India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 31 Jan 2009 17:02

vsudhir wrote:
As to solutions: One novel idea on opium-and-corruption comes from James Nathan, a political science professor at Auburn University in Alabama and former State Department official. He argues in a forthcoming paper that the most efficient way to tackle the problem would be for the United States or NATO to buy up the entire Afghan opium crop.

"Purchasing the whole crop would take it away from the traffickers without cutting more than half the economy of Afghanistan," Nathan said in an interview. "Such a purchase would directly confront Afghanistan's most corrosive corruption. It would end the Taliban's money stream."

And the cost? By Nathan's reckoning, between $2 billion and $2.5 billion a year, no pocket change but not a large sum compared with the around $200 billion the U.S. taxpayer has already paid for the war in Afghanistan. The idea may sound startling, but its logic is not far from the farm subsidies paid to U.S. and European farmers.
Things are heating up somewhat. Here's to the new admin bringing some meaningful and +ve change in dealing with the region rather than doing a GWB II.

George W. Bush invaded Iraq, because there was a strong Oil Lobby behind him in support of the invasion, to get hold on all the Oil Reserves of Iraq.

Obama is planning to make Afghanistan the central military theater. Of course, this is to placate his liberal lobby of Rastafaris and Hippies, who would love to get their hands on Govt-subsidized hashish.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 31 Jan 2009 17:25

RajeshA wrote:

If the rate of pilfering is so high, as is being claimed here, then one does wonder, whether it is by design, and not just by Pakistanis but by Americans themselves.

The second question is whether Americans are allowing their weaponry and other supplies to be pilfered by the Taliban. In case some nutcase in American policy-making has come up with some brilliant ideas to make a move in the Great Game in which the Taliban are strengthened, either to take down Pakistan in the end, or to take down India, after Pakistan has been taken down, or to act as an American arm to destabilize Central Asia, or possibly China, then I would be really really impressed by the perfidy of the Americans themselves.

Yes Rajesh ! Your thinking seem to be in the right direction. I was talking to a pakistani who returned from Pakistan after a vacation. He confirms that all arms that Taliban is fighting is supplied by uncle ! ( I was surprised to hear that !) The so called pilferage as claimed by Russians are just a supply to Taliban !

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 31 Jan 2009 18:28

kasthuri wrote:More stories coming...though I will not give too much credit to the media.

India has key role to play in Afghanistan: US

India has key role to play in Afghanistan: US
January 28th, 2009 - 10:24 am ICT by IANS

Washington, Jan 28 (IANS)“And certainly Iran, as a bordering state, plays a role as well,” said Mullen suggesting “it is important to engage Iran” in a dialogue “that finds some mutual interests, there is potential there for moving ahead together.”

“But I really leave that to the diplomats to lead with that dialogue.”

RajeshA wrote:
The shocking intelligence assessment shared by Moscow reveals that almost half of the US supplies passing through Pakistan is pilfered by motley groups of Taliban militants, petty traders and plain thieves. The US Army is getting burgled in broad daylight and can't do much about it. Almost 80% of all supplies for Afghanistan pass through Pakistan. The Peshawar bazaar is doing a roaring business hawking stolen US military ware, as in the 1980s during the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. This volume of business will register a quantum jump following the doubling of the US troop level in Afghanistan to 60,000. Wars are essentially tragedies, but can be comical, too.
If the rate of pilfering is so high, as is being claimed here, then one does wonder, whether it is by design, and not just by Pakistanis but by Americans themselves.

The second question is whether Americans are allowing their weaponry and other supplies to be pilfered by the Taliban. In case some nutcase in American policy-making has come up with some brilliant ideas to make a move in the Great Game in which the Taliban are strengthened, either to take down Pakistan in the end, or to take down India, after Pakistan has been taken down, or to act as an American arm to destabilize Central Asia, or possibly China, then I would be really really impressed by the perfidy of the Americans themselves.

If one were to think about it, all the arms that were left over from the wars in the 80s, were enough to destabilize Pakistan, some regions of Central Asia, and give a shot in the arm for Jihadi terrorism world-wide. A second time proliferation of all these arms would enable a second cycle of Jihad.

Now Jihad as such is not really the bane of Western Civilization. The War on Terror may have cost trillions, put it has made a lot of people rich, and allowed new industries to rise, allowed a quantum jump in security-related technology. The only thing that really upsets the Western power-brokers is when the Jihadists gets access to nuclear weapons or even other ABC weapons, or are able to do damage on the scale of 9/11. But other than that, a bomb here and there to scare the shit out of their populations, is not the end of the world for these arms-merchants. All that is just a boost to their businesses.

So should Jihad prosper in Central Asia, and strike places like India, Russia, China or even Shia Iran, why would the American give a damn, long after they have left Afghanistan?!

