardice.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 30 Dec 2008 20:00

I would like to believe that all this talk about 120000000 SDRE troops in Hindukush is Chankian psyops by cunning Yindoos. Not a bad ploy by any means. 'Lets muddy the water a bit more' policy aka 'revenge of the babus'.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 30 Dec 2008 20:02

From now on, any one that posts on this thread about Indian troops in Afghanistan as solely "India doing America's bidding" should be seen as (a) Lazy enough to not read posts or (b) an ignorant fool or (c) someone who dislikes America more than he cares for India's interests.

I mean, it is absolutely insane for a India to be able to do something against TSP when it could end up helping the US, right? How idiotic is that? I will turn down a job that makes me a millionaire because it gives 1000 dollars more to the guy I hate. That makes great sense!

munna · Post by **munna** » 30 Dec 2008 20:03

Rangudu wrote:BTW, we should keep track of those wusses who are afraid of Indian troop casualties and then make sure they are called out if they ever complain about Indian inaction against TSP in the face of Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Kabul, Assam etc. At least the Wagah Kandle Kissers are consistent in their cowardice.

Good point Rangudu! Even I find that most people who were all bravado and hot gas have fizzled at the first thought of some action. War anywhere is dirty business and no better people to fight it in a cold blooded manner than our Babus beating the hell out of Pakis in triplicates.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Dec 2008 20:04

yes rawgundu, we will not be sending troops to the gandhari's place on an "alliance", but on our own requirements. {says: India's senamantriji}.

a strong presence there is required to be secured.. with a large 10,000 acre base, with a joint airbase and army base. we need to help them build stuffs, and perhaps train their men, while we test our weapons.

perhaps, we could see some use for Arjun tanks!

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 30 Dec 2008 20:09

Given the brilliance of some of our congential US haters here, they would probably want India to stop training the Afghan National Army because it helps the US' Afghan goals. This is the kind of thinking that will make us a great power.

Mandeep · Post by **Mandeep** » 30 Dec 2008 20:16

What does everyone think about the domestic political fallout of any decision to send Indian troops to fight the Taliban and Pakistani-sponsored militias/insurgent groups in Afghanistan ? What for instance will the BJP say ? What about regional parties ?

The Commie reaction is pretty much predictable of course as it would be to any Indian move to co-operate with the US. These Lefties only look at geostrategy through the prism of the US of A Indian interests be damned !

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 30 Dec 2008 20:18

For the record, am a recently converted US-skeptic (was gungho pro-unkilian 2001-2006) BUT am all for exploring the option of sending troops to A'stan. Awaiting operational details on charter of objectives, political and international cover, logistics plans, deployment strength and composition etc.

Finally, we are taking the fight to the enemy. A free Balochistan and a re-integrated PoK/NA are looking immensely possible right away.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 30 Dec 2008 20:19

Rangudu wrote: BTW, we should keep track of those wusses who are afraid of Indian troop casualties and then make sure they are called out if they ever complain about Indian inaction against TSP in the face of Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Kabul, Assam etc. At least the Wagah Kandle Kissers are consistent in their cowardice.

Oh yeah, well, that's rich coming from a guy sitting in the safe & secure US of A.

I don't mind my soldiers dying in a full blown Indo-Pak war, hell, I don't mind my house getting nuked in that case. But this is about sending 120,000 Indian soldiers in a battle ravaged A'stan & risking their lives solely on the decision making ability of the GoI, which I do not think very highly of.

This is the same government that was petrified of fighting a war with Pakistan because they would lose votes with the Abduls of India. Are you willing to trust a government that had a HM like Patil a few weeks back & has people like Amar Singh, Antulay & Mulla-I-am Singh dictating their policies. What is the guarantuee that this government won't develop cold feet after a few abduls take on the streets against the Hindu Indian Army's 'occupation' of Muslim Afghanistan? Or when the media starts to panic & blames the government for another IPKF? Is the GoI strong enough to see through this operation & make sure this is a success?

I don't have a problem with Indian troops being in A'stan as such, but yes, when the effectiveness of this operation depend upon what the GoI does, then it's a problem, even if that makes me a wuss.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Dec 2008 20:21

give a fart to what bjp and con-graze says.. its about the larger section wants that needs to be done in a democracy.. of course, it is only local to that extent to protect the minorities, which we are anyway doing it. other than that, we need to tell them its for the cas oil. thats it!.. the khans are for iraq oil, and desh is for cas oil.

btw, the side effects are baluchistan might get our military support as well.. a sandwich with fried bacon always makes the chicken taste better [my haram friend says it so!].

