India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 30 Dec 2008 21:14

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

There is saying in telugu
'Utti ki egaralene amma akasan egerindita"

Ardhtah
"Grandma cant leap to the roof, but wants to touch the sky"

You dont get it do you?
"War is expensive is a jibe at our economisery PM MAN Mohan (aka, Mankind Loving).

Our PM dare not try something we can do but will talk (squeak) of this 120,000 deployment. While this is a good psy ops and a senseble analyst will read nothing more than that.

Ok we Send 120,000 troops to Afghanistan . Then do what?. The space is crowded by NATO and others.
We cant act alone, we need co operation from NATO, Russia and CAR countries.

You think US cant do what we contemplate doing?, US does not want TSP to crumble the way we think. They want to Ply around the monster so that its energies are expended on INDIA not on Afghanistan.

In your brilliant analysis and studies that you have done and espoused you have forgotten the simple fact that IRAQ was a simple diversion of War on terror because Unkil realised that there is no way he can win Afghanistan. Just as the Russians could not. The idea was to suck so called AL Qaeda into Iraq and destroy it, but unkil forgot or knows, that there is no AL Qaeda with out Pakistan. Then unkil thought the can buy TSP loyality, but TSP used Unkil to butter both sides of the loaf. See the cartoon in US Perfidy.

Think some times atleast (in this angle) , teaming with Unkil is the last thing you want to do as unkil only yields to power and black mail. Historical evidence is all over and watch what happened in recent Bombay episode. (unkils role)

Compared to Afghanistan Iraq is a piece of cake. Even the so called Super duper English troops ( who claim to know the area better than Yanks are saying lets walk out of Afghanistan).

Recent, Rice-Obama debreifing ( about Gaza) was anopportunity where in she passed on the threats of TSP leadership to use nukes and thumb the nose at unkil to President elect. Besides Obama insisting on shifting focus to Afghanistan is giving some motivation to TSP leadership to act.

The GOI is trying the proven trick (and worked, of goading TSP to test after India tested) of goading TSP to move back to Tribal areas....

For analyst of your caliber I dont have to add anymore. this is enough to chew the cudd.

"Three quarters of a soldiers life is spent in aimlessly waiting" Eugene R. Hussey

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Dec 2008 21:16

Gurudev Rangadu

Yes I did but I never passed any judgment on any of the posters here or categorize them as PRO-US or US haters , I am still apprehensive of the objective/pretext of this operation in terms of 'ostensible' reason what GOI would give to the world community as justification for stationing a huge army of men in Afghanistan , what level of operational autonomy will the IA enjoy ? and will India have air/Arty support from Indian forces or US/Nato forces .

All of the above depends on whether India goes to Afghanistan on its own terms or on US and Coalition's .

Answer to the above will also determine how willingly IRAN and RU will actively support India or may be even assist in terms of logistics.

Anyways I will take a breath and see how events unfold.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 30 Dec 2008 21:25

Negi,

I'm not going to make a list of people here but just flip the pages and see the "drive by" posts on India not doing "America's bidding" which is at best useless blabber and at worst, pathetic attempts to divert the thread.

Now, let's set that aside and talk about the merits of this idea from a solely Indian perspective.

Jumrao garu,

Your whole thesis is "Indian track record from Jassoo to Manmohan - sucks. Therefore India cannot do anything. But we must do something before we can do anything"

I'm really disappointed that you don't even make an effort to listen. Once again you frame this debate on "teaming with Unkil."

Have I not posted here some 200 times not to think of this as India doing something for US but as India doing something for India?

Not making an effort to read what has been posted is disrespectful and not worthy of your stature.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Dec 2008 21:29

Yes I did but I never passed any judgment on any of the posters here or categorize them as PRO-US or US haters , I am still apprehensive of the objective/pretext of this operation in terms of 'ostensible' reason what GOI would give to the world community as justification for stationing a huge army of men in Afghanistan , what level of operational autonomy will the IA enjoy ? and will India have air/Arty support from Indian forces or US/Nato forces .

How different is the situation when we stepped in B'desh. What if Karazi made a request ? They comes under SARC. What is the charter of SARC ? I can go on. Tell me when did world community hailed India.

Ops autonomy: We are very matrured force and will have that autonomy. Recent example is Indian partol in somalian waters.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 30 Dec 2008 21:42

I think we talking over our heads heere.

I dont like to post elobrate theisis
( SOme people sacrifice brevity for the sake of clarity!

)

Simply put
1) Independently or dependently we can not sustain 120,000 troops for a long time in Afghanistan.
2) what is the mission, just to open a second front to intimidate? That wont work as TSP has invented its own minute Man army in NWFP areas.
3) If it doesnt work just by garriosning 120,000, all we end up is we create more jobs for MES ( Military Engineering Services aka money eating services), with CWE/GE stationed in all towns.
4) If we do end up in shooting war we will in all probality confront Talibunnies and other irregulars and do a great favor to TSP by killing them and restorinng TSP authority in tribal areas. This is analogus to IPKF mission in SL, We were killing LLTE and SL was also killing us , we diminished the LTTE to an extent, then realised and let LTTE grow again after losing a ex PM.