It is difficult to supply terrorists after you have left the region. The question of 'plausible deniability' props up. So the best time to supply the Jihadists is, when one can claim 'plausible deniability' during supplying one's own troops to fight the Jihadists. These supplies will last a few years, and they may be used against a host of different countries and their troops, who would dare to enter Afghanistan again. A revitalized Taliban allows America-Britain axis to leave Central Asia as a very sore tooth in the middle of Asia, where no power can enter or reign in.

But then again, a revitalized Taliban also allows the Americans to sit tight right in the middle of Asia for all eternity, and keep on playing the Great Game. Nobody would want Americans to go, because they would be petrified at the thought of having to deal with the Taliban all alone.

The conspiracy theory can be spiced up even more, if one wants to change the dynamics of the Afghan conflict. The rumor has it, that the Iranians, even though they hate the guts of the Taliban, are providing them with weapons to use against the Americans.

Now if the Americans have started to allow their weapons to be pilfered on such a huge scale on the one hand, and on the other hand, they get the Iranians to join the fight against the Taliban, when the time comes for the Americans to leave, after they have done their work in Afghanistan and allowed the Taliban to return to power in Kabul, Iran would find itself in a huge conflict with the Taliban, simply because they took the American side.

Iran thus becomes the main target of the Taliban. The conflict with the Taliban destabilizes Iran, and soon Iran is not a threat to Israel anymore.

The American hand of Friendship can really be the proverbial bullet in one's own foot.

Disclaimer: It is all conspiracy-theorizing and nothing more.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 31 Jan 2009 19:11

anjali wrote:2. We have to very proactively and covertly assist in operations in Balochistan, this might be easier as this community has been more receptive to our support.

This seems to be obvious and many have pointed out that we should do this, including http://soodvikram.blogspot.com/

Is there any evidence that GOI or RAW is actually supporting the Baloch...is it substantial. My guess is we are not doing much, since the porkis are not complaining.

anjali · Post by **anjali** » 31 Jan 2009 21:17

Rudradev!!

What an excellent job....Thanks so very much ...I do so wish and pray that India produces many more brave and valiant men like you for generations to come

Jaihind

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jan 2009 22:28

The best tribute to RD is to spread the video and even better is to use his method and create more material and help the cause.

let me make myself clear.

his first Oscar worthy effort was the Flash animation Dr. E-Strangelove on AQKhan and his nukemart. This was tough as it had so many hand drawn images. Not many can emulate that.
This new technique is to use images and voice over the presentation and load into youtube.

So he is a pathfinder for us to emulate. And our tribute will be to add to his efforts.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 31 Jan 2009 22:43

RayC wrote: Therefore, the dissatisfaction remains and the recent events including the killing of the Bugti and the use of arty and air against the Baloch people rankles them.

From the US point of view, if there is an independent Balochistan, assisted and backed by them, the following advantages accrue:

1. The largest tract of the proposed route for the oil pipeline to ferry the Caspian oil to Gwadar is cleared.

2. The Chinese influence in Balochistan, especially in the area of Gwadar is removed.

3. The Chinese listening post at Gwadar for Middle East activities of the US troops is eliminated.

4. US through Balochistan will open up a second front against the Taliban in Waziristan and NWFP and such a front need not be US or western troops. It could be India, since having a military presence in Balochistan including Gwadar would box in Pakistan as also would neutralise Chinese aims of building a pipeline for ME oil through Balochistan and Pakistan to Aksai Chin and beyond and forcing China to use the Straits of Malacca or through Kyrgyzstan.

5. The US would have boxed in Iran from either side and could also foment rebellion amongst the Baloch in Iran!

The above is a fair view on Balochistan, here is a counter view:

- The US does not *need* a Balochistan, till it has the rentable state of Pakistan, available to it.
- Balochistan has the largest land area of all provinces in TSP, with the least population, the least revenue and lowest literacy rates. As a state by itself, it will be sandwiched between TSP and Iran and will fester perpetual instability
- Balushistan faces a demographic challenge with the takeover of northern Baluchistan by the Pashtuns and its largest city, Quetta
- The creation of Balushistan alone without a corresponding move to accommodate the Pashtuns of the North will certainly lead to further instability
- Balushistan will be a small, economically and militarily weak state with hostile neighbors to its, east, west and north
- Iran and the US share the same goals to a degree, on the status of Afghanistan
- Longer term, Balushistan will be India's headache and we will inherit a geo-strategic piece of land, with three potential hostile neighbors

I do not see Balushistan as a viable entity by itself, but it could break away from TSP, if there is a dissolution of the Durand line and part of a Pashtun majority Afghanistan.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 31 Jan 2009 22:46

RajeshA wrote:
The shocking intelligence assessment shared by Moscow reveals that almost half of the US supplies passing through Pakistan is pilfered by motley groups of Taliban militants, petty traders and plain thieves. The US Army is getting burgled in broad daylight and can't do much about it. Almost 80% of all supplies for Afghanistan pass through Pakistan. The Peshawar bazaar is doing a roaring business hawking stolen US military ware, as in the 1980s during the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. This volume of business will register a quantum jump following the doubling of the US troop level in Afghanistan to 60,000. Wars are essentially tragedies, but can be comical, too.
If the rate of pilfering is so high, as is being claimed here, then one does wonder, whether it is by design, and not just by Pakistanis but by Americans themselves.

