India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jan 2009 07:47

No link between Islam and terror: Pranab

Yeah, now I agree. No need to send any Indian troops to any where, not even Kashmir.

Indian politicians!!

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 18 Jan 2009 08:02

NRao wrote:

My read is that Uncle has concluded what India knew eons ago: ISI and TSPA HAS to come under civilian government.

That seems about as effective as demanding that one's SHQ submit to them -- if they did submit, they wouldn't be SHQ now, would they? What is really annoying is if those who matter in India (if your claim above is indeed true) are about as clueless as the GOTUS about this whole TSPA will be controlled by unarmed civilians...things do not work that way in an extremely pure Islamic society like pakistan, though they are only 99.99% pure, and we all pray Pakistan will achieve 5 9's (99.99999% -- the industry standard) Islamic purity one of these days.

Seriously, if people in charge of India's destiny have this view, they are incompetents who need to quit taking up space and oxygen (and I certainly would not want Indian soldiers lives to depend on the judgement of such sh1theads). The TSPA's existence is premised on destroying India in the long term. Period. And as long as TSPA holds the guns and the keys to the nukes (once the chinese give it to them for special occasions), any talk of civilian control of TSPA and ISI is effing stupid, esp. for BRF.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 18 Jan 2009 09:40

One key fact that we should recognize is that AlQaeda/Lashkar/jihadis are obviously seeking to take over the Pakistani state, in order to get their hands on its nuclear weapons. The Americans clearly know this.

So Afghanistan is not a place which America can afford to abandon, if it wants to prevent Pak's nukes from falling into jihadi hands. The threat of Pakistan's govt falling like the Shah's did in 1979 is now very real. The incompetence/impotence of Pak Army in fighting the Taliban types is there for all to see.

So there is a stark choice here - either win the war in Afghanistan, or else see a nuclear-armed AlQaeda.

That means that America has no choice but to see the war through, and to win it. The question is, how soon can the USA come around to understanding the need to re-draw Pak's borders in order to avoid a Vietnam-style defeat?
IMHO, the sooner the US evolves to this understanding, the better. The more their learning is delayed, the harder it will be to do the needful.

AlQaeda/Lashkar/Taliban/etc have shown their ability to challenge and potentially topple the Pak state. The reason why so many jihadis are withdrawing from Iraq is because AlQaeda leaders have given the order that Afghanistan/Pakistan is the real battleground. So the endgame will be in Pakistan. AlQaeda intends to get the Pak nukes at all costs, and will not stop until it has them. Only their destruction at the hands of US forces will prevent them from reaching this goal. Either the US must destroy AlQaeda, or else destroy Pak's nukes -- or both.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 18 Jan 2009 10:03

Folks some how get to the essay written in the Journal "Current History" on Afghanistan. In December 2008 issue, Thomas Barfield has written the essay titled "The Roots of Failure in Afghanistan". Among many other things that he says "During 2002-2003, Washington committed only 7,000 troops to a country that is the size of France and that has a population of more than 30 million people." He goes on to conclude that USA was hesitant to expand outside Kabul in 2002 & 2003. And he cites this is one of the reason why Taliban gained back control.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jan 2009 12:43

A few bells have to ring across the border:

Bell 1: Pakjabis realize that they cannot hold Pakistan together, and thus they let it fall apart.

Bell 2: Pakjabis realize that the barbarians are coming down the mountains for their skins.

Bell 3: Pakjabis realize that they can avert a full-scale siege by all and sundry, if they let go of their crown jewels.

Bell 4: Pakjabis realize that they need the support of their Eastern neighbor in order to keep the barbarians at bay.

The sooner the world and India force Pakjab to realize this, the better. But this realization can only dawn through facts on the ground, and not through argument and debate. So everything that India does should help create those facts. Question is: does a deployment in Afghanistan push this agenda?

The TTP are making sure, that the first two bells ring as soon as possible, so I like my man Baitullah!

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 18 Jan 2009 18:08

Again, the same confusion continues onlee.

On 1 hand, TSP is nuke-nude. OTOH, TTP crossing the Indus means we have a nuke armed Al-Q. How to reconcile?

One way out is that unkil has merely 'secured' the nukes, not removed them. Thus the PALs implemented will permit TSP first use against India if IA lands in izloo, for instance. But in this case, no need for unkil to worry about Al-Q getting nukes now, right?

Second possibility is that once izloo falls to TTP, PRC will find it easier to supply the salafists with Nukes and blame it on tsp's now-leaked arsenal. PRC of course would have PALs of its own installed perhaps, a stay-outta-sinkiang deal with TTP and enough leverage to direct action remotely against NATO in AFN and India as well, I fear.

Just thinking aloud. Who knows whats really happening out there? Or maybe nobody knows the full picture onlee. All driving policy blind.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 18 Jan 2009 19:47

Pakistan is Al Q and Al Q is Pakistan, the relationship is something like BJP and the RSS, one being the somewhat pure form of the other. China controls the Al Q, TTP and other assorted idiots by proxy, a few chinese engineers are kidnapped just to maintain a facade, what isnt being reported is that these Kidnapped Chinese were infact political prisoners whose organs were later harvested and transplanted to many including OBL who has a bad kidney and wets his bed frequently.

