India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

[NRao]

Is it too much to ask from Iran?

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

The question is what cost must India pay to get rid of such attacks and even perhaps the ISI+PA as we know it.

Recall that reports stated that Iran declined to allow IAF MKIs to fly over Iran for the Red Flag games. Clearly the relationship is not the same, and, what will happen if Obama offers to talk with Iran still remains to be seen.

[kshirin]

Regarding Vina's interesting post on US planning alternative routes to Afghanistan, I was suddenly reminded of a very interesting article by Jane Perlez on redrawing Pakistan's map, the truncated version of TSP appeared in the print edition and cannot be posted here, but it showed Afghnaistan eating away nearly half of TSP's territory.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/23/ ... php?page=2
Redrawn map makes Pakistan uneasy
By Jane Perlez
Published: November 23, 2008

ISLAMABAD: A redrawn map of South Asia has been making the rounds among Pakistani elites. It shows their country truncated, reduced to an elongated sliver of land with the big bulk of India to the east, and an enlarged Afghanistan to the west.
That the map was first circulated as a theoretical exercise in some U.S. neoconservative circles matters little here. It has fueled a belief among Pakistanis, including members of the armed forces, that what the United States really wants is the breakup of Pakistan, the only Muslim country with nuclear arms."One of the biggest fears of the Pakistani military planners is the collaboration between India and Afghanistan to destroy Pakistan," said a senior Pakistani government official involved in strategic planning who insisted on anonymity in accordance with diplomatic rules. "Some people feel the United States is colluding in this."
That notion may strike Americans as strange coming from an ally of 50 years. But as the incoming Obama administration tries to coax greater cooperation from Pakistan in the fight against militancy, it can hardly be ignored.
This is a country where years of weak governance have left ample room for conspiracy theories of every kind. But like such thinking anywhere, what is suspected frequently reveals the tender spots of the national psyche. Educated Pakistanis sometimes acknowledge they are paranoid, but add that they believe they have good reason.
Pakistan, a 61-year-old country marbled with intertwining and often conflictual ethnic groups, is a collection of four provinces, which can seem to have little in common. Virtually every one of its borders, drawn almost arbitrarily in the last gasps of the British Empire, is disputed with its neighbors, not least Pakistan's bitter and much larger rival, India.
These facts and the insecurities that spring from them inform many of Pakistan's disagreements with the United States, including differences over the need to rein in militancy in the form of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
The new democratically elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, has visited the United States twice since assuming power three months ago.
He has been generous in his praise of the Bush administration. But that stance is criticized at home as fawning and wins him little popularity among a steadfastly anti-U.S. public.
So how will the promise by President-elect Barack Obama for a new start between the United States and Pakistan be received here? How can it be begun?
One possibility could be some effort to ease Pakistani anxieties, even as the United States demands more from Pakistan. That will probably mean a regional approach to what, it is increasingly apparent, are regional problems. There, Pakistani and U.S. interests may coincide.
U.S. military commanders like General David Petraeus have started to argue forcefully that the solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, where the U.S. war effort looks increasingly uncertain, must involve a wide array of neighbors.
Obama has said much the same. Several times in his campaign, he laid out the crux of his thinking. Reducing tensions between Pakistan and India would allow Pakistan to focus on the real threat - the Qaeda and Taliban militants who are tearing at the very fabric of the country.
"If Pakistan can look towards the east with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban," Obama wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine last year.
But such an approach faces sizable obstacles, the biggest being the conflict over Kashmir. The Himalayan border area has been disputed since the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 and remains divided between them.
The Pakistani Army and intelligence agencies have long fought a proxy war with India by sponsoring militant groups to terrorize the Indian-administered part of the territory.
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan reined in those militants for a time, but this year they have renewed their incursions. Talks between the sides made some progress in recent years but have petered out.
Pakistanis warn that the United States should not appear too eager to mediate. First, they caution, India has always regarded Kashmir as a bilateral question. India, they note, also faces a general election early next year, an inappropriate moment to push such an explosive issue.
Second, some Pakistanis are concerned about the reliability of the United States as a fair mediator. "Given the United States' record on the Palestinian issue, where the Palestinians had to move 10 times backwards and the Israelis moved the goal posts, the same could happen here," said Zubair Khan, a former commerce minister who has watched Kashmir closely.
It was discouraging, Khan said, that the United States ignored the importance of the huge nonviolent protests by Muslims in Kashmir against Indian rule this summer. "Anywhere else, and they would have been hailed as an Orange Revolution," he said, referring to the wave of protests that led to a change in the Ukrainian government in 2004.
Such distrust has been exacerbated by what Pakistanis see as the Bush administration's tilt toward India.
Exhibit A for the Pakistanis is its rival's nuclear deal with the United States, which allows India to engage in nuclear trade even though it never joined the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Pakistan, with its recent history of spreading nuclear technology, received no comparable bargain.
The nuclear deal was devised in Washington to position India as a strategic counterbalance to China. That is how it is seen in Pakistan, too, but with no enthusiasm.
"The United States has changed the whole nuclear order by this deal, and in doing so is containing China, the only friend Pakistan has in the region," said Talat Masood, a retired general from the Pakistani Army.
Further, Pakistan is upset about the advances India is making in Afghanistan, with no checks from the United States, Masood said.
India has recently made big investments in Afghanistan, where Pakistan has been competing for influence. These include a road to the Iranian border that will eventually give India access to the Iranian port of Chabahar, circumventing Pakistan.
India has offered training for the Afghan military, given assistance for a new Parliament building in Kabul and reopened consulates along the border with Pakistan.
The consulates, the Pakistanis charge, are used by India as cover to lend support to a long-running separatist movement in Baluchistan Province. (Baluchistan was even made an independent state on the theoretical map, which accompanied an article by Ralph Peters titled "Blood Borders: How a Better Middle East Would Look," originally published in Armed Forces Journal.)
Both India and Pakistan in fact have a long and destructive history of, gently or not, putting in the knife. Exhibit A for the Indians is the bombing in July of their embassy in Afghanistan, which U.S. and Indian officials say can be traced to groups linked to the Pakistani spy agency.
If the Obama administration is indeed to convince Pakistanis that militancy, not the Indian Army, presents the gravest threat, it will not be easy.
The commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, got a taste of the challenge this month, when he visited Islamabad and sat down with about 70 members of the Pakistan Parliament at the residence of the U.S. ambassador, Anne Patterson.
Their attitude showed an almost total incomprehension of the reasons for U.S. behavior in the region after Sept. 11.
"A couple of the questions I got were, 'Why did you Americans come to Afghanistan when it was so peaceful before you got there?"' McKiernan recalled during an appearance at the Atlantic Council in Washington last week.
"Another one," he said, "was, 'We understand that you've invited a thousand Indian soldiers to serve in Afghanistan by Christmas."' There was no truth to the claim, he told the Pakistanis. "We have a lot of work to do," he told his audience in Washington.Indeed, among ordinary Pakistanis, many still regard Al Qaeda more positively than the United States, polls find. Talk shows here often include arguments that the suicide bombings in Pakistan are payback for the Pakistani Army fighting an U.S. war. Some commentators suggest that the United States is actually financing the Taliban. The point is to tie down the Pakistani Army, they say, leaving the way open for the United States to grab Pakistani nuclear weapons. Recently, in the officer's mess in Bajaur, the northern tribal region where the Pakistani Army is tied down fighting the militants, one officer offered his own theory: Osama bin Laden did not exist, he told a visiting journalist. Rather, he was a creation of the United States, who needed an excuse to invade Afghanistan and encroach on Pakistan.