The second question is whether Americans are allowing their weaponry and other supplies to be pilfered by the Taliban. In case some nutcase in American policy-making has come up with some brilliant ideas to make a move in the Great Game in which the Taliban are strengthened, either to take down Pakistan in the end, or to take down India, after Pakistan has been taken down, or to act as an American arm to destabilize Central Asia, or possibly China, then I would be really really impressed by the perfidy of the Americans themselves.

If one were to think about it, all the arms that were left over from the wars in the 80s, were enough to destabilize Pakistan, some regions of Central Asia, and give a shot in the arm for Jihadi terrorism world-wide. A second time proliferation of all these arms would enable a second cycle of Jihad.

This is known as War Economics. AFG-PAK region has become a rentier state for the last 50 years and the only economy which can be built is a war economy and the loot and pilferage of the war for the lower class. The upper class/Pak military get Military grants and loans to run a failed state which they pretend to run. This is the real condition of the region.

US policy is to just to ensure this region not collapse which would create massive problems in the western economy. During the 70s and before independence this region was the opium supplier of choice which supplied money into the western economy during cash shortages.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 31 Jan 2009 23:24

RayC wrote:The Afghans believe that the Durand Line Treaty was valid for 100 years and that the treaty is no longer valid and the Pakistani areas where Pashtuns are, is a part of Afghanistan!

While I do not believe that an Indian force should go in Afghanistan, yet, hypothetically speaking, Indian forces in Afghanistan could be serviced through Chabahar port and along the Delaram-Zaranj Highway. Iran would prefer an Indian presence so as to offset the US presence and maybe the Indian forces would operate in Western Afghanistan.

RayC Sir, It will be nice if you can elaborate on the conditions under which, you will support the deployment of Indian troops.

On the potential deployment to Western Afghanistan, the only issue is, it is far from the action areas. We need to engage in order to have a say in the affairs there. Unless, it is only a starting point.

I was thinking on the lines of Indian control, south of 32 parallel and north of 36 parallel, minus the border areas with TSP, as a starting point. The southern sector has 3 million people concentrated in two cities (80%) and the terrain there is under 1000 meters. India can play an excellent internal security role and at the same time, help train some of the Pashtun tribes.

The focus in the north is on the Tajiks and Uzbeks.

The assumption is there will be a total force of 100-120,000 for the next 2-3 years and NATO troops will reduce their strength. The idea being that most of the duties will fall on the US and India, in the next 2-5 years.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Feb 2009 00:17

Rajaramji, Put your presentation in scribd or some such domain for distribution.

SSridharji you too!

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 01 Feb 2009 04:34

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090126 ... t_al_qaeda
"A Tale of Two Surges
The U.S. strategy now appears to involve trying a surge, or sending in more troops and negotiating with the Taliban, mirroring the strategy used in Iraq. But the problem with that strategy is that the Taliban don’t seem inclined to make concessions to the United States. The Taliban don’t think the United States can win, and they know the United States won’t stay. The Petraeus strategy is to inflict enough pain on the Taliban to cause them to rethink their position, which worked in Iraq. But it did not work in Vietnam. So long as the Taliban have resources flowing and can survive American attacks, they will calculate that they can outlast the Americans. This has been Afghan strategy for centuries, and it worked against the British and Russians.

If it works against the Americans, too, splitting the al Qaeda strategy from the Taliban strategy will be the inevitable outcome for the United States. In that case, the CIA will become the critical war fighter in the theater, while conventional forces will be withdrawn. It follows that Obama will need to think carefully about his approach to intelligence.

This is not an argument that al Qaeda is no longer a threat, although the threat appears diminished. Nor is it an argument that dealing with terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not a priority. Instead, it is an argument that the defeat of the Taliban under rationally anticipated circumstances is unlikely and that a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan will be much more difficult and unlikely than the settlement was in Iraq — but that even so, a robust effort against Islamist terror groups must continue regardless of the outcome of the war with the Taliban.

Therefore, we expect that the United States will separate the two conflicts in response to these realities. This will mean that containing terrorists will not be dependent on defeating or holding out against the Taliban, holding Afghanistan’s cities, or preserving the Karzai regime. We expect the United States to surge troops into Afghanistan, but in due course, the counterterrorist portion will diverge from the counter-Taliban portion. The counterterrorist portion will be maintained as an intense covert operation, while the overt operation will wind down over time. The Taliban ruling Afghanistan is not a threat to the United States, so long as intense counterterrorist operations continue there.

The cost of failure in Afghanistan is simply too high and the connection to counterterrorist activities too tenuous for the two strategies to be linked. And since the counterterror war is already distinct from conventional operations in much of Afghanistan and Pakistan, our forecast is not really that radical."