We can as well expend the same energy in our borders with TSP and gain more advantage, the only aspect different is TSP might more easily resort to NUkes in our border, assuming PRC and others will not allow TSP to go nuclear, in any case the war is between IA and Tallibunnies, Indians win TSP wins Indians lose TSP wins.

No where did I say "you" are advocating teaming with US , I was only recounting the possible pitfalls if we do so.

Anyways
"Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;

But there is neither East nor West, Border nor Breed nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 30 Dec 2008 21:45

Google[Bot] is just browsing this forum.

If it doesnt work just by garriosning 120,000, all we end up is we create more jobs for MES ( Military Engineering Services aka money eating services), with CWE/GE stationed in all towns.

Added: So refreshing to see MES getting mentioned, albeit using the popular expansion

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Dec 2008 21:56

Kanson wrote: How different is the situation when we stepped in B'desh.

1. Afganisthan unlike Bangaldesh is under US/NATO control .
2. Bangladesh is our immediate neighbor so logistics and re-enforcements were not an issue.
3. In 71 We had Armor,Arty and COAS from Indian forces , it remains to be seen if we will get to deploy our relevant units near Afganitshan (where I don't know Taji base only operates Mi-17 as far as IAf is concerned) or depend on US/NATO air units ; again this is a controlling factor IMO.

What if Karazi made a request ? They comes under SARC. What is the charter of SARC ? I can go on. Tell me when did world community hailed India.

Ok .. what makes you think Karzai has more faith in GOI as against US and NATO forces ?, iow it is the other way round i.e. US/NATO might nudge Karzai to request India for troops but then it is a different ball game all together.All in all request has to come via US/NATO.

In 47,65 or even 71 we never asked for world communty's approval so the question does not arise.

Ops autonomy: We are very matrured force and will have that autonomy. Recent example is Indian partol in somalian waters.

By Autonomy I meant dependence on NATO coalition for Arty/Air support in case we do not get to take along our own, same is the case with logistics and re-enforcements.

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Dec 2008 22:10

Ok.. Now I buy the Orbat story.. This is more than a trial balloon. There is something afoot! . Things are moving fast. Pakis withdrawing supply routes under the pretext of "fighting" and now we have this blaring front page headline in NY Times. We should read the tea leaves correctly and align. Hope the "strategy" babus have been on the job. I would definitely think the boots on the ground in Afghanistan is on. Now with Pakiland's leverage gone /reduced, there is safe room to impose a blockade /travel and trade squeeze on Pakiland.

US Plans Central Asian Supply Route to Afghanistan

December 31, 2008
U.S. Plans Central Asian Supply Route to Afghanistan
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — The United States and NATO are planning to open and expand supply lines through Central Asia to deliver fuel, food and other goods to a military mission in Afghanistan that is expected to grow by tens of thousands of troops in the months ahead, according to American and alliance diplomats and military officials.

The plan to open new paths through Central Asia reflects an American-led effort to seek out a more reliable alternative to the route from Pakistan through the strategic Khyber Pass, which was closed by Pakistani security forces on Tuesday as they launched an offensive against militants in the region.

The militants have shown they can threaten shipments through the pass into Afghanistan, burning cargo trucks and American Humvees over recent weeks. More than 80 percent of the supplies for American and allied forces in Afghanistan now flow through Pakistan.

But the new arrangements could leave the United States more reliant on cooperation from authoritarian countries like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, which have poor records when it comes to democracy and human rights.

The officials said delicate negotiations were under way not only with the Central Asian states bordering Afghanistan, but with Russia, as well, to work out the details of new supply routes. The talks show the continued importance of American and NATO cooperation with the Kremlin, despite lingering tension over Russia’s August war with Georgia.

American officials said they were trying to allay Central Asian concerns by promising that the supplies would be hauled by commercial shipping companies only and would not include weapons or munitions. Officials also say that no additional American bases will be required on their territory.

Some of Afghanistan’s neighbors, in particular Kyrgyzstan, already serve as staging areas for American supplies bound for Afghanistan, and officials involved in the talks said these countries appeared eager to increase their role, both to help bring stability in the region, and to benefit commercially from the arrangement.

Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan share Afghanistan’s northern border, and they have road transport routes into Afghanistan.

Kyrgyzstan, farther to the north, allows American military cargo planes access to its airfields, in a deal that has become more important since 2005, when the government of Uzbekistan ordered the United States to leave a base there in a dispute over human rights issues. American and NATO officials say concerns about Uzbekistan’s human rights record are less important to the current negotiations because no new bases are under discussion and any increased supply shipments would be handled by contracts with commercial trucking companies.

Among other states, Kazakhstan is viewed as a potentially important supply hub, while the Caspian Sea port of Baku, Azerbaijan, could be a potential transit point for shipments of fuel and other goods arriving from Europe by sea or by rail.

Gen. Duncan J. McNabb, chief of the American military’s Transportation Command, quietly visited nations along Afghanistan’s northern border last month, according to American military officials who declined to identify the countries by name because of diplomatic sensitivities.

“These countries of Central Asia recognize that this is their struggle, too, in Afghanistan,” said one State Department official, who said those border nations had responded positively to talks on “how to improve, regularize, expand and find additional routes in.”