TSP is nook nude, no 2 ways about that, Bakis being more and more belicose just proves that they are living in fear of a strike by IA, Baki Jarnails know that they cant respond in the same measure in which IA hit them, they are just trying to prevent a massive and final loss of H & D by threatening India with a nuke attack, fact is Bakis bluff must be called

There is no way Amirkhan will let rogue nukes be so enticingly close to ALQ, Baki complicity in 9/11 and the stone age ultimatum must be seen in this light. All Bakis have got now are some missiles with atta as warheads

PRC is playing a very dirty game but will ultimately get its fingers badly burnt , a few videos smuggled out of peelivars being chopped down while chanting Arrah hu Akbal will be enough for many intelligence agencies to direct Abduls to Shanghai

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 18 Jan 2009 19:52

I think its time we rename this thread. There is no possibility we will ever send so many troops to Afghanistan. Prefarably.... Possible Indian Intitiatives in Afghanistan.JMT

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jan 2009 23:40

Resistance to U.S. Plan for Afghanistan

The planned U.S. military and counterinsurgency drive in Afghanistan is meeting public and official resistance that could delay and possibly undermine a costly, belated effort that American officials here acknowledge has a limited window of time to succeed.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jan 2009 00:23

SwamyG wrote:Folks some how get to the essay written in the Journal "Current History" on Afghanistan. In December 2008 issue, Thomas Barfield has written the essay titled "The Roots of Failure in Afghanistan". Among many other things that he says "During 2002-2003, Washington committed only 7,000 troops to a country that is the size of France and that has a population of more than 30 million people." He goes on to conclude that USA was hesitant to expand outside Kabul in 2002 & 2003. And he cites this is one of the reason why Taliban gained back control.

From the above article:

"We don't want to give people false expectations. This is going to be a very tough year," said a U.S. military official here, speaking on the condition of anonymity. As American troops deploy throughout the south, where Taliban forces are strongest, he said, "you will see a very big spike" in armed clashes. Once areas are under control, "then we can bring in governance and development. But there will be some tough months of violence first."

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jan 2009 05:11

India should help Karzai to fight back the Taliban.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s recent visit to India for discussions on bilateral cooperation over counter-terrorism and economic cooperation further strengthens ties between the two countries. Today both India and Afghanistan are victims of terrorism emanating from Pakistan and therefore have common interests. The resurgence of the Taliban as evident from increased terrorist attacks against the Karzai government and foreign coalition forces fighting there directly affects political stability of Afghanistan which in turn impacts peace and security in the region. As a regional ally, India would like to help Afghanistan tackle terrorism and embark on the road to democracy.

Afghanistan became a strategic cauldron, after the US military evicted the Taliban regime from power in December 2001,with India, Pakistan, Iran, Russia and the US competing for power there. The war-torn country’s geo-strategic significance arises because it controls the land routes between the Indian subcontinent, Iran and Central Asia. Evidently Indian and Pakistani interests clash over Afghanistan because their objectives are different. While Pakistan prefers to promote the Taliban in order to cultivate a pro-Islamabad regime in Kabul, India attempts to support the development of democracy in its own way. For Islamabad, therefore the Talibanisation of Afghanistan to promote its national interests implies an absence of democracy and rule of law. As a result, Afghanistan has become a bone of contention between the two South Asian neighbours.

India has historically enjoyed good relations with Afghanistan and continues to do so considering it is a major aid donor to that country. The fact that India has four consulates in Afghanistan and several reconstruction projects underway speaks volumes about the proximity and intensity of their bilateral ties. So much so, a large Indian presence in Afghanistan irks Pakistan and adds to its sense of insecurity vis-a-vis India. From an Indian national security and foreign policy perspective, Afghanistan is important because it enables New Delhi to gain a foothold there and expand its sphere of influence in the region. In the interest of peace and stability, Afghanistan and India, which share contiguous borders with Pakistan, will have to use various instruments of foreign policy, especially coercive diplomacy, to convey to Islamabad the urgent need to act against jihadi groups that threaten the entire subcontinent.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jan 2009 13:58

Russia agrees to Afghan request for defence aid: Daily Times

* Karzai’s spokesman says despite Afghan president’s call for Russian aid, Afghanistan committed to its ties with NATO and US

KABUL: Russia has accepted a request from President Hamid Karzai to provide military aid to Afghanistan, the Afghan government said on Monday.

The move comes amid complaints by many Afghans that NATO and the United States, who have thousands of troops in Afghanistan, have been slow to equip Afghan national forces to fight the Taliban.

Afghanistan has largely relied on NATO and the United States to bankroll its security needs and the economy since US-led troops overthrew the Taliban government in 2001.

But despite receiving some military equipment from NATO, Afghanistan still uses Russian-made weapons and aircraft, left over from the former Soviet Union’s 10-year occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Karzai, who has led Afghanistan since the Taliban’s removal, made the request by a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in November 2008, the presidential palace said in a statement.

“Medvedev, in a letter addressed to Karzai, has said that Russia is ready to help Afghanistan in the defensive sectors,” the statement said.

Medvedev said defensive ties between Kabul and Moscow would result in effective cooperation on both sides and in the restoration of security in the region, the statement said.

Russia was keen for cooperation with Afghanistan in other areas too, the statement quoted Medvedev as saying in the letter.

Ties: Chief presidential spokesman Humayun Hamidzada said despite Karzai’s call on Russia for defensive aid, Afghanistan was committed to its ties with NATO and the United States.

“The equipment of our national army, our helicopters and tanks are Russian-made so this (request) has a technical aspect. We have strategic commitment to NATO and the United States,” Hamidzada told Reuters.

Some 70,000 foreign troops under NATO and US military command are stationed in Afghanistan, and Washington is expected to send up to 30,000 extra forces by summer to the country, where the Al Qaeda-backed Taliban have made a comeback since 2005.