[BijuShet]

Is it too much to ask from Iran?

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

Shia Iran shares its border with Afghanistan so it is in their interest to see that a sunni Taliban govt backed by Pakistan does not take shape in Afghanistan. The last time around when the Taliban was in power the Afghan Shia population were targeted and there is no reason why it will be any different this time around. Besides US can not let Iran get involved directly in Afghanistan so for them it makes sense to have another player in this game that can look out for their interests. If I remember correctly Indian and Iranian interests were closely aligned with the Northern alliance in the pre 9-11-2001 days. Besides if they are our conduit for materials supply then that does give them some leverage on our actions right?

[Rahul Shukla]

...Iran declined to allow IAF MKIs to fly over Iran for the Red Flag games. Clearly the relationship is not the same, and, what will happen if Obama offers to talk with Iran still remains to be seen.

True.

But there are more determinants to Iranian actions when it comes to Afghanistan. Subsequent to an Indian deployment with air-bases available within Afghanistan and CAR supply lines, Iranian logistical support is not as critical any more. Besides, I'll take an airbase in Afghanistan over Iran anyday for taking over Paki fizzle-ya and its jihadi army given location, distance to target and fuel stock considerations.

That being said, the more sources of logistics the better. India can open its own dialogue with Iran and secure logistical access for materials intended solely for Indian forces operating within Afghanistan while Uncle takes the longer route and pursues mutual de-escalation with Iran.

Iranian interests in Afghanistan will allow for such an arrangement with India.

[hnair]

If we are going into Afghanistan, we do it because it makes sense to open a second front against the paki army.

But before we commit, we need the following from the west

1) MONEY
2) screw UN resolutions, we need Prez Karzai's signature and a parliament/jirga resolution
3) unconditional American airsupport. They should not be allowed to reprogram a falling JDAM to an empty ravine because "ISI rang up and said Al Zawahiri is going to marry Kiyani's momma next week". That means an Indian presence in their ops center.
4) Address the core issues of the region: liberation of oppressed minorities from Pakjabi forward castes. Basically an agreement on our Balochi and Pashtun brothers to be in charge of their destinies.
5) More American MONEY to rebuild Afghanistan with less MacDonalds and more Afghani dhabas.
6) Access in western media for exiled Tibetan government based in India
7) Some more american MONEY to start off Indian-led culturally sensitive entertainment.

[Rahul Shukla]

- 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.

I should have been more clear. If an Indian deployment is announced, Fizzle-ya will be under clear instructions from CENTCOM & GOI not to mess with yindoo IL-76's, or else.

[Div]

Regarding Vina's interesting post on US planning alternative routes to Afghanistan, I was suddenly reminded of a very interesting article by Jane Perlez on redrawing Pakistan's map, the truncated version of TSP appeared in the print edition and cannot be posted here, but it showed Afghnaistan eating away nearly half of TSP's territory.

Is this the map?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ralph ... ideast.jpg

[Arun_S]

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

I should have been more clear. If an Indian deployment is announced, Fizzle-ya will be under clear instructions from CENTCOM & GOI not to mess with yindoo IL-76's, or else.

Rahul, a more practical approach is No-Fly-Zone that is enforced with Su-30 prowling the enforcement zone and all IL76 and Airbus-320 ferrying material escorted by a Mig29 it a short hop for Mig29 across Bakistan. AEW/AWACS petrol can make the NFZ enforcement cost effective.