NATO officials say the attacks in Pakistan have not yet presented a strategic threat to the American supply lines, but they also say planning for alternative routes is warranted.

“We always want flexibility,” said Gen. John Craddock, NATO’s military commander. “There is work ongoing in NATO to see what can be done about alternative lines of communication.”

President-elect Barack Obama has said that he intends to send more American troops to Afghanistan in the months ahead, and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this month that 20,000 to 30,000 American troops could be added to the mission, with a large portion being sent in the first six months of next year.

About 31,000 American troops are currently in Afghanistan, including 14,000 who are part of a NATO-led mission that has more than 51,000 troops. The other 17,000 American troops operate independently of NATO to carry out combat, counterterrorism and training missions.

The increase outlined by Admiral Mullen could nearly double the size of the American presence, which would require not just more war-fighting equipment, food and fuel, but large increases in lumber, concrete and other construction materials to build barracks and other support structures. Officials say that because of Afghanistan’s land-locked status and its relatively primitive infrastructure of roads, it costs several times more to sustain an individual soldier there than in Iraq.

Maj. Gen. Michael S. Tucker, deputy commander of American forces in Afghanistan, said, “There’s a very huge building campaign that has already begun” to prepare for the arrival of those additional troops.

Under plans described by the American military, a goal would be to purchase significant amounts of supplies locally from those Central Asian economies. Other supplies could be shipped to Central Asia by air, but heavy construction equipment and fuel would be sent by rail to Central Asia, where it would then be loaded on trucks for the final journey into Afghanistan.

Some supplies could be sent directly from Europe or through Baltic ports, then sent overland along Russia’s well-developed rail system to Central Asia. Russia today is the principal source of fuel for the alliance’s needs in Afghanistan, and the Kremlin already allows shipment of other nonlethal supplies bound for Afghanistan to travel across Russian territory by ground.

In a new development, NATO and Russian representatives now are discussing whether NATO might be allowed to move military equipment through Russian airspace, alliance officials said.

“Talks are now under way for a NATO-wide air transit for military goods, not specified as nonlethal,” said James Appathurai, NATO’s chief spokesman.

“Those talks are going well,” Mr. Appathurai added. “The Russian Federation has publicly and repeatedly made it clear that this is an issue of strategic interest to them, and that despite disagreements we have over other issues, this area of cooperation has been walled off and preserved. We expect it to be deepened.”

Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Islamabad.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 30 Dec 2008 22:17

1) Independently or dependently we can not sustain 120,000 troops for a long time in Afghanistan.

Holds good for maybe the last decade. Not anymore. Besides the money we will be spending will be made good through other routes. If Uncle doles out billions for a napaki Pak! Again not necessarily saying US will pay for IA but Massa can help us out in a thousand ways.

We do not yet know if we are going to deploy at all. And if we really are getting to deploy we do not yet know where we will be. So I suppose it makes sense to await further details rather than make up a hypothetical scenario where IA deploys near NWFP and cleans up Paki mess.

We can deploy to relieve NATO troops that are not exactly in the middle of a combat situation. It will help NATO deploy more boots into combat zones. We will have some plain old fashioned CI, and rebuilding to deal with. Nothing IA has not seen before.

Expending energy in our borders will facilitate Pakis to withdraw from the West. If US/NATO dithers, and in the long run abandons Afghan it will be Paki strategic depth all the away. If we expend energy in our borders we help PA reinforce its authority in Pak. We will help Pak stabilise itself. Not saying we shouldn't move a gun to IB but hey, this isn't a bad idea if indeed the guvarmand is thinkin about it!

The other line of thought is that US cannot be trusted. But allow me to postulate this: by deploying to Afghan we will have increased one more lever to our influence in Washington. The engagement will have moved one level up in the US-India relations and thereby one level down in US-Pak relations. We can sit around and whine endlessly about how much the US harms us - we can also move our collective arses to help the US help us.

As much as we hate the US - our top of the line R&D projects like the LCA and weapons platform purchases like Phalcon will not materialise if the US calls up Tel Aviv. So its not as if we're keeping our distance from a very interested suitor.

Engaging the US is our best interests.We should move to edge out the Pakis.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Dec 2008 22:25

Tried to say this on the 27th and before, and even imagined the idea being bashed up for being "uncle's boot licking" or playing into "Sammy's trap" - but not this intensity of pinning it on "bashing US up".

Look, the whole idea crucially depends on the GOI's determination and ability to persist on a long term startegic policy of (1) incorporation of Pakjab and Sind as parts of India, (2) creating an independent Baloch state on previously Pak soil (3) reintegrating POK (4) reach forward position on the Karakorums (5) use Talebs to open 2nd front in NE China and arm Tibetans. India does this for India alone, and uses other countries or is "used" only in as far as overall objective is facilitated - let us get this firmly into our heads. Ideological/ethical/moral/historical "weaknesses" cannot be tolerated to hold us back - none of our emotional reactions to past experiences negative or positive with any country or force should affect a cold calculated implementation of what is best for the long term benefits of the nation.