All this is the beginning of a process of putting up an alternate coalition to underwrite the stability and security of Afghanistan. This coalition has to consist of India, Russia and Iran.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2009 16:33

It is only the Afghan people themselves and the neighbouring countries which have a vested interest in regional peace, who can broker a political settlement.Extraneous "gangsta" forces seeking recenge for 9/11 and wanting a permanent military presence in the land are now finding the going a disaster.Several western military experts,especially British generals-and Britain has had vast historic experience in waging war in the land,have evn secretly been trying to negotitate with the extremist Taliban who employ the worst interpretation of the Sharia,chopping off heads,limbs,etc.at will,especially some of the worst human rights atrocities perpetrated against Afghan women,not to mention its hate for anything non-Muslim cultural atrocites in destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas.The ethnic cocktail of Afghan's tribes makes it only possible for those Central Asian powers in the north,Iran on the west and Pak and India in the south and east to evolve a security architecture for the land.While it is a genuine concern for Pak,that Afghanistan poses no threat to it,Pak's blatant attempts to acquire the land by its proxy war criminal the Taliban is an outrage to humanity.India should not act independently or with the "gangsta" crowd.Or efforts should be cordinated along with the nations of the northern alliance,Russia,Iran and the Afghan govt.P{ak should be isolated on all fronts with oru campaign against the terrorist state of Pak relentless.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 21 Jan 2009 00:47

Any suggestions that India prop-up the old friends from the Northern Alliance or any group of warlords to 'preserve its interests' in Afghanistan is illfounded.

The long term objective for us is that Afghan be stable, democratic and fully under the control of its sovereign government. The short and medium term objectives are to prevent TSP, Al-Q and Talibunnies from destabilising Afghan government. Afghanistan needs to be rebuilt - brick by brick. This process is obviously time consuming and will last at least twenty years. If we're serious about securing our Western borders we *must* commit ourselves to this goal.

A stable Afghanistan will be much much less prone to producing more recruits for Talibunnies, Al-keeda and Lashkar types. A stable Afghanistan will push Pakistan into desperation. They want Afghanistan or they will succumb to Islamist forces soon.

It is in our interests that NATO troops stand guard at Pakistan's Western borders. NATO won't let Indian troops to man that border - so we will instead help them man the border by freeing up their forces in other less crucial areas of Afghanistan. India is already doing much to help Afghans reconstruct themselves. Maybe we should do more. More schools, hospitals etc.

Our troops in Afghan will also ensure NATO won't pull out leaving Afghan in Indian hands. No sir, they sure won't. That's one way of insuring Afghan is not abandoned. If NATO/US is not keen on attacking Iran - Indian troops deployed along provinces that border Iranian borders can be easily resupplied via the route we ourselves built. (Better than having a hostile American presence on your eastern borders. Atleast the Indians depends on us for supplies)

IA can replace NATO's Regional Command (West) and Regional Command (North or South). ISAF currently deploys approx 3000 and (5000 or 22000) troops. Once again except the border districts I don't see why NATO won't be eager to accommodate our troops.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 21 Jan 2009 03:40

I donno if this has been posted. It looks like the TSP route to Half-Gone-istan is indefinitely closed. And the new route is already ready. Is it time for India into the foray ?

Khyber Pass closed 'indefinitely' after Taliban attacks

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 21 Jan 2009 03:46

The problem with bioweapons is that they are easy to use...but very hard to stop. Can we be sure that an Ebola shell will not come back to infect India. With travel, infections know no boundaries.

Prem wrote:
SBajwa wrote:Bio Warfare anyone?

Anthrax is perfect for terrorists.

anthrax (TR), ebola, Marburg virus, plague (LE), cholera (HO), tularemia (SR & JT), brucellosis (US, AB, & AM), Q fever (OU), machupo, Coccidioides mycosis (OC), Glanders (LA), Melioidosis (HI), Shigella (Y), Rocky Mountain spotted fever(UY), typhus (YE), Psittacosis(SI), yellow fever (UT), Japanese B encephalitis (AN), Rift Valley fever (FA), and smallpox (ZL)[18].

Naturally-occurring toxins that can be used as weapons include ricin (WA), SEB (UC), botulism toxin (XR), saxitoxin (TZ), and many mycotoxins.

Why not lob couple of shells of these at enemy territory? After all from Chenghaz Khan to Ghaznavi and Ghauri did this to us?
Lets be compassionate and use onlee the most efficient ,fast effecting BW tools. We dont want to see any Paki suffering and dying a slow death in wait for his reward . Just remember , nothing will effect their already dead brain, so onlee physical elimination techniques are suitable to achieve the mission objective.

Kumar_I · Post by **Kumar_I** » 21 Jan 2009 03:54

Is India going to send troops to A'stan. I very much doubt. But if we can have a base there, that will be wonderful it will piss of Pakis and their Communist buddies.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 21 Jan 2009 05:32

How do you checkmate Obama getting nosey about Kashmir? Offer troops to Afghanistan.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 21 Jan 2009 05:38

IA is not prepared for war on our borders no question of going to Afghanistan. We donot have leadership or vision. All bakwas

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 21 Jan 2009 06:00

John Snow wrote:IA is not prepared for war on our borders no question of going to Afghanistan. We donot have leadership or vision. All bakwas

Are you frustrated?

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 21 Jan 2009 06:05

IA is not prepared for war on our borders no question of going to Afghanistan. We donot have leadership or vision.

Yeah, right. Especially when the IA COAS goes out public saying IA is ready, it is a political call onlee.

We are doomed onlee.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 21 Jan 2009 06:10

No! Reality
Action speaks louder than Aar paar bhashan and We are resolute in giving fitting reply etc etc.