[ldev]

Some of the "demands" made by esteemed membership here on this proposition range from the laughable to the ludicrous i.e. land corridor to Afghanistan, No fly Zone, UN resolutions, major shakedown of Unkil etc. etc. If wishes were horses.....If it was possible for godfather Unkil to arrange all of these wishes on demand of esteemed membership here, there would be no need for Indian forces to go to Afghanistan.

What this proposal does from an Indian standpoint as opposed to looking at the world through a US prism is:

1. Splits the Pakistan defence posture into two directions as opposed to a unidirectional eastwards orientation as it currently stands. Pakistan's western frontier is its soft underbelly and basing a substantial Indian force in Afghanistan allows India to spread the Pakistani defence thin.

2. It allows India to bypass the brittle stalemate on the India-Pakistan border where every overt clash between the two forces is played up by Pakistan as a "nuclear flashpoint". If India operates alongwith NATO forces, it effectively joins an ongoing war where Pakistani redlines do not apply. This gives India flexibility to retaliate via the Western front under cover of the existing GWT for any future Pakistani mischief in India. This option will give all future GOIs a lot of leeway to retaliate.

[Raghav K]

Another interesting view with a map.

http://rupeenews.com/2008/07/09/kabul-b ... ghansitan/

This map shows the Afghan road network hooked up to the Iranian port of Chahbahar. The port is being built by India and competes with the Pakistani port of Gwader.

http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2 ... -india.jpg

[Rahul Shukla]

Arun saar,

Pakistan clearly has a choice - mess with yindoo supply lines and loose fizzle-ya due to joint IAF/USAF escort operations or try to spin the situation and save H&D. I expect yindoos to make minimal noise and let Pakistan declare that only non-military supplies are being ferried by IAF across Paki airspace. Heck, they might even fly their F-16's and escort our IL-76's themselves to show off. We don't mind at all. Minimum separation protocols from IAF transports will take care of accidental mid-air collision possibilities with Fizzle-ya.

With Saudi's monitoring the oil-tap on Uncle's instructions and IMF controlling the purse-strings, there's nothing the Pakistanis can do but shut up and put up.

[hnair]

Some of the "demands" made by esteemed membership here on this proposition range from the laughable to the ludicrous i.e. land corridor to Afghanistan, No fly Zone, UN resolutions, major shakedown of Unkil etc. etc. If wishes were horses.....If it was possible for godfather Unkil to arrange all of these wishes on demand of esteemed membership here, there would be no need for Indian forces to go to Afghanistan.

As Shiv has pointed out, unkil pays up handsomely if the demands are loud and brazen. From Zia to Kiyani we saw proof. wishful and laughable indeed.

[Rahul Shukla]

Pakistan can be easily managed.

We need more analysis of Chinese reaction to Indian deployment. They have their own leverage on CAR region, Russia, Uncle and Iran.

I don't expect this to be a cake-walk.

[kshirin]

Regarding Vina's interesting post on US planning alternative routes to Afghanistan, I was suddenly reminded of a very interesting article by Jane Perlez on redrawing Pakistan's map, the truncated version of TSP appeared in the print edition and cannot be posted here, but it showed Afghnaistan eating away nearly half of TSP's territory.

Is this the map?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ralph ... ideast.jpg

BR is so resourceful! Thanks! And to Raghav.

[Pranay]

The idea behind this thread - sending 120,000 Indian troops to Afghanistan - to open up another "front" reminds me of an old ad that used to come over here quite a few years ago; that of "The Roach Motel - They come in but don't check out".

Afghanistan has historically done that to foreign armies.

Smarter thing to do will be to replace the ITBP that is over there with SF and utilize small batches to do the needful inside Pakistan.

[kshirin]

I am not very sure about Russia either, given the short sighted US policy of alienating them, saw an article in which an analyst was saying it wasn't such a bad thing for the action to be focused away from their borders, to the South, keeping the Americans bogged down. Was crowing a bit about how land access through CARs was possible only with Russian go ahead. It need not necessarily reflect mainstream views. With Russia on our side, TSP is truly cornered. The US must make up quickly with Russia.

[Anurag]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabahar

Chabahar Port a symbol of the new Iran-India strategic alliance
India is helping develop the Chabahar port and that would give it access to the oil and gas resources in Iran and the Central Asian states, in this it is competing with the Chinese which is building the Gwadar port, in Pakistani Baluchistan.

Iran plans to use Chabahar for transhipment to Afghanistan and Central Asia while reserving the port of Bandar Abbas as a major hub mainly for trade with Russia and Europe.

India, Iran and Afghanistan have signed an agreement to give Indian goods, heading for Central Asia and Afghanistan, preferential treatment and tariff reductions at Chabahar

Work on the Chabahar-Melak-Zaranj-Dilaram route from Iran to Afghanistan is in progress. Iran is with Indian aid upgrading the Chabahar-Melak road and constructing a bridge on the route to Zaranj. India's BRO is laying the 213-kilometer Zaranj-Dilaram road. It is a part of its USD 750 million aid package to Afghanistan.(This aid package has doubled to a total of $1.5 billion now)

The advantages that Chabahar has compared to Gwadar are the greater political stability and security of the Iranian hinterland and the hositlity and mistrust that the Pakistani Baluchis hold against the Punjabi dominated Pakistani Federal government. The Baluchis consider Sino-Pak initiative at Gwadar as a strategy from Islamabad to deny the province its deserved share of development pie. They also look with suspicion on the settlement of more and more non-Baluchis in the port area.