War is always an extension of politics -without a clear politics no war is effective. The current GOI may or may not opt for this right now. But I hope our proposals going on in forums for more than a week ring bells at the "appropriate quarters". Those in "touch" or those who are "ears" and "eyes" can convey the necessary outlines. Operationalization of such plans can take substantial preparations not only logistics wise but also scenario-building wise - let those who do this professionally start at least handling this, and "we" do not need to discuss this threadbare here.

The political message that can be publicly given is that, this appears to be the viable option not just as a stop-gap measure but can be a turn-around from passive/reactive to active/forward mode, that has a long term plan for solving the Pak problem for India forever, and at least promises a check status for the China problem. If "any" political force is not willing take this "opportunity" (the best in years of gaining a foothold like this) then we will have to think "again" about such political forces as essentially serving foreign interests and not Indian interests. It then becomes imperative for those who are not in active service, to see to it that an appropriate political force comes up in the country. Such a political force has to guarantee the IA that it will do all that is needful from the state and political side to help the IA achieve this national objective for the people of India while it will expect the IA to deliver.

I strongly suggest not discussing the details/logistics/and suggesting ideas to possible opponents of the plan internationally about how to derail the implementation of this plan. Not that it will stop them but let us not help them. In that respect, I personally perhaps regret raising the idea anywhere at all.

As you can see I take the political side of the plan quite seriously, and want to leave the operational side and consequent ramifications for politics to the professionals. I believe we can make this plan feasible.

It is a request to admin, and Shivji to close this thread immediately and make it unavailable. I would rather "pretend" that we were not even thinking of this.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Dec 2008 22:27

120,000 troops to afghanistan might fit the chaos theory. a right topological yindoo mixing (our mission is different from yours, but we are brothers here in event that appears like a joint indo-us operation) is required to get the dynamics right., making oil pipelines to securing a systematic breakdown of enemy to right mapping requirements.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Dec 2008 22:48

Vinaji,

If you google you should find refs to this topic as far back as Aug, 2008.

People saw this issue popping long back!!

Which is why I am of the impression that "an offer" of troops from India has been in the works - technically, including supply, etc - and is just awaiting a political decision. the rest of the factors - every angle - has been thought through and worked out - all the what-ifs.

The alternative supply route predates the Mumbai attacks.

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 30 Dec 2008 23:57

Among all this hell raising, my question remains the same? What is the grand bargain? Also, can we finish off the Poppy economy with our troopers on ground? As mentioned umpteen times, second front can be opened by other means too. Every attacker that has come to India has come lured due to our riches and at this juncture, we are rising again economically. The important point is that they have come through Khyber pass. I agree with the point made by someone that we need to stop marauders right there otherwise we land up fighting in panipat but we are planning to deploy troopers on other side of Khyber and in the current situation land up helping the TSPA protect from waves of Tulli-bunnies.

we must seek complete control on supply lines thru POK. Cost of conflict should be minimum to us.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 31 Dec 2008 00:04

I support the proposed Indian deployment to Afghanistan. Here’s my take on the issue:

- Indian Army will primarily be responsible for maintaining order in/around major cities and critical infrastructure. However, approx. 20,000 troops will participate in offensive operations either solo or in concert with NATO forces.

- Air-cover is not an issue and will be provided by NATO on-par with other forces on the ground. There will be an initial token IAF presence comprising primarily of Jaguars for A2G and SU 30’s for CAP & A2G. An additional squadron of SU 30MKI’s will be added later, if necessary.

- Non-lethal supplies (food, medical aid etc.) will be obtained from CAR republics. Military supplies will be reinforced by Russia and transported via CAR region in addition to being flown-in by IAF. Pakis will have to allow these over-flights.

- This deployment, if it ever materializes, will represent the ultimate ganging up of YYY against Pakistan and terrorism. Imagine joint F/A-18 & SU-30 air-strikes on Peshawar and beyond after every terrorist attack on Indian soil.

- Taliban and Pakistani Army will surely join ranks to fight together in NWFP and Afghanistan but that will only speed up the endgame – the destruction of the Paki state, its army, and its nuclear apparatus.

- I have no doubt that Indian forces will win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people by focusing on development as well as deterrence. This is not the first time India has been engaged in peace keeping operations in hostile territory. We have a stellar peace keeping record that spans almost every continent on the globe.

- Under Obama, the US administration is going to be committed to Afghanistan. It is a good time for India to join the ranks and pursue its own objectives in Afghanistan/Central Asian region as well. If sworn enemies (US and Russia) can cooperate in Afghanistan in rational pursuit of their geo-strategic goals, surely India can as well.

- Finally, there is no such thing as a risk-free endeavor. Indians can benefit immensely from this deployment or royally screw it up but it is definately worth pursuing.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 31 Dec 2008 00:12

Guys please clear up things. If these are just rumors then close the thread and move on. Why phor all conphusion ?

Div · Post by **Div** » 31 Dec 2008 00:19

Rahul Shukla wrote:- Non-lethal supplies (food, medical aid etc.) will be obtained from CAR republics. Military supplies will be reinforced by Russia and transported via CAR region in addition to being flown-in by IAF. Pakis will have to allow these over-flights.