Do some reality check on procurement doctrine ability etc. I dont want to go to gory details.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 21 Jan 2009 06:27

John Snow wrote:No! Reality
Action speaks louder than Aar paar bhashan and We are resolute in giving fitting reply etc etc.

Do some reality check on procurement doctrine ability etc. I dont want to go to gory details.

Right, I agree with you that nothing has been done so far. But how can we rule out the possibility of Track II diplomacy? While this cannot be ascertained, I sometimes feel contended this way!

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 21 Jan 2009 09:23

Something Smoking?

Afghanistan News US announces it has an alternate supply route to Afghanistan. We knew the deal had been done, but what we did not know is that this route runs through Russia. We though after the Georgia War that was the end of Russia's cooperation.

Meanwhile, India's Border Roads Organization, a quasi-military road engineering/construction outfit, has completed the road in the Southwest that connects to Iran's transportation networks. This of interest in connection with rumors that the Iranians have agreed to the transport of non-military cargo, namely weapons and ammunition) through Iran.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 21 Jan 2009 09:52

I don't understand why the US needs to go through Russia to reach Afghanistan. The shortest route from the north is via the Black Sea, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Caspian Sea and Turkmenistan. Or they can go straight from the Mediterranean via Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. These are the same as the existing and proposed CAR pipeline routes and go through "friendly" countries so there is no need to butter up the Russkies. The only other sensible route from the Black Sea that crosses Russian territory is via Chechnya and Dagestan bordering Georgia and there is plenty of scope for NATO/US trouble making which Russia would hardly allow. Something else must necessitate the involvement of Russia in this Afghan supply scheme.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 21 Jan 2009 10:08

Victor wrote:I don't understand why the US needs to go through Russia to reach Afghanistan. The shortest route from the north is via the Black Sea, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Caspian Sea and Turkmenistan. Or they can go straight from the Mediterranean via Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. These are the same as the existing and proposed CAR pipeline routes and go through "friendly" countries so there is no need to butter up the Russkies. The only other sensible route from the Black Sea that crosses Russian territory is via Chechnya and Dagestan bordering Georgia and there is plenty of scope for NATO/US trouble making which Russia would hardly allow. Something else must necessitate the involvement of Russia in this Afghan supply scheme.

Victor,

I would guess this is a matter of Putin's own insistence that Russia should be the lynchpin of any NATO logistical chain traversing the Caucasus to get to Afghanistan.

Russia would never want a NATO supply line to run through their southern sphere of influence without themselves being in on the project (and probably reserving the right to exercise some sort of ultimate veto power over the project, should the need arise). The infrastructure laid down for a NATO supply line today can very easily become a manacle of containment tomorrow, and that isn't a risk Moscow would be willing to take.

For their own part, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and even Georgia are probably too wary to defy the Russians and agree to a NATO supply line through their territory without Russian consent. The South Ossetia jhapad of last July, and the more recent gas-pipeline business with Ukraine, has sent a very clear message to all its smaller neighbours that NATO-SHATO notwithstanding, Russia is still very much top dog in its neighbourhood. None of those countries are in a mood to defy Moscow by playing footsie with the Americans.

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Jan 2009 10:58

US Secures New Supply Routes to Afghanistan

The utillity of the Pakis is close to zero now. If they play "host the Taliban and Al-Qaeda game", they become the enemy now and there is nothing that will impede the Nato coalition in Afghanistan in crossing into Paki land. They are screwed properly.

India should step in with boots on the ground and make the Paki "strategy depth" wet dream untenable and build a long term platform for a pincer from east and west against the Pakis. Yup. The way to take on Pakiland is from the West (the historical route to invade that region) via proxies.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 21 Jan 2009 11:01

Victor wrote:I don't understand why the US needs to go through Russia to reach Afghanistan. The shortest route from the north is via the Black Sea, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Caspian Sea and Turkmenistan. Or they can go straight from the Mediterranean via Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. These are the same as the existing and proposed CAR pipeline routes and go through "friendly" countries so there is no need to butter up the Russkies. The only other sensible route from the Black Sea that crosses Russian territory is via Chechnya and Dagestan bordering Georgia and there is plenty of scope for NATO/US trouble making which Russia would hardly allow. Something else must necessitate the involvement of Russia in this Afghan supply scheme.

Victor: This may be of interest to you. [BTW, this is a stratfor report - if the link doesn't work]

Afghanistan: The Logistical Alternative

Afghanistan: The Logistical Alternative
January 14, 2009 | 1722 GMT

Gen. David Petraeus, the new head of U.S. Central Command, arrived in the capital of Kazakhstan on Jan. 13. His visit is almost certainly about alternative logistical arrangements for the Afghan campaign in the face of further Pakistani destabilization. But this alternative has profound consequences for U.S.-Russian relations.
Analysis

Commander of United States Central Command (CENTCOM) Gen. David Petraeus arrived in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, on Jan. 13. He is expected to be received by Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev on Jan. 14. Kyrgyzstan, where the U.S. 376th Air Expeditionary Wing operates out of Manas Air Base, is also reportedly on Petraeus’ itinerary.

Petraeus is currently focusing his efforts as head of CENTCOM on the U.S. and NATO mission in Afghanistan (something Stratfor pointed out in March 2008). With the ongoing deterioration of the situation in Pakistan, logistical links have become a major concern.

But the recent attacks on supply routes are symptomatic of a larger problem. Security in Pakistan’s northwest is fast deteriorating; the Taliban’s eastward march has created fears in the country that Peshawar, the capital of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), could be lost to the Pashtun jihadists within a few months.