The Chabahar port project is Iran's chance to end its US sponsored economic isolation and benefit form the resurgent Indian economy. Along with Bandar Abbas, Chabahar is the Iranian entrepot on the North - South corridor. A strategic partnership between India, Iran and Russia to establish a multi-modal transport link connecting Mumbai with St. Petersburg. Providing Europe and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia access to Asia and vice-versa.

[a_kumar]

I am not very sure about Russia either, given the short sighted US policy of alienating them,
....
With Russia on our side, TSP is truly cornered. The US must make up quickly with Russia.

On topic of Russia and Iran, it seems like "think-tanks" are churning out options for the Obama administration. He provided enough signals and probably in a sense encouraged an environment for these theories to survive.

Until recently, I held a not so hopeful view of Obama presidency (purely from Indian perspective). Our end games seem to be too divergent. But maybe our end games are converging after all... Wait and watch!!

[Rudradev]

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.

So you would have us send troops to Afghanistan (rather than into POK or Pakistan) because Pakistan-sponsored terrorists attacked us.

That sounds like those same American strategists you refer to, when they were calling for the invasion of Iraq in response to 9/11. You may recall that they, too, used some gaseous rhetoric about "take the fight to the enemy" to justify that blunder.

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.

This entire idea devolves completely around the fantasy that America and the international community are finally going to come around to accept the Dharmic Indian viewpoint of Pakistan, and that they will act in concert with us to finish Pakistan when the realization dawns.

Some people here seriously think that if we lay Indian lives on the line to pay for a mismanaged American campaign in Afghanistan... one that the mighty Americans themselves are losing, because of their own reluctance to do the needful in Pakistan... that everything will change for the better. They imagine that our putting Indian troops in harm's way, will magically make the Americans more likely to do what they are not even willing to do for the sake of winning their own Afghan war.

This is so off the wall it's unbelievable. Here are two things to recognize.

First, any Indian troops we commit to Afghanistan are all but lost to us. We will have no way to get supplies to them, or pull them out, or use them for any purpose that we see fit without America's 400% consent and approval... because we will be 400% dependent on the Americans to maintain our lines of communication to them.

People here are talking about the US forcing TSPA to allow India an air-corridor over Pakistani territory to supply 120,000 of our OWN troops on Afghan soil. When the next Mumbai-style terror attack happens, the Americans will cite this "generosity" of the TSPA to offer us an air corridor as yet another reason why we should "show restraint" and "make concessions on Kashmir". Our 120,000 soldiers will effectively be ransomed against the restraint we will be compelled to show against future Pakistani terrorism.

You see... our putting 120,000 soldiers into Afghanistan will make the Americans very happy, but it will NOT (as Mr. Mandep Bajwa expounds) force the Americans to choose India over Pakistan in "one deft swoop". It will, in fact, contribute more leverage to the Americans over India than they already have, and maximize the Americans' benefit in continuing to play an India-Pakistan equal-equal game. The Americans will use the spectre of 120,000 Indian troops in Afghanistan to coerce the Pakis into submission... but they will NOT allow us to use those 120,000 troops for any purpose that does not 400% suit the American game plan. On the other hand, the Americans will use the fact that we depend on them to resupply our troops, to coerce India into going along with the American agenda on Pakistan.

It's not just resupply either... there are many other ways in which we will depend on the Americans to ensure our troops' well being, and all of these will become further levers for the Americans to control Indian policy with. These include providing air-support, sharing intel, and refraining from using our brown boys as cannon fodder (as they used the hapless Bangladeshi contingent who showed up in KSA during Desert Storm). The Americans are content to let innocent Mumbai-ite commuters, Delhi shoppers and Jaipur pilgrims die like flies in the service of their agenda; why do you imagine they will hesitate to use our troops in the same way?

In effect, we will be repeating the relationship that the Pakistanis now have with the Americans, with the Americans in place of the Pakistanis and ourselves in place of the Americans. We may as well put our scrotum on the table and hand the Americans a hammer.

The second thing to remember is that American and Indian interests are almost in direct conflict with one another, as regards Pakistan. No amount of our bending over and doing favors for the Americans is going to change that.

Let us consider a Set P, whose members include all the possible serious contenders for power in Pakistan. One thing that we know for sure is that every single member of Set P, without exception, is anti-India. They are all so anti-India that as far as we're concerned, there is none among them which we can look upon as preferable in the long-term. In the short term, maybe one or the other of them can be manipulated to serve our interest in a Hudaibiya sort of way. But when all is said and done, in the big picture, no member of Set P is advantageous to India, and all will be equally dangerous to us upon assuming power in Islamabad.

Now let us assume a subset q of set P. The members of q, being also members of Set P, are by definition anti-India. However, they have bought so deeply into the pan-Ummah Islamist ideology that (at least at present) they are even more anti-American and anti-Western than they are anti-India.

If q' (q prime) is the set of all members of Set P who are not members of subset q, i.e. anti-India but less (or not at all) anti-Western or anti-American, it follows that it is in America's interest to have a member of q' in power in Pakistan.

On the other hand, given that all members of Set P are equally harmful to India, India's greatest advantage is served by having a member of q in power in Pakistan. Much better for us to have an Islamist in power who is even more anti-US and anti-Western than he is anti-India. Then the US will become as committed to the destruction of Pakistan as we are, not because they have had a Dharmic awakening, but because it is suddenly in their own interest to destroy Pakistan as well.