Perhaps RAW might also become a player..
Strat does not think that the US will do much fighting...they will recruit and train Afghans...the CIA likely will also be active. If this is so, Indian troops might also serve a support function to train Afghans.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 01 Feb 2009 10:35

ShauryaT wrote:You expect an Indian force to help in the partition of Afghnistan based on Pashtun and non-Pashtun areas! How do you expect to have Indian forces supplied? How will a partition of Afghanistan dissove the Durand line? Please answer the other questions I have in the post above.

Afghanistan has 360-deg worth of borders, you don't only have to see Pakistan as the sole supply route. Iran and/or Russia can be the supply route.

Of course partition would dissolve the Durand Line! What will Pashtuns do, if they no longer have any country to the North? They'll reunify with their real country to the south, which does not include Punjab. That's glaringly obvious.

I have already suggested geographical start locations, in previous pages. Please read them.

What do start locations matter? The Pashtuns would immediately unite to attack us, if we went in their areas. That's glaringly obvious. So we should stay out of their areas, while keeping them out of the Northern areas of Afghanistan.

Let us keep Unkil worshipping outside the gates of this forum. The IA has been fighing CI, before the US knew, how to spell the word. Nehru did not play a hard game and got what he deserved. You mean to say, an Indian force will help the cause of dissolving the Durand line over time and that will make Indian forces, enemy number one of the Pashtuns?

Play a hard game? In the Pashtun lands? The Brits and the Soviets played a hard game, and were defeated. The Americans are in those area even now, and playing a hard game, and you can see the results.
I don't understand how you feel India would succeed where they have failed, and are continuing to fail.

I mean to say that an Indian force directly inside of the Pashtun areas cannot dissolve the Durand Line, since said force will become the focus of Pashtun aggression. Pak would certainly see to that.
So we should stay out of the Pashtun areas, while catalyzing the reunification of the Pashtun areas by detaching the non-Pashtun areas from them. This is very basic and obvious.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 01 Feb 2009 10:52

ramana

I have uploaded it on slide share at http://www.slideshare.net/rajaram.muthukrishnan

(edited out the reference and link to my blog on advise)

Others,

This was a presentation I had made recently at a forum on National Security & National Interests - Trends & Responses. I have borrowed heavily from a presentation shared by ramana.

Others are welcome to use the presentation if you find them useful.

For what it is worth.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 01 Feb 2009 10:53

I think Obama is currently contemplating about a long-term strategy aimed at containing terrorism rather than going on an offensive. Several reports like having a regional strategy and the delay in the "troop surge" point to this direction. Therefore, the emphasis would be on rebuilding Afghanistan with sustained development along with enhancing the self-defense capability of Afghanistan. To do this US would need huge financial, man-power and logistics resource and I believe this is where India will come into play. Especially for the construction projects (which India is already doing) and training the Afghan army. The *sending of troops* will make sense only in this context as it would be unwise to think India would directly confront Al-Qaeda along with the US - even if it means having a check on TSP. The following article in India Today too point in this direction.

New surge in Kabul

----------------------------------------
The road ahead

* India may beef up its $1.2-billion reconstruction and capacity building projects.
* Will not send troops to Afghanistan but may provide logistical support to the US in case specific request is made.
* Would train the Afghan Army and provide nonlethal equipment.
* Enhance anti-terror cooperation with Afghanistan to tackle Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.
-----------------------------------------

New surge in Kabul

India is moving cautiously and has indicated that the upgraded engagement will not include sending in its special forces as some countries want it to. New Delhi believes the solution to Afghanistan’s problem cannot be through military means alone and that development has to be a key ingredient in which India can play a major role.

So it wants to expand its capacity-building efforts of training more government officials, and the existing slot of 500 officers may be doubled. India should now engage with the US proactively to put in place a multilateral strategic cooperation in Afghanistan because even though the means may be different, its strategic interests are intertwined with the US to weed out terrorism in the region.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Feb 2009 14:41

kasthuri wrote:The following article in India Today too point in this direction.

New surge in Kabul

----------------------------------------
The road ahead

* India may beef up its $1.2-billion reconstruction and capacity building projects.
* Will not send troops to Afghanistan but may provide logistical support to the US in case specific request is made.
* Would train the Afghan Army and provide nonlethal equipment.
* Enhance anti-terror cooperation with Afghanistan to tackle Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.
-----------------------------------------

'Non-lethal equipment' just tells us, how cautious India is on this issue. Not only is India not prepared to clash with the Taliban or Pushtun, we also do not want, others to clash with the Taliban with Indian weapons. Russian weapons in Afghanistan are common. So any new introduction of Russian weapons, to arm the Northern Alliance or the Afghan Army would not cause many eyebrows to be raised. Besides it is not bad, if other countries finance the procurement of such weapons.

It is a great idea to train the Afghan Army, simply because we are getting not only acquainted but becoming comrades with the next power enforcers in Afghanistan.