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 30 Dec 2008 20:22

Mandeep wrote:What does everyone think about the domestic political fallout of any decision to send Indian troops to fight the Taliban and Pakistani-sponsored militias/insurgent groups in Afghanistan ? What for instance will the BJP say ? What about regional parties ?

The Commie reaction is pretty much predictable of course as it would be to any Indian move to co-operate with the US. These Lefties only look at geostrategy through the prism of the US of A Indian interests be damned !

Political buy-in prospects look good. Would be difficult to spin the proposed deployment as an anti-IM or anti-M action. Particularly if the UPA initiates the move. The NDA can be counted on to support, given recent noises from their top leadership. Regional parties likely won't appalud or object simply because, like the N-deal, the subject is truly national and has little or no ramifications at the regional level.

of course, all IMVVHO only.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 30 Dec 2008 20:23

Rangudu wrote:Given the brilliance of some of our congential US haters here, they would probably want India to stop training the Afghan National Army because it helps the US' Afghan goals. This is the kind of thinking that will make us a great power.

Unkil bashing is one thing but I guess there is nothing wrong in suggesting that India should be cautious in this afghangate affair. It is too easy to slide into a dirty Iraq like situation. When the Pak hits the fan we would need real balls in New Delhi to hold together the will, resolve and morale of the army and the nation. That is one thing we are terribly short of- balls in new delhi.

Troop deployment in A'stan is a very good option given we have the sustained will and vision to slog it out there in the long run to achieve our strategic objectives.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 30 Dec 2008 20:27

Dilbu wrote:
Rangudu wrote:Given the brilliance of some of our congential US haters here, they would probably want India to stop training the Afghan National Army because it helps the US' Afghan goals. This is the kind of thinking that will make us a great power.
Unkil bashing is one thing but I guess there is nothing wrong in suggesting that India should be cautious in this afghangate affair. It is too easy to slide into a dirty Iraq like situation. When the Pak hits the fan we would need real balls in New Delhi to hold together the will, resolve and morale of the army and the nation. That is one thing we are terribly short of- balls in new delhi.

Troop deployment in A'stan is a very good option given we have the sustained will and vision to slog it out there in the long run to achieve our strategic objectives.

That's what I'm talking about. We need B A L L S in New Delhi to make sure it's a success, balls that we do not have. The GoI will have to make many a tough decisions when the IA will be in the thick of the action in A'stan, and those decision will matter the most. And going by the work this joke of a government has been doing over the years, I don't think they're qualified to oversee an operation of such magnitude & strategic relevance.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Dec 2008 20:27

also gets a second change to NDA, jasso mithaiwala, could now work on to correct his image on a second term. he could be seen as the person who brought them, and got the whole bunch of terror nation under microscope.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 30 Dec 2008 20:31

Dilbu

Afghan troop deployment should be based on one thing - Does it help India or not? That said, any analysis of the above should include how the US would react because Americans have the "theka" on Afghanistan for the foreseeable future solely because they have put the money and men where there mouth is. Unkil can veto our moves and thus has to be accounted for.

There are good reasons to be cautious and even skeptical of whether India can pull this off. IPKF in Sri Lanka is a glaring example of what could go wrong with shifting goalposts, lack of political cover and Indian troops fighting with one hand and one foot tied up.

Let's keep the discussion focused on India's interests and costs/benefits from that perspective.

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 30 Dec 2008 20:32

Rangudu wrote:From now on, any one that posts on this thread about Indian troops in Afghanistan as solely "India doing America's bidding" should be seen as (a) Lazy enough to not read posts or (b) an ignorant fool or (c) someone who dislikes America more than he cares for India's interests.

I mean, it is absolutely insane for a India to be able to do something against TSP when it could end up helping the US, right? How idiotic is that? I will turn down a job that makes me a millionaire because it gives 1000 dollars more to the guy I hate. That makes great sense!