To facilitate the ascension of a member of q to power in Islamabad will require India to have a free hand, independent of the Americans, as regards our Pakistan policy. On the other hand, if we're in a situation where the Americans control our own access to our troops in Afghanistan, our freedom of movement with regard to Pakistan is severely curtailed.

To sum up, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by sending 120,000 Indian troops (or any number of Indian troops for that matter) to become involved in the US war effort in Afghanistan. It will LOOK like a two-front deployment against Pakistan, but the Afghan-side of that deployment will be utterly at the mercy of America and its allies. Those troops will not be able to "retaliate" against the Pakis for an attack on India... they will not be able to lift a finger against the Pakis as long as doing so is not in Unkil's interest.

So we would be, in effect, exactly where we are now... minus the security of 120,000 of our troops playing cannon fodder for the Americans against the Pashtun militias, and minus however many billion dollars we have to pay for the privilege of offering up their hides. The Americans, of course would gain a lot... leverage against the Pakistanis of having "Indian troops" lined up along their northern border, leverage against India because the welfare of our troops will be in American hands, and lots and lots of brown cannon fodder to conduct their counter-insurgency ops for them. All win for America, some loss for India. It stinks.

[Rudradev]

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?

Not same at all saar.

What HAS the Chinese response been whenever Yindoos went to war with Pakistan before? A little innocuous saber rattling... even when Kissinger was practically begging them to get involved during the '71 conflict, that's as far as they were willing to go.

See, China will give weapons and such galore to Pakistan. It will be very happy to see Yindoos and Pakis nuke each other. However, it's not about to put its own troops (or its own H&D) on the line to save the Pakis. India can seriously hurt them, and without an achievable geopolitical objective of real value to be gained, they're not going to send PLA into action for the Pakis' sake.

On the other hand... Indian troops in Afghanistan under an American aegis is exactly the kind of thing that makes Beijing feel that its geopolitical interests are being properly threatened. It will immediately see an Indo-American axis competing against it for access to Central Asian resources. It is this kind of thing... Indian naval exercises with Singapore and Japan for instance... which is far more likely to goad a serious Chinese military response. Not the survival of the Pakis, who are ultimately just a bunch of marginally useful monkeys from Beijing's point of view.

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?

I don't know, boss, what incentive? Russia is being threatened by US/NATO expansion in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe, will they care enough about Indian participation in a NATO force in Afghanistan to help out against Chinese aggression? Or will Chinese cash payments for Russian weapons, and the need to develop the SCO as a strong geopolitical contender, prove a stronger influence on Moscow's actions?

Similarly what have the Japanese ever had to fear from "Al-Qaeda"? And why would they jeopardize a Sino-Japanese trade relationship worth $236 Billion by menacing China on behalf of Indian troop deployment in Afghanistan?

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.

I don't understand the generalization. "Combined assault" of what sort, to what end? China and Pakistan are not going to amass their combined forces and ride for Delhi like Marshal Zhukov (and if for some reason they did, both would get nuked). If you're talking about border nibblings, India is certainly strong enough to keep the Chinese deterred while kicking the daylights out of the Pakis... we have done that many times before.

The fact is, it has never been in the Chinese interest to pose an existential threat to India... only to keep India contained. The Chinese don't want to erase India and have to deal with an Israel-to-Indonesia expanse of crazy nuke-toting Ummah instead. For their part, America, Russia, the EU and others also do not want to see the China-India balance altered so drastically that China becomes the uncontested and dominant power in Asia.

In sum, in the case of any Indo-Pak conflict, Chinese aggression beyond a very low level of frontier harassment is unlikely... and if it should actually happen and pose a serious threat to India, other powers are likely to get involved against China.

None of this changes for the better if we send 120,000 troops to Afghanistan... on the other hand, the Chinese are likely to respond to a beefed up Indo-American presence on their Western border with much more belligerence.

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.

Agreed, but I'm more concerned with the bigger picture. Sending troops to Afghanistan steps us up to the level of a NATO ally of the US -- at least in Chinese eyes. Probably in Russian and Iranian eyes as well.

In the coming decades of geostrategic contest, I would much rather that India did not throw in its lot so early in the game with any particular side. It is far better to play them off against each other in increments, exacting benefits from all of them over the long term, than to show our hand so wholeheartedly for the Americans when the stakes are still so modest.

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!

I have, thanks... but I still remain confused as to why we're even thinking of giving something away (120,000 troops to the US war effort in Afghanistan, plus all the money to pay for them) without a clear indication of what the benefits would be, over and above situations that are likely to develop of their own accord without this action on our part.

All the indication we have of putative benefits is Mr. Mandeep Bajwa's analysis (and surely he is a very knowledgeable analyst who has earned the respect of BR readers many times over, but still). Anyway, I've gone into my own cost-benefit analysis of this in a previous post on this thread.

[Malayappan]

Actually a great idea with immense potential!

Some of us are actually too quick to attack the idea. Let us remember currently this is just that – an idea and not a battle order to charge at the mullahs armed to teeth!

Some thoughts –

1.First, this is not new. It came up when US was pushing us for troops for Iraq. The same reason for US not to promote Indian deployment in Afghanistan, viz Paki sensibilities is still a factor

2.But a key difference is, that respect for Paki sensibilities now is not as intense as it was then.