That's not going to happen...at least not voluntarily.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 31 Dec 2008 00:23

Chandrabhan..your question and argument are perfectly valid at this point on troops deployment but I think on a strategic front it will be a great leap forward from Indian perspective as India's historic ties stretch to Afghanistan and our ancestral land is calling for help from its earlier owners, us Indians. Although it will be at a huge cost but I think it is the risk worth taking and could reap immense benefits to future generations of India to have strategic presence in Afghanistan. The presence of Indian forces on the western front of porkiland will be a big psychological and tactical advantage for us. Moreover, it will be good for power projection in the west. For a country which is looking forward in future to be a superpower it is the first step on the journey. On the downside it is a risky business and there is no scope of failure. But, on a whole I see more positives than negatives on troops deployment.

Mandeep · Post by **Mandeep** » 31 Dec 2008 00:24

Lets pick the brains of our experts. If India agrees to send 80.000 troops what composition should the force have ? Both in terms of what BRites want and what might be a realistic assessment of what the GOI would send. After all ultimately its the GOI with its analysis of all political,military and strategic factors which is going to be taking the decisions

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 31 Dec 2008 00:26

My main concern with deploying this quantity of military assets to Afghanistan is: would we have enough left to deter Chinese mischief if other fronts are opened against us via China, Nepal and/or BD?

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 31 Dec 2008 00:28

Mandeep wrote:Lets pick the brains of our experts. If India agrees to send 80.000 troops what composition should the force have ? Both in terms of what BRites want and what might be a realistic assessment of what the GOI would send. After all ultimately its the GOI with its analysis of all political,military and strategic factors which is going to be taking the decisions

Mandeepji I am just curious as to why you ask for the composition of 80,000 troops when the number 120,000 was originally proposed and also is the thread title?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 31 Dec 2008 00:29

chandrabhan wrote:I repeat, no forces in AF till the time we can get UN mandated 50-100 km wide land corridor through POK.

Oh yes, another eunuch wish list of asking UN mandate for 100km wide corridore across Pak occuppied Kashmir. As if UNSC mandate to Pakistan to completely withdraw its aggression from PoK has had any desirable effect in the last 60 years.

In Hindi:

"Na Nau Man Tel Hoga, Na Radha Nachay Gi"
In Inglis: Radha will only dance when a million lamps are lighted up (enough to consume 360 kg lamp oil)

And our brave warriors will wait for UN sanction for a "Nau man Tel" before showing valor. Just legitimate excuse for inaction.

And if someone may also ask little details of what road way/ railway track exists in PoK that the 50 Km wide passage way will provide logistic bandwidth? A visit to Google Earth may be instructive.

If UN mandate had its writ and India gets 100 km wide corridor I am sure India might as well assert full control on PoK based on 1948 UNSC mandate, the whole reason for Pakistani jihadis to exist vaporizes. Pakistan v.s. Kashmir problem solved, without firing a shot and without sending 120,000 Indian tropps to Afganistan.

What next? use LeT/JuD for humanitarian work in Mumbai & Lack-now (sic) !!

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 31 Dec 2008 00:33

Mandeep wrote:Lets pick the brains of our experts. If India agrees to send 80.000 troops what composition should the force have ? Both in terms of what BRites want and what might be a realistic assessment of what the GOI would send. After all ultimately its the GOI with its analysis of all political,military and strategic factors which is going to be taking the decisions

1 Corps HQ
Three Infantry / Mountain Divisions
One Armoured Brigade
One Artillery Brigade
Supply and Logistics Troops.

cholaraja · Post by **cholaraja** » 31 Dec 2008 00:47

great, let pakis reaslise that they are fighting, "in show" at least on their ,part the same flicking enemy! he he he

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 31 Dec 2008 00:51

After NRao's hint, I decided to look at the time-line on this proposal....
It is getting very interesting

July 15 2008
Ajai Shula planning-for-doomsday-should-india-send

Accelerating that re-evaluation has been media commentary calling for increased military presence. A respected national daily editorially observed, "After the Kabul bombing, India must come to terms with an important question that it has avoided debating so far. New Delhi cannot continue to expand its economic and diplomatic activity in Afghanistan, while avoiding a commensurate increase in its military presence there. For too long, New Delhi has deferred to Pakistani and American sensitivities about raising India's strategic profile in Afghanistan.”

Aug 6 2008
India rules out sending troops to Afghanistan

Following the deadly July 7 terror attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul there has been talk of sending additional Indian security forces to Afghanistan to beef up security at the mission.

Some Pro-Paki Kashmiri Clown 'Dr Shahid Qureshi' based out of London talks about Indian troops. Don't know how he got the information.
Sep 27 2008
Players in Place to Break Pakistan?

It would be disastrous for the region if India sent 150,000 troops in Afghanistan which could lead to break up of India itself in the present economic scenario

Now starts the real fun. I know some of the clowns quoted in the links have credibility problems, but please bear with me.
Jihadi Aslam Beg claims that there is an agreement signed between Indian and Afghan govt about Indian troops deployment
Sep 29 2008
India to deploy 150,000 troops in Afghanistan

Lahore, September 29: A former army chief says Pakistan is being ‘encircled’ by the United State, India, Nato and the European Union under a well thought-out plan, and calls upon the Islamic Republic to review its defence and foreign policies to deal with the challenges ahead.