Rangudu,
Don't make such presumtous statements. Let me remind you of the things i proposed in lieu of Indian troopers in AF..
1. Land corridor through POK , with the mandate from UN, UK, US, Ruskies
2. How do you plan to manage the logistics through Eyeran? What if the Isloo link and brotherhood rears it's head in future? Read the statements issued by Iranian leadership.
3. Nowhere I have said we that we shd not engage with Amirkhans. I am putting up a point that are giving away the trump card too early and too cheap.

There are many things I had said in my first post as quoted by Brihspati, read carefully, don't use rhetoric. I will repeat for the umpteenth time..
1. It helps us in the long run to see Americans worn down in AF. Let them fight the Tulli- bunnies. Eventually they will have to pound TSPA to make a decisive solution. It is just escaation of ladder -currently ponding Porkis to pounding TSPA in future.

2. We can hit TSPA hard by covert action, Creat more toofan Wazirs, Next being Halagu Khan. We must sit with Northern alliance leaders and chalk out a future AF with the help of Ruskies and Eyeranians.

3. Use the Rentier Durrani's to do the job of hitting at TSP. They have been Sarkari fortoo long. We must spend money on reconstruction in Northern areas along with areas dominated by Durranis.

4. Independent Pakhtoonkhwa will tie down TSPA without our troopers on ground.

In the end , let me tell you, It helps us to let the Anglo- saxons bleed for the time being. Put up our defenses, Modernize the forces. Reconstruction in AF can be managed by paying the Locals.. They also see the benefits. Anyway going by the new AF surge strategy (arming few tribes as Eyeraq), get ready for more sopphisticated Jehadis fighting the Americans in the end.We must ensuree that AF army is commandered by our allies - NA
I am not afraid of casualties, including mine. My fourth generaation serves in the forces.

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Dec 2008 20:35

Guys.. Lets get some sense of perspective here. If we are going to get into Afghanistan, we will be part of a multinational force (under our own independent command ).. more than one is mult no

? , along with a UN mandate and definitely an arms embargo /travel restrictions/sanctions in place on Pakistan as an incentive for them to move against the terrorists, with enough leverage to take care of our interests. Otherwise, we shouldnt be getting in. Let the actual fighting across the Durand line /dirty work be done by Unkil and the Prey-e-dators and Unkil's special forces. Our jobs can be to hold ground with minimal fighting and be more into building schools ,roads etc and be the good guys. Our mere presence will be like a "fleet in being" for the Pakis, a strong deterrence to any free run on Afghanistan. No need to get into an actual shooting war. Leave the border and cross border fighting to Unkil.

Now, the question is, will "tawk" alone do it, or will you actually "walk" i.e need to put the feet on the ground for the Pakis to act and clean up their Pig sty and close out "strategic options" of using terrorism on Afghanistan and on Kashmir for good and no capacity to be a nuisance is the question. "tawk" if it has strong credibility of being acted upon might be enough and the the Pakis might be goaded to act to stall /buy time and create "real options" in future by staying in the game . However, longer term, the US surely will have to take on the Tally Bunnies inside Pakiland , even after a surge and clean them out of Afghanistan. They will not be able to stabilize afghanistan without taking on the Talibunnies inside Pakiland and for that they will need India absolutely and cranking up pressure to the bursting point. The US - Paki "cooperation" scenario is unstable and divergent , hasn't worked for the past 8 years, wont work going forward and is doomed to fail.

I think ultimately the world is going to come to the realization that containment of Pakiland and long term dissolution is in the best interests of everyone concerend. Yeah, long term, Durand line disappears, with Pakthun areas joining back with Afghanistan , Balochistan going independend and Sindh breaking away, with just a defanged Pakjab remaining

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 30 Dec 2008 20:37

War is expensive.
We should not depend on anybody for logistics.
We dont have the reach to a landlocked country.
The area is the pit for Great Game.
Do we have 15 to 20 billion USD set aside for this.
Do we have a treaty with anybody to assure safe conduct of troops and equipment.
The world is learning very fast thanks to instant communication, have we learnt anything from IPKF.
Is our RAW IB up to the task?
Do we have air support for our troops.
Has anybody read through bear trap?

Now the most difficult but honest apprisal of our performance against two dozen terrorists in the heart of our country is very very discouraging ( from command , control, co ordination training, equipment and goals).

We are not ready we have long ways to go.

We dont even have a good leader(ship) or a GOI aparatus which knows what right hand is doing when left hand is wringing.