3.Our army may have its weaknesses but I can meaningfully claim that in competencies such as pacification and counter insurgency we may be the best in the world. Certainly better than any of the armies currently in Afghanistan (Johann, will you agree? Can I include Britain in that or based on your knowledge you would argue that Britain could be on par?). Remember the video of American armymen teasing the Iraqi boys for water?

4.The only force that can secure alternative supply lines is India – through Chahbahar – Zaranj – Delarem. If handled appropriately the only force Iran will permit will be ours.

5.Of course any possible deployment will be conditional. Some immediately pop up to my mind:
a.Independent command – not part of ISAF
b.Consequence of a deal between Afghanistan and India. Not a UN mandate (for heaven’s sake!)
c.Scope of mandate will be of our choice – there are enough gurus in the forum to come up with ideas here
d.And so on

6.For Iran it provides a great opportunity to have a say on Afghan developments and more, break out of isolation at a small cost

7.It is important that we explicitly take out Pakistan from the discussion. It is an unnecessary distraction. What we consequentially achieve in Pakistan will not and should not be a part of the mandate or the discussion preceding it!

8. Also important is not to bring US links or funding in the picture. If at all, we do it in our interest. Also there will be no quid pro quo to the US. What we do to 'bail them out' is itself sufficient! No need to accept other conditions like arms or MRCA or the likes. Stoppage of Technology Denial should suffice!

9.At best i.e. if everything works out well, it provides us with enough muscle to shape the immediate west to our interest. At worst if it is a cropper, it provides US with another card to play against the Pakis.

10.It is critical that we should move slowly and deliberately. No need to rush!

11.And above all, SD should not be allowed to bury this idea simply to protect their Paki friends (sponsors?). Let there be publicity. WaPo, NYT anyone?

[shyamd]

If it is too impractical to send all these troops to afghanistan, Why don't we just send a force to train the ANA(we already are having a small team in Afghanistan for training, but we can increase it by a large amount), or bring a large contingent of ANA to India for training?

[Prem]

Regarding China ( Chinese will avoid having any conflict with Yindoos)
The message from China
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2008_pg3_1

The war-mongers should take pause and pay heed to what the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, Mr He Yafei, here as his government’s special envoy, said on Monday: “Immediately de-escalate tension and resume dialogue with India as a lingering Indo-Pak crisis would strengthen the terrorists”. We should also urgently note the remark by General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in his meeting with Mr He: “Pakistan must avoid conflict with India”.

The Chinese special envoy flew to Islamabad amid news that Pakistan was removing its troops from the Tribal Areas, where it is fighting a war against the terrorists, and posting them on the eastern border with India in anticipation of conflict. The message was not new but the dispatch of the envoy carried the urgency of reiteration that Pakistan cannot ignore. Beijing had reason to be satisfied with the PPP government’s approach to India’s verbal aggression. Now it will be reassured by what Pakistan’s

[Rishirishi]

Why send the Indian trops:
1
India has decent relations with Iran (remember that it is home to the only sizable shia population in the world, wich is not dominated by sunnis, ie. the Shias are safe in India).. Hence it is likely that India will be able to get supplies into AF via Iran. Something Nato cannot expect. Iranians do not want to see Taleban regain control over AF (as they are seen as proxy to Pakistan).

2
India will become a very important global player and a very important ally of NATO/US.

3
India could get the americans and Nato countries to pay for the opperation. Brings in a lot of cash as well as exposure to western weapons and tactics.

4
Screw TSP from both directions. In stead of having the "strategic depth" they get another front.

Stopping the destablisation of Afghanistan.



Drawbacks.
1
The relations with Muslim countires will probably deteriorate. Extreemist in India may be fuelled.

2
When the US is done, they could leave a huge mess behind for India. We all know what mess they made for the Pakis on the Afghan border. India could end up fighting an insurgency/border war with Pakistan. This may unite Pakistan and Taliban against India. God know what that can lead to.

3
Loss of thousands of Indian soldiers.

4
Could hamper the economic growth as suicide bombings may intensify.

My opinon.
In the current situation Uncle is forcing TSP to fight the Taleban and TSP is sinking deeper and deepr into civil war like situation. Their economy is not progressing and the population is growing. If there is no dramatic shift in Pakistans course (very unlikely), it will break up. That is why India should maintain lots of forces along the border, so that there are less forces to fight the Taleban, where they eventually take control.

Why change all that? Let the americans fight in afghanistan, and let there be tension with TSP. Maintain status quoe, quote Gandhi, Preach peace, be nice and Live and let die.

[SBajwa]

It is actually a very simple idea with a Win-Win for India and indian people.

Did anybody saw Brinda Karat and commies on the roads asking Israel to stop invading Gaza? They will do the same if India moves troops into Afghainstan.

1. Since Pakistan is scared of India and cannot support NATO on her western border thus India can help by supplying troops for Afghanistan COIN operations.

2. Now everytime there is a terrosist attack in India, naPakis will be wetting their pants and will go extra mile to stop/execute the "stateless actors" for killing even a mosquito in India., it is their survival at stake.

3. If this plan goes into action then watch out of psyops i.e. "Indian soldiers killing poor kids in Afghanistan just like in Kashmir", thus need to post many many responsible journalists(Brakha Dutt is not a responsible reporter) with the Indian armed forces.

4. This is the best possible strategic solution with Bombay Massacre on mind, instead of attacking empty "Training camps".

This is akin to a wrestler gripping the opposite player just before going for a kill.

[Rishirishi]

It is actually a very simple idea with a Win-Win for India and indian people.