A leading daily newspaper 'Dawn' quoted Gen Aslam Beg while saying that only last week India and Afghanistan had signed a defence pact according to which India would be deploying some 150,000 troops in Afghanistan by the end of next year.

India based blog discusses the Indian troops in Afghanistan, very interesting read including comments
Sep 29 2008
Indian troops in Afghanistan

Hafiz Muhammad Saeed picks from Aslam beg
Oct 07 2008
India to send 150,000 troops for anti-Pakistan operations

Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JD), Pakistan Ameer Prof Hafiz Muhammad Saeed has alleged that India would send its 150,000 troops to Afghanistan for launching fresh anti-Pakistan operations as part of the latest US-India deal.

Plagiarist S M Hali states the same
Oct 11 2008
Indian Army in Afghanistan

Some Jihadi idiot 'Asif Haroon Raja' repeats the same in Asian Tribune
Oct 27 2008
Role of regional players in Afghan imbroglio

India has succeeded in establishing a strong foothold in Afghanistan after 9/11 and has cultivated deep economic, intelligence, cultural, and educational ties. It is now all set to enhance its military presence so as to assume pivotal position in the affairs of Afghanistan. Induction of 150000 troops would allow yet another corridor for invasion against Pakistan to India. It looks forward to fill the vacuum once US-Nato troops decide to abandon Afghanistan in not too distant future and to ensure that the Taliban do not return to power. Opening up of a land link from Chahbahar would facilitate India’s mercantile goods and military supplies into Afghanistan. It enjoys best of relations with Russia and is still dependent upon Russian armament. Well knowing US-Russia antagonism, it is playing a double role and acting as a conduit to receive and distribute arms and equipment from Russia among the militants in Afghanistan to earn money.

Paki MPs ask US General David McKiernan about Indian deployment
Nov 19 2008
India not invited to send troops to Afghanistan: US commander

“That is not true,” McKiernan said during the course of his interaction with members of the Atlantic Council - a Washington-headquartered think tank for NATO countries.

McKiernan said this question was posed to him early this week in Islamabad during an interaction with a group of 70 Pakistani parliamentarians.

Meeting at the residence of US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson, the Pakistan MPs, he said, wanted to know if the United States has invited India to send 1,000 troops to Afghanistan by Christmas.

“A couple of the questions I got were why you Americans came to Afghanistan when it was so peaceful. Before you got there. So I have long tried to answer that and, a long way and then another one was we understand that you’ve invited a thousand Indian soldiers to serve in Afghanistan by Christmas. Some of you are looking at me like you believe that. But no, that’s not true,” the general said.

Nov 25 2008
Memon criticizes Indian troops presence in Afghanistan

Islamabad, Nov 25 (ANI): The Chairman of the Pakistan Senate Defence Committee, Senator Nisar A. Memon, has strongly criticized the presence of Indian troops in Afghanistan.

We have conveyed our reservations to the respective countries and have demanded end to this un-mandated presence, The Pakistan Post quoted Memon, as saying.

More I think of it, the Mumbai attacks were message from Paki Army to India to stay off Afghanistan

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 31 Dec 2008 00:51

Rudradev wrote:My main concern with deploying this quantity of military assets to Afghanistan is: would we have enough left to deter Chinese mischief if other fronts are opened against us via China, Nepal and/or BD?

Rudradev saar, there is going to be an inevitable Paki response on IB/LOC reinforced by Chinese military maneuvers in Tibet/Xinjiang region. However, Russian military exercises close to Vladivostok on Indian request and Japanese Imperial Naval patrols in the Taiwan Strait on Uncle's request will keep the lizard occupied. For Pakis, there will have to be a show of force...

An understanding is needed between US, Russia, Japan, CAR, India... It is doable.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 31 Dec 2008 00:52

HariC wrote:
Mandeep wrote:Lets pick the brains of our experts. If India agrees to send 80.000 troops what composition should the force have ? Both in terms of what BRites want and what might be a realistic assessment of what the GOI would send. After all ultimately its the GOI with its analysis of all political,military and strategic factors which is going to be taking the decisions
1 Corps HQ
Three Infantry / Mountain Divisions
One Armoured Brigade
One Artillery Brigade
Supply and Logistics Troops.

Move half of all Army aviation and IAF helicopter units, in addition to half of IAF transport units, and ALL civilian airlines aircraft.

The infantry and artillery is useless in mountain warfare if they do not have the eyes. So almost all IA drones need to also go to Afghanistan.

All the mine resistant transport vehicles need to also go to protect our soldiers in the IED rich super highways of Afghanistan.

Also the infantry officers will need flying artillery, so send half of IAF's ground attack fighter bombers.

What I men i sthat Afganistan war is not about soldiers going to war, it is about all expensive equipment India has for its limited mountain border that need to go too. So if I may then ask what is left of force superiority that India will have dealing with western border, and add to that Bangladeshi border and China border? As if successive GoI has added over last 10 years any substantial more manpower and equipment for war fighting. Honerable Defense Minister and the MPs that adoren Indian parliament MUST know that no matter how hard they screw the one cant make babies faster than 9 months. Building a well motivated/paying and well trained army requires spending money and having time.