NO we cant do.
First try and give Jhapad and demonstrate the Iron fist in your Kurta, before going overseas.....

Only IG could do this kind of thing and long back

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 30 Dec 2008 20:45

If the Americans get "worn down"

in Afghanistan, they will facilitate a situation conducive for TSP. The world's only superpower can never be a neutral factor in a major geopolitical game, it will always end up coming down disproportionately on one side. If we wait till Unkil is tired in A'stan, they may end up deciding to facilitate "moderate Taliban" a.k.a ISI stooges and we will have no say in that process. What would you tell the Americans - Please listen to India even though we watched on the sidelines as you got your rear end kicked by the Talipakis?

Call it presumptuous or whatever, but such talk betrays a "I would rather see US fail than India succeed" attitude. India's power projection in A'stan is right now limited by our small number of boots on the ground there.

Jumrao, your post personifies the "all talk no walk" thesis. You waste no time to

after every attack but when there is talk of response, you come in first with caveats. "First try and give jhapad" but "War is expensive"

With TSP, "jhapad" = "War" and if you want one but are afraid of the other, then

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Dec 2008 20:45

we need to also make a pilgrimage center there that keeps attracting about 1200000 men on a day on the average!~ double whamy and economy solution for afghanistan tourism.

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 30 Dec 2008 20:45

Moreover what do we gain in the end? Tying up TSPA on the western flank as well? that can be done and if we are not doing it already then we have no right to exist as a nation. This is what US wants us to do. Link all the hoopla about Cashmere and paralysis on the issue of Mumbai attacks on part of Americans. They simply cannot put pressure on TSPA anylonger or they don't want to.... Luring India to take this step.
I read statements of Iraninas on Mumbai attacks, they are so much pro- TSP and we are talking supply route thru Eyeran. Who foots the bill? Whatever we do must have Ruskie assent. I don't love russians either but we need some allies to fall back. They will have to supply us with equipment thru their land

Unsolicited help is nevr appreciated and shd not be given. Let the Tullies take over Fata by force and threaten Isloo. Our 19 consultes are doing a good enough job already

We must bargain hard, present a plan after TSPA and with guarantees of no interference in future in our backyard. we need a LAND CORRIDOR WE CONTROL

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 30 Dec 2008 20:49

Here is my theory!!

All those people who think that this idea is ludicrous have the genes that were responsible for all the battles in Panipat getting us into this juncture. i.e. they can't think beyond their own nose. So back off.

All the people who are skepetical that by moving troops into Afghanistan we are doing Americans job. Open up the atlas and see how far is America from Afghanistan. You guys/gals are geographically challenged.. Go take some classes and shore up some knowledge about how shy americans are when they are in Iraq, Vietnam or Afghanistan. For them it is "Helping poor Afghani kids in a war torn country so that they don't become Taliban or Al Qaeda"

Now... Iran till Vietnam in Asia is under Indian hemisphere and is India's job(not Nato or America's). India and Indians need to grow up and take a look around them. They are the biggest force in Southern hemisphere (At least in Asia, Australia and East Africa).

Then.. when poor kids from Buffalo are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan why can't poor kids from Amritsar go fight on their own borders for their own country? How is this America's job?

Government of India should propse to USa that.

1. Give us logistical and material support and we will supply blood and guts for Afghanistan., we will then become the best force to fight Islamic terrorism in world by experience.
2. Send all American troops back home to be replaced by Indian. (trainers, medical staff, logistical support, air force can remain)
3. NATO Air Force can support Indian ground forces.

Now commies and ISI reporters will argue that this is America's job that we are doing BUT This idea sure beats up setting up the defenses in the vicinity of Panipat (our modus operandi from last 1000 years).

PS: Sikh regiment will be an excellent choice as the sweet revenge from the battle of Saragarhi for the blood of 23 is still pending.

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 30 Dec 2008 20:56

SBajwa wrote:Here is my theory!!

All those people who think that this idea is ludicrous have the genes that were responsible for all the battles in Panipat getting us into this juncture. i.e. they can't think beyond their own nose. So back off.