Did anybody saw Brinda Karat and commies on the roads asking Israel to stop invading Gaza? They will do the same if India moves troops into Afghainstan.

1. Since Pakistan is scared of India and cannot support NATO on her western border thus India can help by supplying troops for Afghanistan COIN operations.

2. Now everytime there is a terrosist attack in India, naPakis will be wetting their pants and will go extra mile to stop/execute the "stateless actors" for killing even a mosquito in India., it is their survival at stake.

3. If this plan goes into action then watch out of psyops i.e. "Indian soldiers killing poor kids in Afghanistan just like in Kashmir", thus need to post many many responsible journalists(Brakha Dutt is not a responsible reporter) with the Indian armed forces.

4. This is the best possible strategic solution with Bombay Massacre on mind, instead of attacking empty "Training camps".

This is akin to a wrestler gripping the opposite player just before going for a kill.

What do you do, if Iran or other countires cut off the supply lines (you got 120 000 soldiers and equipment to evacuate).

This will be precieved as a sinister Indian plan to cut Pakistan in half (just like Bangladesh). You never know what strategy the TSP may apply. But I must admit, it would be great to pay them back some for the Jehadis.

Dont think the TSP is going to be scared into submission. What can India do from AF what it cant do from Indian soil?

[SBajwa]

Dont think the TSP is going to be scared into submission

That is their biggest tactical win. The sooner you, politicians and others realize that TSP is simply a toothless dog who cannot bite the better it will be for common indian people.

Their toothelss bite(couple of donated china teeth) can take one or couple of Indian cities. So we should be prepared with Rabies Injection to prepare and kill the toothless rabid dog. If they bit our arm or leg(destroy couple cities) we can take it., should be our attitude.

The moment it hits them that we are willing to let them strike our couple of cities they will surrender and offer a GUBO session atmost.


They only know one thing and that is to respect their "Maai Baap". The more you talk about Ahimsa and live and let live with them the more then will live at your cost.

[shyam]

Will uncle stop all military aid to Pakistan?

By sending troops to Afghanistan, we will be giving access to our balls to uncle. If uncle is unhappy about India's actions, it can easily squeeze the balls.

It has to be a very carefully thought out move.

[SBajwa]

Uncle (aka USA) has few people in State and CIA department who still fantasize about GUBO by Zia, Gul and Bhutto. These people are going to retire sooner or later.


Remember this history

1962 - Democrat Kennedy sends Help to Nehru against China., and opens up a front against China in Vietnam.
1970- Republican Kissenger and Nixon uses naPakistan to open up access to China while Vietname war is going on.
1980- India pick USSR and USA picks naPakistan under Zia and Bhutto to fight Communism.
1990-USA is still consufed but still picks naPakistan over India (equall-equal)
2000- USA is more confused but knows that Pakistan is a friend who stabs in back.
2008 - USA is still confused but definetely knows that India is a friend that can be trused (all those military exercises)
Then happens Mumbai november 2008.... now?


In 2008 tables have been turned. Confused people like Kissinger are realizing their mistakes and are picking up India over China and naPakistan.


So... India must pick up and fight..

[Tilak]

Iranian troops move along Pak border

NOSHKI:(PPI): Iran has been manoevouring its troops along Pak-Iran border following Indo-Pakistan tension. According to reports, Iran has moved its forces and deployed them close to Pak-Iran border in the wake of tension between Pakistan and India. These troops are equipped with modern weapons. These troops have been posted along the border to stop possible influx of people from Pakistan in case of any war between Pakistna and India. It may be recalled that Iranian officials have repeatedly indicated Government of Pakistan about organised activities of Jundullah at Pakistani soil. Action has been taken against Jundullah inside Iran and in Pakistani areas of Dalbandin, Girdi Jungle. Jundullah activists have also claimed to have killed dozens of Iranian troops by carrying out attacks against them. Iranian authorities are of the view that Jundullah enjoys support of America and Iran wants serious action against it at Pakistani soil.

[samuel.chandra]

Could not agree more with what Rangudu is saying. We have to be ready to take some pain to take care of TSP. Noone is going to take care of it for us. If the khans get tired, they will just pack up and leave Afghanistan to Taliban. Then we have a much bigger monster to deal with. For once, lets pre-empt the pakis. Like Rangudu said, folks who demand action whenever a piglet blows up should support this. This is probably the best chance for us to contain TSP for ever. Of course logistics will need to worked out... but noone is going to align all the stars for us. All those arguments about the arab world going apeshit is BS. All they have done is support TSP. Plus everyone will understand out reaction after mumbai. Nothing is more expensive than have your economic centers repeatedly bombed. They are not goign to stop..there are multiple power centers and they each have a different agenda. The only way to keep attacks from happening is by keeping TSP guessing and divided.

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

[vina]

Guys, lets get some perspective here.

Under no circumstances must Iran play a direct supporting role in bottling up and squeezing Pakiland. Two vital reasons. 1) Iran brings with it the Shia politics baggage and any Iranian role will result in a direct Sunni Arab response, especially of the Soddies and the other Gulf types on the side of the Sunni Pakis and Taliban. The entire purpose of isolating Pakiland will be defeated if Iran is allowed to play a role.

2) Under the current regime and mindset, Iran has huge anti american and anti isreal baggage as well. Yes, Iran has vital interests in Afghanistan, but it's anti Isreal and US mindset will result in it demanding too huge a price (Yes to Iranian Bum and also wedge between India and Isreal, US etc) to be worthwhile.