Warfare first and foremost require a brain that is willing to fight. Asking that from Sadr(sic) Man Mohan Singh is asking for the moon. We are not even yet taking of a weak kneed AB Vajpayee.

Anyone for more exciting chai biskoot discussion?

D_Chopra · Post by **D_Chopra** » 31 Dec 2008 00:57

I dont see any value for India by sending 120,000. It will be seen as an occupying force by Afghans on the street. Pak could try to destabilize the situation for e.g. what pakis did frequently in kashmir :- sending terrorists into afghan wearing indian army uniforms to kill and rape randomly, which will go against india's aim of earning goodwill among afghans.

What does india stand to gain ? Strategic advantage against pakis by maintaining a strong troop presence on their wester border ? Paks game plan is based on fear of mutual destruction. The game does not change unless india is prepared to accept unacceptable damage ? Do we have the guts ? GOI is clearly thinking any large scale nuclear war will set us back by atleast a century. We already lost 2 centuries to the looting Brits.

Afghanistan is not of any economic value, other than for energy transit. It has lot of strategic value, but india is far behind at this stage in terms of economy and military, to play any strategic games. What India needs is impregnable internal security, surveillance and most effective intelligence agencies. If there is no way for pakis to bleed india in india by covert ops, then pakis will die a slow death. Pakis are already on auto pilot for self-destruction. What we need to do is some unprecendented fortification to stop the plague from spreading over to this side of the border.

It will take time, no quick fixes are there. India should not waste men and resources on playing big strategic games. India should fortify itself first. How many bomb blasts per year occur in US and UK ? Lets match their internal security record first, then think of bigger games later.

Mandeep · Post by **Mandeep** » 31 Dec 2008 01:04

I feel we should start with a basis of a lower figure than what has been suggested for discussion purposes.In any case what I'm talking about are the combat troops to be deployed in Afghanistan. 80,000 is a realistic figure. There will be a large number of administrative/logistic/medical/transit troops which will have to be put on the ground to support the deployment of combat forces.

Remember that the Indian Army had a strength of 2.5 million in World War 2. the current Indian Army has a strength of less than 1.25 million but has far more divisions, infantry battalions, armoured and artillery regiments. In short more combat elements for half the effective strength. The reason was a far greater administrative and engineering commitment at that time.Again remember that the Indian Army at the peak of the war had to maintain troops in Italy, North Africa,Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Sri Lanka, Burma, East Africa etc.

To sustain say 80,000 troops over a very long LOC (line of communications) a large administrative element will have to be put into place on the ground. However we need to be able to pinpoint what troops, what combat elements we will be able to deploy on the ground, the cutting edge of our strike against the Taliban and AQ. What will be the strength of our push against the forces sponsored by and representing Pakistani interests on the ground ?

cholaraja · Post by **cholaraja** » 31 Dec 2008 01:09

Rudradev wrote:My main concern with deploying this quantity of military assets to Afghanistan is: would we have enough left to deter Chinese mischief if other fronts are opened against us via China, Nepal and/or BD?

yer but more boots means more jobs, although there is a financial penalty to the country- the exerienced and well trained of course stay home, but no mission is to be taken light heartedly though even the ones even if freshly trained have the means and the muscle to do what they are there for - simple but needs reiteration at times.

Mandeep · Post by **Mandeep** » 31 Dec 2008 01:12

HariC wrote:[
1 Corps HQ
Three Infantry / Mountain Divisions
One Armoured Brigade
One Artillery Brigade
Supply and Logistics Troops.

Realistic. I would add another artillery brigade or even a division. Nothing like over-powering fire power to keep the opposition's heads down.

Instead of just an armoured brigade maybe a RAPID. Specialised CI troops ? What about some RR battalions ?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 31 Dec 2008 01:14

Mandeep wrote:Remember that the Indian Army had a strength of 2.5 million in World War 2. the current Indian Army has a strength of less than 1.25 million but has far more divisions, infantry battalions, armoured and artillery regiments. In short more combat elements for half the effective strength. The reason was a far greater administrative and engineering commitment at that time.Again remember that the Indian Army at the peak of the war had to maintain troops in Italy, North Africa,Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Sri Lanka, Burma, East Africa etc.

Simple question for you Mandeep. What was the money spent as % GDP of India and % GDP of word build that Indian Army went to war in Italy, North Africa, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Sri Lanka, Burma, East Africa etc.?

I am sure we will all be enlightened by your answer.

I willl also be enlighted to know what was the pay that Indian soldier and officer got w.r.t. ordinary Tom, Dick and Harry paper pusher in Indian Imperial civil services?

aditya · Post by **aditya** » 31 Dec 2008 01:17

Will manpower be increased over the coming years (to at least 2m if not Chinese levels)? Will the defence budget increase from the pathetic current level of 1.9% to 5-6% that is needed for 1billion people?

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 31 Dec 2008 01:22

I don't believe this is the appropriate thread to discuss defence budget etc. even though we all know it needs a significant boost. A boost today will not yield results tomorrow. In this fight, we've got to fight with what we have and sadly, take more casualties than normal in the process.