One recalls, how Mullen regretted that in the 90s, the Pakistani Officer Corp did not get any advanced training in USA, and so they could not build on the bonds between US Army and TSPA.

The more Afghan Army officers we train, the better. However I did not understand, whether it was 500 officers in toto or per year, which has been increased to 1000 officers!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Feb 2009 16:42

Almost identical to what one has been recommending on BR,by many menbers.The only missing items are the involvement of Iran and the northern states/Russia into a holistic strategy to defang and defeat the Taliban/Pak
This is something the US is loath to do and until the new dispensation gets fully into its act,will remain in limbo.The US needs the full support if the neighbouring countries especially if a tribal.ethnic approach is taken.In the current context,sending troops to Afghan could've also sparked off Pak deploying a large number of troops on our border in a threatening stance which could trigger a troop redeployment back.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 01 Feb 2009 18:34

Raja Ram wrote:ramana

I have uploaded it on slide share at http://www.slideshare.net/rajaram.muthukrishnan

Also made it available on my blog

http://rajaram-india.blogspot.com/

Others,

This was a presentation I had made recently at a forum on National Security & National Interests - Trends & Responses. I have borrowed heavily from a presentation shared by ramana.

Others are welcome to use the presentation if you find them useful.

For what it is worth.

Great work indeed !

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 01 Feb 2009 19:20

Philip wrote:Almost identical to what one has been recommending on BR,by many menbers.The only missing items are the involvement of Iran and the northern states/Russia into a holistic strategy to defang and defeat the Taliban/Pak
This is something the US is loath to do and until the new dispensation gets fully into its act,will remain in limbo.The US needs the full support if the neighbouring countries especially if a tribal.ethnic approach is taken.

If we recall, US had been saying Iran would be involved in the regional strategy as well. Mullen had pointed out by regional strategy he means Iran and India, if not CAR. And several times he has emphasized the importance of Iran's role in Afghanistan. From what its been going on, I think Iran would be involved in the logistics. Since any major involvement by India would require a clear logistics route, Iran is essential in this play. I am not able to speculate if Iran would directly play a role with the US, but for sure when it comes to India. It is easy all the more now since we have the Zaranj-Delaram highway. It is in this context that US should be talking about Iran's cooperation. As for Central Asia, there is already an agreement on allowing non-military goods to A'stan by the US.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 01 Feb 2009 19:36

Raja Ram wrote:ramana
This was a presentation I had made recently at a forum on National Security & National Interests - Trends & Responses. I have borrowed heavily from a presentation shared by ramana.

Others are welcome to use the presentation if you find them useful.

For what it is worth.

Raja Ram ji. thank you for a great presentation. If I may offer a suggestion for the future...You mention globalization...you have put it on the web, yet your presentatation was made only for an Indian audience. It uses a lot of terms that only Indians would understand...whereas one of the goals should be to educate the west and americans in particular. The Americans are involved in the region, they do surf the web to better understand the region, why not take this opportunity to also educate them in the process. Whether we like unkil or not, they still play a prominent role in world geopolitics.

Again this is not criticism...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Feb 2009 20:21

Raja Ram,

A few suggestions:

1) Add dates to ALL the proposed maps - when did the source publish those proposed maps (pages 27 on)
2) Page 30: first bullet point states: "Creates greater Puktunistan including parts of Afghanistan", while the original map does not mention Paktunistan anywhere. (Q: Is it Pashtunistan that you are referring to?)
3) Page 16: Color for Rural->Female->Children should not be blue - should be purple/megenta/whatever

One issue that has never been brought up but is of great value is the inability of the IM to migrate to Pakistan. At least since 1975 Pakistan (when I had friends who did attempt) has placed road blocks that prevent IMs from freely migrating to Pakistan. IMHO, this venue has to be opened if there is such a need within the IM community (com as Pakis would put it).

The other issue is attempts being made by IMs to create a state within a state. A no-no.

However, the Kar2oon on page 25 is just hilarious. Should send it to all USians in US Congress and major news outlets.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 01 Feb 2009 21:26

NRao wrote: However, the Kar2oon on page 25 is just hilarious. Should send it to all USians in US Congress and major news outlets.

It is a classic, Countless pages of BRF wisdom is enshrined within it. Note how the loop is completed. A picture worth a 1000 words. Perhaps some of the blog writers will consider posting it on their site.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Feb 2009 22:21

NRao wrote:One issue that has never been brought up but is of great value is the inability of the IM to migrate to Pakistan. At least since 1975 Pakistan (when I had friends who did attempt) has placed road blocks that prevent IMs from freely migrating to Pakistan. IMHO, this venue has to be opened if there is such a need within the IM community (com as Pakis would put it).

The other issue is attempts being made by IMs to create a state within a state. A no-no.

That would not be a great idea! Just imajjine, Pakistan Office for Immigration and Naturalization asking IM, whether they have a recommendation from SIMI or some other affiliate Muslim organization, that the concerned person has indeed contributed to the struggle of Pakistani Nation!