However, the overland route running through NWFP into the tribal badlands and on to Afghanistan is one of two such routes along which supplies for Western forces are transported. The other route transits Balochistan province into the Kandahar region and, while it is more secure on the Pakistani side of the border, runs through Taliban country in Afghanistan — especially along the Ring Road to reach Kabul and Bagram Air Base. This is why some three-fourths of the food, fuel and military hardware that transit Pakistan are ferried along the NWFP route and over the Khyber Pass.

Ultimately, it is not clear that the Pakistan routes will completely collapse — especially the southern route through Balochistan to Kandahar. Nevertheless, the current plan is to surge as many as 32,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan by the summer, doubling the U.S. troop presence. Combat operations, meanwhile, will intensify. A new logistical route is needed simply to prevent reliance on the Pakistani route from expanding.

Most U.S. and NATO supplies arrive by sea. Fuel, however, is largely refined in Pakistan. These supplies can cover some of the distance by rail, but must then be trucked over the Khyber Pass to Kabul or through Chaman to Kandahar. While some fuel and supplies come in through the north, they are limited to nonlethal supplies (that is, no ammunition or weapons), and Pakistan continues to see the lion’s share of supplies.

The imperative to find an alternative route is compounded by the interrelated need to find dramatic excess capacity for refining not only diesel but also higher-quality jet fuel.

A relatively short and straightforward route has recently been completed that runs through Iran and would connect the port of Chahbahar to Afghanistan’s road infrastructure. However, using this route could require trucking the entire way, and Iran utterly lacks refining capacity. Of course, these relatively tactical problems pale in comparison to the profound differences between Washington and Tehran still to be worked out.

With little infrastructure to the east, the Pentagon is forced to go north, into Central Asia. Though some fuel is shipped to Western forces in Afghanistan from Baku across the Caspian Sea, there is little indication that existing shipping on the Caspian could expand meaningfully. Additionally, there would be the challenge of transferring cargo from rail to ship back to rail on top of the ship-rail-truck transfers that are already required in Afghanistan.

But even if Caspian shipping was not a problem and if there was sufficient excess seaworthy capacity, there remains the problem of Georgia. Though politically amenable at the moment, it is unstable; furthermore, with some 3,700 Russian troops parked in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russian military forces are poised to sever the country’s east-west rail links.

These realities will likely drive the logistical pathway farther north, through Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and through Kazakhstan to Russia proper (some U.S. transports already utilize Russian airspace).

Turkmenistan presents its own challenges, as it is particularly isolated after years of authoritarian rule and continues to suffer from the legacy of what was essentially a state religion of worshipping the now-deceased Turkmenbashi. His successor, Gurbanguly Berdimukhammedov (who is rumored to be the Turkmenbashi’s illegitimate son), continues to struggle to consolidate power and is left with a series of delicate internal and external balancing acts. In short, enacting new policies under the new government remains problematic to say the least.

There is another choice: Use a Russian or Ukrainian port of entry where organized crime will be a particularly serious problem (as well as espionage with any sensitive equipment shipped this way), or use a more secure — and efficient — port that will require a rail gauge swap from the European and Turkish 1,435 mm standard to the 1,520 mm rail gauge standard in the former Soviet Union.

All of this is complicated, but the linchpin is working out an agreement to use Russian territory. This presents an even more profound challenge than Russia’s real (but not unlimited) capacity to meddle in its periphery.

While there are a number of outstanding questions — where exactly U.S. supply ships might dock to offload supplies, whether a transfer of cargo from the Western to Russian rail gauge might be necessary, whether the route would transit Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan or both, etc. — these are minor details in comparison to the Russian problem. If there is an understanding with Moscow, the rest is possible. But that understanding must entail enough reliability that Russia cannot treat U.S. and NATO military supplies like natural gas for Europe and Ukraine.

Without an understanding between Washington and Moscow, none of this is possible.

The problem is that while the Kremlin has been reasonably cooperative up to this point when it comes to U.S. and NATO efforts in Afghanistan, such an understanding may not be possible completely independent of the clash of wills between Russia and the West. There is too much at stake, and the window of opportunity is too narrow for Moscow to simply play nice with the new American administration without a much broader strategic agreement and very real concessions. Nevertheless, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, U.S. Gen. Bantz Craddock, has been making overtures to Russia about improving relations. With Petraeus visiting Central Asia on top of optimistic statements from Craddock earlier this month, progress cannot be ruled out. But much larger forces are also at work.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 21 Jan 2009 11:15

Anabhaya wrote:Any suggestions that India prop-up the old friends from the Northern Alliance or any group of warlords to 'preserve its interests' in Afghanistan is illfounded.

The long term objective for us is that Afghan be stable, democratic and fully under the control of its sovereign government. The short and medium term objectives are to prevent TSP, Al-Q and Talibunnies from destabilising Afghan government. Afghanistan needs to be rebuilt - brick by brick. This process is obviously time consuming and will last at least twenty years. If we're serious about securing our Western borders we *must* commit ourselves to this goal.

Nonsense, the territory/borders of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are the product of colonial-era wars. As such, they are unnatural and unsustainable, and thus prone to instability. These borders unnaturally divide ethnic groups, which is part of the reason they promote instability and extreme ideologies. Trying to prop up such fake artifices is futile and draining, and would only result in failure.

A stable Afghanistan will be much much less prone to producing more recruits for Talibunnies, Al-keeda and Lashkar types. A stable Afghanistan will push Pakistan into desperation. They want Afghanistan or they will succumb to Islamist forces soon.

It is in our interests that NATO troops stand guard at Pakistan's Western borders. NATO won't let Indian troops to man that border - so we will instead help them man the border by freeing up their forces in other less crucial areas of Afghanistan. India is already doing much to help Afghans reconstruct themselves. Maybe we should do more. More schools, hospitals etc.