Best bypass Iran altogether and get supplies in from CAR states and Russia and Black Sea -> Caspian Sea route. We need multiple supply lines via Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, Kazakhstan etc so that there is no one single point of failure. Fuel and food etc we can build our own lines and also share NATO supply lines if need be. Iran's role has to be passive. Just make the soothing "Islamic Brotherhood" noises, but not lift a finger of doing anything of substance like supplying oil and providing transit , safe havens etc, if a blockade is imposed on Pakis.

[milindc]

If Unkil wants this to happen then a simple thing it can do is stop aid. Pakis will bend over and escort Indian vehicles in name of WoT. Without aid, Pakis will crumble in months....

[shyam]

Uncle (aka USA) has few people in State and CIA department who still fantasize about GUBO by Zia, Gul and Bhutto. These people are going to retire sooner or later.


Remember this history

1962 - Democrat Kennedy sends Help to Nehru against China., and opens up a front against China in Vietnam.
1970- Republican Kissenger and Nixon uses naPakistan to open up access to China while Vietname war is going on.
1980- India pick USSR and USA picks naPakistan under Zia and Bhutto to fight Communism.
1990-USA is still consufed but still picks naPakistan over India (equall-equal)
2000- USA is more confused but knows that Pakistan is a friend who stabs in back.
2008 - USA is still confused but definetely knows that India is a friend that can be trused (all those military exercises)
Then happens Mumbai november 2008.... now?


In 2008 tables have been turned. Confused people like Kissinger are realizing their mistakes and are picking up India over China and naPakistan.


So... India must pick up and fight..

Do not forget that Uncle plays both sides, and it plays larger geopolitical games.
India has to consider what can happen to it when it has to do something that doesn't please uncle.

[Murugan]

Central Asia’s Seaport: Gwadar or Chabahar?

Do also read the comments at the bottom in above article

[Mayura]

Uncle (aka USA) has few people in State and CIA department who still fantasize about GUBO by Zia, Gul and Bhutto. These people are going to retire sooner or later.


Remember this history

1962 - Democrat Kennedy sends Help to Nehru against China., and opens up a front against China in Vietnam.
1970- Republican Kissenger and Nixon uses naPakistan to open up access to China while Vietname war is going on.
1980- India pick USSR and USA picks naPakistan under Zia and Bhutto to fight Communism.
1990-USA is still consufed but still picks naPakistan over India (equall-equal)
2000- USA is more confused but knows that Pakistan is a friend who stabs in back.
2008 - USA is still confused but definetely knows that India is a friend that can be trused (all those military exercises)
Then happens Mumbai november 2008.... now?


In 2008 tables have been turned. Confused people like Kissinger are realizing their mistakes and are picking up India over China and naPakistan.


So... India must pick up and fight..

Do not forget that Uncle plays both sides, and it plays larger geopolitical games.
India has to consider what can happen to it when it has to do something that doesn't please uncle.

I agree to it. I had mentioned it earlier unkil seeks their comfort first.

be it Republican's or democrat's both play double sides.

Why is it still militarily aiding PA? http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4113.

[Mayura]

Uncle (aka USA) has few people in State and CIA department who still fantasize about GUBO by Zia, Gul and Bhutto. These people are going to retire sooner or later.


Remember this history

1962 - Democrat Kennedy sends Help to Nehru against China., and opens up a front against China in Vietnam.
1970- Republican Kissenger and Nixon uses naPakistan to open up access to China while Vietname war is going on.
1980- India pick USSR and USA picks naPakistan under Zia and Bhutto to fight Communism.
1990-USA is still consufed but still picks naPakistan over India (equall-equal)
2000- USA is more confused but knows that Pakistan is a friend who stabs in back.
2008 - USA is still confused but definetely knows that India is a friend that can be trused (all those military exercises)
Then happens Mumbai november 2008.... now?


In 2008 tables have been turned. Confused people like Kissinger are realizing their mistakes and are picking up India over China and naPakistan.


So... India must pick up and fight..

Do not forget that Uncle plays both sides, and it plays larger geopolitical games.
India has to consider what can happen to it when it has to do something that doesn't please uncle.

I agree to it. I had mentioned it earlier unkil seeks their comfort first.

be it Republican's or democrat's both play double sides.

Why is it still militarily aiding PA? http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4113.

[Chinmayanand]

I don't understand why should we disturb the unkil-bibi honeymoon.This honeymoon has given birth to such cute piglets like taliban... India should not finger this romance...let it continue...like kashmiris, the afghans may take the indian goodies and after that start their rant against India...if history is any lesson, India should not meddle in afghanistan...it's cheaper to take care of pakis from the east itself...

[abhishekpr]

I will fully support MMS and co if they go with this plan and not fire a single bullet. This is a great strategic foot hold.

I agree.

I will vote for Congress all my life!

[Raj Malhotra]

Some possible Indian demands:-


1. UNSC must fund Indian troops, say US$ 10Billion per annm for pemanent increase of Indian military by 200,000 soldiers of which around 120,000 are deployed in Afhanistan at any time and rest are in training/leave

2. Full economic and military sanctions against Pakistan.

3. India gives Russia contracts for 10 x 1100mw nuke reactors for encouraging it to open and keep open the central asian supply route.


4. USA looks the other way when RAW encourages freedom movement in mini-bakisatans.

5. USA accepts India as Regional power and helps in ending terrorism in North East (read Bangladesh, Burma, thailand related co-operation)