IM: Oh, yes I have

. I have been a devoted soldier of the Ummah. Just last year in Delhi ...

POfMaN: That sounds promising.

IM: Can my brother and my cousin thrice removed also come!

POfMaN: Yes, but they would need a separate recommendation. You can assist him, in fulfilling the conditions.

IM. OK

POfMaN: AoA. Next!

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 01 Feb 2009 23:28

No wonder why Uncle needs a regional strategy in A'stan...

Pentagon budget cuts inevitable, analysts say

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Feb 2009 00:34

Raja Ram Ji could you please check your personal message inbox ?
top left corner of the page, it should say "1 new message".
thanks,
Rahul.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Feb 2009 01:37

RajeshA ji,

in 1975 TSP had a restriction that only "educated" IMs could migrate - college degree. But could no get anyone else (like parents, siblings) with them, unless, of course, they also had college degrees.

Of course a bottle did do the trick. BUT, not too many had the opportunity to do so.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 02 Feb 2009 02:02

Sending military to Afghanistan is good idea, but not now. Until India finds a solution to tackle with the resulting divided Pakistan, we should not divide it.

A full-fledged strategy dealing with military, economical and social implications of formation of Sindh and Baloochistan as separate nations should be devised before taking such step. Because this step will lead to this very effect. tackling the refugee problem and ensuring the resulting new nations stay away from Islamic radicalism must be thought about first.

India does not have any answers to such questions. hence, although a good move, bad timing to execute it. instead focus should be on devising a long term strategy and then implementing it.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 Feb 2009 05:17

Philip wrote:Almost identical to what one has been recommending on BR,by many menbers.The only missing items are the involvement of Iran and the northern states/Russia into a holistic strategy to defang and defeat the Taliban/Pak
This is something the US is loath to do and until the new dispensation gets fully into its act,will remain in limbo.The US needs the full support if the neighbouring countries especially if a tribal.ethnic approach is taken.In the current context,sending troops to Afghan could've also sparked off Pak deploying a large number of troops on our border in a threatening stance which could trigger a troop redeployment back.

Are you serious, TSP has the capacity to threaten India is news. But, the fear of TSP of an Indian action in Afghanistan is rightly placed. TSP will give their right arm to the Americans to thwart off such an action.

It has been reported that EVERY agreement signed between the Americans and the TSP post 9/11, has the underlying note of NO use of Indian military in Afghanistan.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 02 Feb 2009 08:54

ShauryaT wrote:Balushistan faces a demographic challenge with the takeover of northern Baluchistan by the Pashtuns and its largest city, Quetta.

The Pashtuns have always inhabited northern Baluchistan, the Suleiman Range was their cradle land. These areas were merged into "British Baluchistan", controlled from Quetta in the 19th century, joining the lands of Baloch tribes like Marri and Bugti. The Baloch states like Kalat were further in the south and outside direct British control.

There have been few clashes between the Baloch and Pashtun, because they inhabit separate areas. The shifting of an agricultural university from Kalat to Pashtun-dominated Pishin created tensions in the 1990s. The Baloch and the Pashtun politicians have formed a united front with other ethnic minorities of Pakistan.

There is nominal Baloch representation in the Afghan government and Balochi is a recognized national language in that country. Thus Pashtun presence in a free Balochistan may lead to the creation of a stable state.

There are also substantial pockets of Baloch in southern Punjab. Then large populations of Baloch are also found in the rural areas of Sindh from historical migrations. However Baloch in the city of Karachi are recent immigrants and are concentrated in the locality of Lyari.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 02 Feb 2009 09:32

RahulM,

thanks for the message and thanks to the member for noticing and raising it. I am ok with it. If you think it is not proper to link personal blogs in BR forums (something I would agree to), then I can edit out the link to the blog and only retain the slideshare link on the post.
(added later: I have already edited out the reference to my blog. It is still there in the quoted part by Prabu, can't do anything about that

Others,
thank you all for the comments, will do the necessary refinements. The cartoon was sourced by ramana and I too loved it. This presentation was made to an Indian forum in India. The objective was to bring to the fore issues of national importance across all subjects and get people who have a good knowledge about them to share an objective presentation of facts and analysis that is devoid of any political or ideloogical colouring.

So this is a custom built presentation and hence the Indian context to it. The idea that ramana and I have is to build more such materials that can be used by others. Each refinement can be shared and we will thus have a ready reference material repository that those interested in spreading awareness about India and her national security interests can leverage.

My effort is a small start. I would have loved to have a you tube presenation along the lines of what rudradev made on this topic. Will work towards that one step at a time. Another project is to get a set of my rambles and musings on this topic organized around a theme for a small book. Want to get this published in English and Tamil. Still working on it. A friend of mine has a publishing house that publishes such books in Tamil on a wide variety of topics.