Our troops in Afghan will also ensure NATO won't pull out leaving Afghan in Indian hands. No sir, they sure won't. That's one way of insuring Afghan is not abandoned. If NATO/US is not keen on attacking Iran - Indian troops deployed along provinces that border Iranian borders can be easily resupplied via the route we ourselves built. (Better than having a hostile American presence on your eastern borders. Atleast the Indians depends on us for supplies)

IA can replace NATO's Regional Command (West) and Regional Command (North or South). ISAF currently deploys approx 3000 and (5000 or 22000) troops. Once again except the border districts I don't see why NATO won't be eager to accommodate our troops.

Indian Army should deploy across the north, and particularly along the ethnic faultlines that separate the non-Pashtun north from the Pashtun south. That way, we can tip the balance enough to keep the Pashtun Taliban at bay, while promoting political autonomy and institution-building for the north.

This would promote Pashtun consolidation which would aid Pashtunistan's separation from Pakistan. The artificial Durand Line must be dissolved, and not allowed to remain intact. Pakjabis should not be dominating and brainwashing Pashtuns or Baloch.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 21 Jan 2009 11:53

Afghanistan, on the map, and Afghanistan on the ground present totally different perspectives as is obvious.

The country is split east to west by the Hindu Kush mountain range, rising in the east to heights of 24,000 ft. With the exception of the southwest, most of the country is covered by high snow-capped mountains and is traversed by deep valleys.

As is the military axiom – Mountains eat up troops – Afghanistan will ‘eat’ up troops and still leak like a sieve! Guarding towns and patrolling valleys will not serve the purpose of eliminating the activities of the Taliban as the ISAF now understands.

Compare it with Kashmir and the number of troops on the LC and the terrain in most places is not as forbearing as Afghanistan.

Therefore, it may not be worth sending Indian troops to Afghanistan.

Further, high mountains with poor communications (road) network will be a logistic nightmare!

The only way any force can subdue the Taliban is to attack it in its heartland, namely the badlands of Pakistan so that they are kept on the run. Offence is the best form of Defence.

Yusuf · Post by **Yusuf** » 21 Jan 2009 14:58

For me, stationing troops in A-stan has more do with putting pressure on Pakistan on two fronts and if hostility breaks out then gives us a good strategic edge. I dont want Indian troops hunting Taliban out there. The Americans are there to do it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jan 2009 17:37

There is an intersting throwback to an earlier war,Vietnam.Here,the Vietnamese could not be supplied by neighbouring countries thanks to US influence.The US also had a strangelehold on N.Vietnamese ports,so the chosen route was sending major supplies by rail through China.China quietly swiped on occassion Russian defence eequipment and reverse engineered the same.The same fear haunts the US as it tries desperately to broker a byzantine bargain with Russia and the C.Asian states.But the US has little alternative as it cannot send supplies through the easiest alternate route Iran,given its relations with that nation!Pak's military are shy of taking down their own "blood relations" the Taliban,who are now "Swatting" away to glory.The US has to make its peacewith Russia and under Obama,will most probably less hostile to Moscow's security concerns,especially that of stationing missiles on Russia's borders.Expect much byzantine bargaining between the two.

India should sit back NOT send troops into the quagmnire but instead supply the Afghan govt. as much as we can with logistic/reconstruction help.There is one method in which we can help Afghanistan by sending supplies (including those from the US) through Iran.Since it will be India and Iran doing the transportation through the land route being established by India too,we can assist all concerned ,raise our influence a significant notch without sending in troops.The US/NATO will get their supplies through the Iran route,thanks to India apart from the northern route also,thus two routes with which to checkmate the Taliban and the ISI.Under a new Obama administration this can be achieved if the US swallows some pride and gives Bush's disastrous foreign policy a boot into history.The democratic nations of the globe have to deal with the swift destruction of the centres of Islamist terror and their leadership and must come together,east and west if it is to be achieved.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 21 Jan 2009 21:36

Obama looks for regional allies to stabilize Afghanistan

By this time it will be quite known to the US that TSP fears Indian hold on Afghanistan. I think Obama will use this ploy to tame TSP before allowing our troops there. In any case, TSP's plans of holding India-Afghan relationship will be in tatters.

Obama looks for regional allies to stabilize Afghanistan

9 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — President Barack Obama appears set to pursue a regional diplomatic strategy as much as a military one to prevent Afghanistan and Pakistan from turning into new havens for anti-US militants.

Despite his plans to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan to boost stability, the Obama administration seems to be heeding expert advice that no military solution is possible over the long term.

Hillary Clinton, Obama's pick for secretary of state, last week omitted mention of the idea of a military victory.

Appearing before a Senate confirmation hearing, Clinton spoke instead of "employing a broad strategy in Afghanistan that reduces threats to our safety and enhances the prospects of stability and peace.

"We will use all the elements of our power -- diplomacy, development, and defense -- to work with those in Afghanistan and Pakistan who want to root out Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other violent extremists," Clinton said.

Remnants of the hardline Taliban regime, which was toppled during the US-led invasion in late 2001 to drive out Al-Qaeda militants, are now waging an insurgency against the US-backed government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

There are about 70,000 US and other foreign troops in the country fighting alongside Afghan security forces to quell the Taliban.

Acknowledging the need for broader support, Clinton said she was encouraged that the new Pakistani government understands that the extremists also threaten domestic stability, that "this is their fight, not just ours."