So yes, our jawans will once again have to pay for the inability of babus to waste a drop of ink on a piece of paper by giving all the blood they have in their bodies.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 31 Dec 2008 01:23

Far better than any of this:

-Wait till 2013. According to American strategists, it is virtually certain that a WMD attack originating from Pakistan will take out an American city by this time.

-Grab some popcorn and watch the Pakis being tandoor-ized.

Rahul Shukla saar, you're talking about making sure India's security is guaranteed by Japan, Russia, CAR etc. etc. against Chinese moves that will surely take place in response to India's deploying 120,000 (or whatever ridiculous number) of troops to Afghanistan. Okay. But who is becoming the business-end of the cat's paw here? Our troops will be on the line in Afghanistan, and if the CARs/Russians bail out of providing an alternative supply line to Pakistan, our troops (NOT the Americans) are the ones who will end up paying the price.

Similarly, our own territory will be less well guarded as a result of moving so many military assets overseas. Yes, we can hope and trust that a coalition of India, Russia, CAR, Japan, US would hold together and somehow thwart any Chinese designs on Arunachal Pradesh for example. But if that coalition proves to be a house of cards, who has lost what? India has lost Arunachal Pradesh. The rest of those actors only have to shrug their shoulders and say "sorry".

I'm afraid I simply do not see any grounds for assuming this level of risk. It's almost as if we're uncomfortable using our military might to define our own destiny as an independent nation, so instead we're offering ourselves up to the Americans as a colonial rentier state fielding a colonial rentier army once again... just like our "glory days" supplying 2.5 million troops in the service of Britain's geopolitical interests during World War II.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Dec 2008 01:30

As a FYI ONLY:

Feb 11, 2003 :: As India and Iran snuggle, Pakistan feels the chill

A recent issue of Defense News has an interesting byline of a dispatch from New Delhi: "India, Iran sign strategic accord." The "startling new accord", it notes, "gives New Delhi the right to use Iranian military bases in the event of a war with neighboring Pakistan, in exchange for India providing Tehran with military hardware, training, maintenance and modernization support".

http://thegrandstrategy.blogspot.com/2007/06/india-iran-relations.html

Fair states that Iran reportedly agreed in 2001 to allow Indian use of Iranian military bases in the event of war with Pakistan and that India has established an intelligence presence at the Indian consulate in Zahedan, near the Pakistani border.

India is also contributing to the upgrade of Iran’s Chahbahar port, a future access point for Indian goods bound for Europe and Russia and a potential competitor for Pakistan’s China-funded port at nearby Gwadar.

James B · Post by **James B** » 31 Dec 2008 01:35

Rudradev wrote:Far better than any of this:

-Wait till 2013. According to American strategists, it is virtually certain that a WMD attack originating from Pakistan will take out an American city by this time.

They also said that there were WMDs in Iraq. We cannot put our hopes on what some American strategists predict when it comes to security. We should take all measures and take the fight to the enemy so that no more Mumbai-like attacks take place.

Decision to send troops to Afghanistan will be a good one. It will keep Pukis busy on both fronts and also throw in some RAWites for covert operations which effectively neutralize Pukis on three fronts, east, west and internally which will make it a good recipe for fragmentation of land of pure.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 31 Dec 2008 01:39

Rudradev saar,

What response do you anticipate from the Chinese on any given day yindoos decide to resort to a military strategy to take out Pakistan?

Same, no?

However, on that day with no yindoo deployment in Afghanistan, what incentive do you offer US, Japan, Russia to ensure the Chinese are kept at bay?

You and I both know that India is not strong enough to take on a combined assault by China and Pakistan. That is the case with or without any Indian deployment in Afghanistan. However, if Indians are deployed in Afghanistan, any Chinese military maneuver simultaneously becomes an unavoidable issue for US, Russia, Japan, CAR and India.

Besides, yindoos are not planning to air-drop 120,000 soldiers overnight on Kabul. The deployment will take place in phases and there will be plenty of chances to test the coalition's response to Chinese snake dance.

Finally, a significant Indian presence in Afghanistan will come in very handy in terms of war-strategy should Pakistan and/or China decide to go to war with India. The only difference wiil be that we will have more allies and alliances to count on for support. If India can't endure a two-front war, neither can Pakistan or China.

Think about it... Thanks!

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 31 Dec 2008 02:03

Since India supported the Chahbahar port as well as BRO (Army's border roads organization ) has build up road from Iranian border all the way to Kabul (Part of Afghan Garland highway). Why can't this port be used to supply and sustain Indian troops in Afghanistan?

Is it too much to ask from Iran?

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 31 Dec 2008 02:06

Mandeep wrote:I feel we should start with a basis of a lower figure than what has been suggested for discussion purposes.In any case what I'm talking about are the combat troops to be deployed in Afghanistan. 80,000 is a realistic figure. There will be a large number of administrative/logistic/medical/transit troops which will have to be put on the ground to support the deployment of combat forces.
...

Point noted. thanks for the reply Mandeepji.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 31 Dec 2008 02:07

SBajwa wrote:Is it too much to ask from Iran?

Iran is going to ask for its own quid-pro-quo from both India and US...