Which gives me a thought - shivji would you be inerested in publishing your e-book on pakistan in tamil and english?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Feb 2009 10:42

Raja Ram wrote: Which gives me a thought - shivji would you be inerested in publishing your e-book on pakistan in tamil and english?

Why sure. Please give me some more details - on bennedose@hotmail.com if need be.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Feb 2009 11:02

'Non-lethal equipment' just tells us, how cautious India is on this issue.

Military Police (MP), Army engineers, Army trainers, etc are also "non-lethal".

Just a thought.

The calibration can always be fine tuned as and when the wind shifts.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Feb 2009 11:23

Rajaram, Thanks for putting it on the web for wider dissemination. Also put a counter to see how man downloads and visitors to the page.

Last night I got a request to have a series of talks on the history of ancient India. The issues is that Muslim and British period are easily available but what is not understood is earlier period. So we are working on it.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Feb 2009 11:39

Airavat wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Balushistan faces a demographic challenge with the takeover of northern Baluchistan by the Pashtuns and its largest city, Quetta.

In SW Afghanistan there is over 1.5 million Balochis. The tribes are Brahuis, Gorgich, Sanjarani, Narui and other lesser tribes. Successive Afghan regimes have traditionally maintained close ties with.Balochi nationalists. irrespective of their forms of government or ideological persuasions.During the reign of Mohammad Zahir Shah, Afghanistan actively supported the Baluch and Pashtun opposition to the imposition of One Unit Plan in West Pakistan which was seen as an attempt by ruling Punjabis to absorb the minority provinces of NWFP (Pashtunistan) and Baluchistan. After overthrow of the monarchial regime and the establishment of the republican regime in 1974,Kabul pursued a much more vigorous policy of support for Baluch nationalists.During the Baluch insurgency against the Bhutto regime in the 1973-1977 period,President Mohammad Daud provided Baluchi guerillas and refugees with sanctuary bases in southern Afghanistan and allowed them daily access to the Baluchi programs of Radio Kabul.
Similarly, the 1978 overthrow of Daud regime by the pro-Soviet Marxist regime did not effect Kabul’s basic policy toward the Baluch nationalists. Both factions of Afghanistan’s ruling Communist party, Khalq(Masses) and Parcham(Banner) reaffirmed their support for the “Baluch liberation movement”. Soon after its takeover, the Khalq government headed by Taraki formally recognized the Baluch People’s Liberation Front and granted Baluchi guerillas political asylum, while under Daud they had enjoyed
only refugee status.
Also,following the example of their non-communist predecessors, Marxist leaders treated the Baluch on a par with Pashtun nationalists in Pakistan. In a speech on 20 september 1979,Hafizullah Amin,Taraki’s sucessor,stated that “Our sincere and honest brotherhood with the Pashtuns and Baluchis has been sanctified by history. They have been one body in the course of history and have lived together like one brother, a theme which had been universally echoed by previous Afghan rulers as well. The 1979 Soviet intervantion and replacement of Amin by Babrak Karmal, the leader of the Parcham faction, did not change Kabul’s attitude forward the Baluch, as well be elaborated further in the next chapter. In publicly justifying this policy, Afghan ruler, all Pashtuns, have stressed the historical, cultural, and religious bonds of brotherhood between the Baluch and Pashtuns. The historical basis of this notion appears to be the Baluch’s cooperation with Afghans in their invasion and overthrow of Safavid empire, Baluchistan’s tributary status under Afghanistan for short period of fourteen years (1744-1758), and the 1758 treaty of Afghan-Baluch military alliance formed largely as a response to more powerful Persian empire. In the context, not only did the Baluch and Pashtun maintain closer political and military ties due to a common threat perceived from Persia, but also shared similar tribal organizations and were bound by the Sunni religion vis-a-vis Shi’a Persia. Although these ties have served to provide both sides with some justification for their continuing cooperation, they in themselves are not the most significant factors motivating Afghanistan’s consistent polices toward Baluch.

More fundamental, however, are geopolitical considerations in Kabul’s calculations. Afghanistan’s irredentist claims to the Pashtun-speaking areas in Pakistan, her desire to gain a foothold on the sea through Baluchistan, and her territorial dispute with Iran over the distribution of waters of the lower Helmand River are the main factors accounting for Kabul’s support of the Baluch national movement. Prior to Taliban government, Afghanistan’s primary aim was to bolster her demand for “Pashtunistan”, and issue that was the cornerstone of her foreign policy ever since the independence of Pakistan in 1947. As a result, she attempted to revive the historical Afghan-Baluch alliance and ties by calling for self-determination for both peoples and also through working for closer cooperation between Baluch and Pashtun nationalist in Pakistan. As previously mentioned, Pashtun and Baluch did form a coalition within the NAP (National Awami Party, party of Baluch and Pashtuns,before 1973), which first opposed the One Unit Plan and then came to power in Baluchistan (Pakistani occupied) and the NWFP(Pashtunistn) as a result of its victory in those provinces in the general election held in Pakistan in 1970.