All the people who are skepetical that by moving troops into Afghanistan we are doing Americans job. Open up the atlas and see how far is America from Afghanistan. You guys/gals are geographically challenged.. Go take some classes and shore up some knowledge about how shy americans are when they are in Iraq, Vietnam or Afghanistan. For them it is "Helping poor Afghani kids in a war torn country so that they don't become Taliban or Al Qaeda"

Now... Iran till Vietnam in Asia is under Indian hemisphere and is India's job(not Nato or America's). India and Indians need to grow up and take a look around them. They are the biggest force in Southern hemisphere (At least in Asia, Australia and East Africa).

Then.. when poor kids from Buffalo are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan why can't poor kids from Amritsar go fight on their own borders for their own country? How is this America's job?

Government of India should propse to USa that.

1. Give us logistical and material support and we will supply blood and guts for Afghanistan., we will then become the best force to fight Islamic terrorism in world by experience.
2. Send all American troops back home to be replaced by Indian. (trainers, medical staff, logistical support, air force can remain)
3. NATO Air Force can support Indian ground forces.

Now commies and ISI reporters will argue that this is America's job that we are doing BUT This idea sure beats up setting up the defenses in the vicinity of Panipat (our modus operandi from last 1000 years).

PS: Sikh regiment will be an excellent choice as the sweet revenge from the battle of Saragarhi for the blood of 23 is still pending.

I agree absolutley.
1.We can not settle for anything less than total withdrawl of UK/US from our backyard.
2.They foot the bill
3.Guarantees on Land Corridor.

Yes , I agree, It our Job but I must get what I want to deal with it. I too want to wash the sins of the founding fathers of modern India in the caves of Bamiyan and correct the mistake of leaving Nankana sahib in Isloo land.

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Dec 2008 21:00

Sigh.. I remember one of the erudite members iirc Rajaram ji had commented in one of the threads about we folks on this forum being too judgmental and who come to the table with pre-conceived notions about an issue.

Case in point why is someone who questions the objective/effectiveness of this Afghanistan op is being categorized as US Hater ? Why cant the questions or points be replied to without sounding cliche ?

I am pretty bad at scenario building and in this thread we have been doing same i.e. building scenarios to suit our own pov, however when I look at our track record in past 60 years and our foreign policy decisions and our ability to protect our interests I remain skeptical of this whole operation being carried being in a GUNG HO manner as it is being portrayed here.

First thing let us see how many troops are actually going to Afganisthan , and more importantly what is the pretext/ostensible reason for it would actually decide if armor and Arty support is a part of the package too and how dependent will this contingent be on NATO/US forces for Arty/Air support. I wont even bring up the of logistics as of now .

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Dec 2008 21:06

Kanson wrote:http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 24#p584824

What can India do in covert ops ? There is lot of debate going on. I feel it already gained mass and going to roll irrespective of any outcome. Seriously, if what i heard could come true, mindboggling, a new era has began, where the sign reads, DON'T MESS WITH INDIANS.

US Navy seals is just a paltry.
When I wrote this the number mentioned was something half of what the current quoted number is. Neverthless it will not be less than a corps formation and it wont be a typical corps size. It consists of all speically trained/raised units and in most possibly equipped with american equipments along with indian. Only formal agreement is pending i guess. And it dont have to be only afghanistan.

The questions are 1. Do we like to take the fight to enemy gates or twindle our thumbs at our door steps. Great powers through out the history took the fight to enemy camp.

2. Are we going to sit till some jihadi set a crude n-bomb or some chemical/biological weapon targeting major cities ? Chances of that happening are increasing day by day. Whether we act against them or not, enemy is going to act. Better prepared than sorry...

I think the genesis of sending troops was mulled after kabul embassy bombing( we have convincing evidence of Paki top brass involvement in this incident). Mumbai bombing only added fuel to that fire.

On equipments, it will at the special forces level to something in mountain warfare. Many feel its a deft move as the article mentioned. India will get more leverage viz US/west/CIS countries. It will be more useful for the dicussion if India makes any concrete steps.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 30 Dec 2008 21:09

Negi,

Nice try but did you not sarcastically say:

IRAN and RU will solemnly aid India in its war after all we will be on deputation for Unkil's witch hunt

You just assume that Indian troops in A'stan = India being on "Unkil's witch hunt" i.e. India cannot have any interests in Afghanistan outside of Unkil's.

Now, if we want to blast this idea, let's tear it apart by all means but let's keep the focus on how this will help or hurt India, without worrying about whether it would help Unkil in some way or not.