Clinton echoed comments from General David Petraeus, outgoing president George W. Bush's commander for the region, as well as senators and others who said that countries in the area need to be brought on board a solution.

A resolution requires "a regional approach ... that includes Pakistan, India the Central Asian states and even China and Russia, along with perhaps, at some point Iran," Petraeus said recently.

Francesc Vendrell, former European Union special representative for Afghanistan, told a conference here this month that a military solution was not possible in Afghanistan.

"The initial welcome (for the troops) is turning to impatience and even downright hostility," Vendrell said as civilian casualties in military operations strain ties.

He called for a way to reconcile the Afghan government and elements of the Taliban, which he and other experts believed can be separated from the most hard-core elements of the Taliban and from Al-Qaeda.

Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution analyst writing in The Wall Street Journal, said there were already encouraging political signs.

"NATO and Afghan leaders are ... learning how to cooperate with tribal structures more effectively, and even to reconcile with some former insurgents when possible," he added.

Vendrell said that if a military "surge" is deployed, it must be part of a broader strategy that encompasses Pakistan, India and Iran, which he says has "legitimate national interests" in Afghanistan.

Despite US-Iranian antagonism, Shiite Muslim Iran shares the US fear of the Taliban's puritan Sunni Muslim strain of Islam.

In a bid to improve cooperation with Iran, Vendrell said, Washington should drop its opposition to a non-aggression pact between Kabul and Tehran as well as make clear it does not intend to set up long-term bases in Afghanistan.

Defusing India's and Pakistan's decades-old dispute over Kashmir is key to allowing Islamabad to turn its attention to Afghanistan, he added.

The Afghanistan-Pakistan border has been wracked by violence since hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Taliban and Al-Qaeda rebels have set up base there over the last few years.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 21 Jan 2009 22:12

Can we expect any troop announcement now as Pranab is visiting Afghanistan?

India to hand over Zaranj-Delaram project to Afghanistan

India to hand over Zaranj-Delaram project to Afghanistan

Kabul, Jan 21 (PTI) A crucial highway built by India in Afghanistan in the face of stiff resistance from Taliban will be handed over to the Afghan authorities tomorrow by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee who arrived here today on a two-day visit.
Soon after his arrival, Mukherjee met President Hamid Karzai and held talks with Foreign Minister Rangin Dafdar Spanta on a wide range of bilateral issues particularly focussing on security and development of Afghanistan.

During the meeting, Mukherjee is understood to have emphasised India's commitment to help in development and reconstruction of Afghanistan.

The 218-km long Delaram-Zaranj highway, a symbol of India's developmental work in Afghanistan, will be handed over to Afghan authorities tomorrow by Mukherjee.

Another major infrastructure project built by India -- Pul-e-Khumri to Kabul transmission line and a sub-station at Chimtala in northern Afghanistan will also handed over the Afghan authorities by the External Affairs Minister.

The Zaranj-Delaram highway, which will link Kabul with Iran, is a Rs 750 crore project. The road, which opens a shorter alternative route connecting Kabul to Iran, was built by the Border Roads Organisation.

Over 300 BRO personnel worked for over three years braving frequent attacks by Taliban who were making attempts to stall the construction of this road. PTI

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jan 2009 22:12

For what it is worth:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123246660765198171.html

JANUARY 21, 2009, 7:51 A.M. ET

U.S. Reaches Deal on Afghan Supply Routes

Associated Press

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- The U.S. has struck deals with Russia and neighboring countries allowing it to transport supplies to American troops in Afghanistan through their territory, the head of U.S. Central Command said Tuesday.

Gen. David Petraeus, left greets Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani prior to their meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan Tuesday.

Most supplies for U.S. and NATO troops must first pass through northern Pakistan via the Arabian Sea port of Karachi, a treacherous route sometimes closed because of attacks by Islamist militants.

Opening up supply lines in the north is seen as especially important now because the United States is expected to nearly double its number of troops in Afghanistan to 60,000 over the coming year to battle a growing Taliban insurgency.

"It is very important as we increase the effort in Afghanistan that we have multiple routes that go into the country," U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, told reporters while visiting Pakistan.

"We have sought additional logistical routes into Afghanistan from the north. There have been agreements reached, and there are transit lines now and transit agreements for commercial goods and services in particular that include several of the countries in the Central Asian states and also Russia."

Gen. Petraeus said he had reached transit deals with Russia and several other Central Asian states on a recent tour of the region. He gave few details, but NATO and U.S. officials have often said they were close to inking agreements with those countries to open up supply lines.

Afghan-based U.S. and NATO forces get up to 75% of their "non-lethal" supplies such as food, fuel and building materials via routes that traverse Pakistan, a volatile, nuclear-armed country believed to be a possible home of al-Qaida's top leaders.

Analysts say the dependence on Pakistan presents a problem for Washington because it means it cannot push Islamabad too hard on issues of bilateral concern, such as terrorism.

U.S. officials have said that one likely route is overland from Russia through Kazakhstan and on through Uzbekistan using trucks and trains. Another possible route is via Azerbaijan across the Caspian Sea to the Kazakh port of Aktau and then through Uzbekistan.

Few analysts expect Washington to abandon the Pakistan routes, unless they become impossible to traverse due to security concerns, because they are the shortest and cheapest lines.

Gen. Petraeus met with Pakistan's army chief, prime minister and president on the trip.

Washington and other Western allies are trying to keep Pakistan focused on the al Qaeda threat as well as defuse tensions with neighboring India over the November terror attacks in Mumbai.

Also Tuesday, police said suspected Taliban militants killed six alleged U.S. spies in a lawless region of northwest Pakistan where American missile attacks have reportedly killed several al-Qaida leaders in recent months.

Analysts speculate Pakistan and Washington have a secret deal allowing the missile strikes, but Pakistan routinely issues public protests against them, saying they inflame anti-American sentiment and violate Pakistani sovereignty.

A tribal police official, Sharif Ullah, said the bodies of the six accused spies were found at two militant strongholds in the North Waziristan tribal region near the Afghan border early Tuesday.

Five Pakistani men were shot to death in the town of Miran Shah, while the sixth man -- an Afghan national -- had been hanged from a tree in the town Mir Ali, he said.

Mr. Ullah said notes pinned to the bodies accused them of passing on information to Americans in exchange for money and threatened other informers with the same fate.

Militants in North Waziristan have killed at least 19 people they accused of spying for the U.S. since mid-December, including the new victims. Mr. Ullah said killings of accused spies were growing in scope.

Also Tuesday, a bomb wounded five police officers in Peshawar, the capital of North West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan.

Police official Mohammed Ashraf said the blast hit a police vehicle when it stopped on a road in Peshawar.

Unidentified assailants planted the bomb in a section of gas pipeline under construction, he said, adding the possibility of a gas explosion had been ruled out.

Copyright © 2009 Associated Press

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 21 Jan 2009 22:17

India, Afghanistan to step up info sharing to deal with terror

India, Afghanistan to step up info sharing to deal with terror

Kabul, Jan 21 (PTI) With both countries facing terrorism emanating from Pakistan, India and Afghanistan today decided to step up information exchange to deal with the scourge.
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who arrived here today on a two-day visit, discussed cooperation in the field of security and developmental projects with President Hamid Karzai and Foreign Minister Rangin Dafdar Spanta.

After his meetings, Mukherjee said he had had very useful discussions on bilateral issues of cooperation.

Spanta said both the countries face "same terrorism from the same source", apparently referring to Pakistan which he did not name.

He said the two sides discussed the problem of terrorism and ways to deal with it.

Asked how India and Afghanistan would cooperate to deal with terrorism, Spanta said, "we have very little cooperation in security and information sharing. We will increase that".

On whether there should be military cooperation between India and Afghanistan, Spanta said, "the two countries are victims of terrorism and need to recognise the problem and focus on concrete measure against it".

"In our region, there are some entities who use terrorism as tool for foreign policy. This should end," the Afghan Foreign Minister said.

He, however, felt that the civilian government of Pakistan was determined to cooperate in fight against terrorism. PTI

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 21 Jan 2009 22:25

Its just one week or so that Karzai visited India and now Pranab goes to Afghanistan. Is there something here to ponder? Obviously, he would not have traveled just to handle the completed road works to Afghanistan. We may get some clues if we closely follow on this news.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 21 Jan 2009 22:37

I think things are slowly cooking up.

India- Afghan may work on joint security against Pak

India- Afghan may work on joint security against Pak

New Delhi: In India, the focus is on Pakistan-based terror and how to tackle it. Sources say India and Afghanistan could be working on a joint security strategy vis-a-vis Pakistan for the first time.

There's speculation that Pranab Mukhjee's visit to Kabul sometime this week is linked to such a plan. It's been reported in the past that President Karzai is keen on India sending troops to his country.

India has until now refused to send any troops but maybe open to such a move if it could put pressure on Pakistan to deal with the Mumbai attack conspirators.

“This is our internal matter and is being investigated by the ATS how can PAK be concerned about that,” says Defence Minister, A K Anthony

Pranab Mukherjee's talks are also expected to focus on providing better security for Indians engaged in reconstruction projects in Afghanistan.

His visit could also see the inauguration of the Zaranj-Delaram highway funded and built by India.

Meanwhile, former deputy director of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis Uday Bhaskar said that Pranab's visit will help in developing common strategy on security issues.

"India has strong security concers with Afghanistan especially after the Indian Embassy bombing in Kabul last year. Pranab's visit should be seen as consultation about common security concern with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. It is too early to talk about formal alliance but India would be able to train Afghan security personnel. With Obama as the new American President there will be realignment in the policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan. One diplomatic challenge will be to assure Pakistani people that it is not against the Zardari regime in Pakistan," Bhaskar said.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Jan 2009 22:57

kasthuri wrote:Can we expect any troop announcement now as Pranab is visiting Afghanistan?

India to hand over Zaranj-Delaram project to Afghanistan

India to hand over Zaranj-Delaram project to Afghanistan

I havent noticed it earlier but its a very very interesting road which India has built

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 22 Jan 2009 05:46

Ray,

It is true that Afghanistan would absorb more troops. But we're not going to take over the entire Afghanistan anyway. Like I said it is best to leave the hard fighting to NATO/ISAF and help stabilize the quieter provinces. At least four. There is no denying that Taliban will have to be taken on in its heartland but there also ought to be somebody to make the other provinces are secure - maybe mere patrolling, but somebody has to do it nevertheless.

Just tossing up an idea. Lets keep the scope to a manageable minimum. An Indian force to keep peace, disarm warlords to facilitate development/reconstruction work in Herat, Farah, Ghor and Badghis provinces? Supplies can be routed via Herat to Mashad in Iran from where there is a good road to Bandar Abbas. I don't see why we would need more than 30-40K troops given the total population of these provinces themselves are only closer to 3 million.

I believe ISAF deploys less than 20k troops in this area.

Philip,

How will the Taliban ever be check-mated by Indian built roads leading out to Iran if there will be no sufficient troops to fight the Taliban in the first place? With the global economic crisis there is every reason NATO contributors would slowly start pulling out troops if they don't seem to getting anywhere.