Moreover, Afghanistan’s interest in Baluchistan appears also to be motivated by her geographically landlocked position, which could be overcome through access to the coasts of Baluchistan on the Arabian Sea. An indication of this is found in some Afghan maps of Pashtunistn, which have depicted the entire area of Baluchistan (Afghanistani and Pakistani) as constituting southern Pashtunistan. The historical base of such a territorial claim appears to be Afghanistan’s fourteen-year tributary rule over Baluchistan during the 1744-1758 period. Baluch, however, reject such a claim by invoking the 1758 treaty signed by the Afghan ruler King Ahmad Shah Durrani and the Baluch ruker Khan Nasir Khan, which restored Baluchi independence in exchange for a military alliance. So far, the issue of Afghanistan’s vague territorial claims on Baluchistan has been downplayed by both the Afghan governments and the Baluch nationalists due to the overriding concern with their disputes with Pakistan. Kabul’s demand for Pashtunistan is generally implied to include only the Pashtun-speaking region of Pakistan. Afghanistan has not described the Baluch as “Afghan” or Pashtuns, but has always referred to them as “Baluch”, thus recognizing their separate national identity. Instead, it has emphasized the historical links of “brotherhood” between the Afghans and Baluchis. The Baluch have also responded in kind by reaffirming their historically close links with Afghans and by demonstrating a strong willingness to accommodate the Afghan need foe access to the open sea whenever they established a state of their own. Afghan-Baluch cooperation is certain to continue as long as the Baluch and Pashtun national right and demand are not accommodated within Pakistan.
The Marxist regime specifically recognized Baluchi as a separate nationality by adopting and implementing the Soviet Union’s “nationalities model” in Afganistan. Accordingly . it embarked upon reconstituting the Baluchi majority areas as an autonomous administrative unit having Baluchi as its official language. In this respect, Baluchi and three minority languages(Uzbeck,Turkman,Nuristani) were added to the traditionally recognized Pashtu and Dari(Afghan Farsi) as offical languages of Afghanistan and were promoted through the Ministry of Information and Culture. In accordance with government plans for providing Baluchi-language schools in predominantly Baluchi regions, Baluchi-first-grade were scheduled to attend classes in their own language in September 1979. the government also inaugurated a Baluchi weekly newspaper, Soub(Victory), in September 1978(43). Given the present chaotic political situation in Afghanistan, it is too early to judge the policy of the (Before September 2001) government toward the Baluch.
http://baluchi.wordpress.com/2008/01/16 ... lochistan/

An excerpt that could explain the complex situation as also to indicate the close ties.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Feb 2009 11:49

ShauryaT wrote:RayC Sir, It will be nice if you can elaborate on the conditions under which, you will support the deployment of Indian troops.

On the potential deployment to Western Afghanistan, the only issue is, it is far from the action areas. We need to engage in order to have a say in the affairs there. Unless, it is only a starting point.

I was thinking on the lines of Indian control, south of 32 parallel and north of 36 parallel, minus the border areas with TSP, as a starting point. The southern sector has 3 million people concentrated in two cities (80%) and the terrain there is under 1000 meters. India can play an excellent internal security role and at the same time, help train some of the Pashtun tribes.

The focus in the north is on the Tajiks and Uzbeks.

The assumption is there will be a total force of 100-120,000 for the next 2-3 years and NATO troops will reduce their strength. The idea being that most of the duties will fall on the US and India, in the next 2-5 years.

Not that my support or non support would matter, but if Indian troops are deployed in Afghanistan, there is every possibility that it will activate Pakistan into organising greater mayhem in Kashmir and more terrorist attacks in hinterland India.

This type of action by Pakistan would surely mean war.

And since Pakistan would be cornered from both sides and given the 'responsible' military and govt they have, they will in all probability use their nukes as this will be a do or die situation for them.

It will be catastrophic thereafter!

A Doomsday scenario?

Maybe.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Feb 2009 12:13

Raja Ram ji, nothing wrong with a one-off reference to your blog, especially given the work you have done !
You are more than welcome to link to your blog.
regards.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Feb 2009 18:26

A grim picture of the war from the frontline and the acute dangers the troops have fighting the Taliban and their IED tactics.Intersting to also see the use of Harrriers (indispensable from reports) and even B-1 bombers in use.

Under fire in the Afghan badlands

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 22967.html

British push deeper into Taliban territory to pave way for spring surge

By Kim Sengupta in Lakari, Helmand
Monday, 2 February 2009

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 Feb 2009 20:38

In SW Afghanistan there is over 1.5 million Balochis.

The number of Baluchis in Afghanistan, quoted in the above post seems suspect.

There are estimated to be 638,000 Baluchis (Baloch) in Afghanistan constituting a mere 2 per cent of the total Afghan population (CIA World Factbook 2007).

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 Feb 2009 20:49

Airavat wrote:There is nominal Baloch representation in the Afghan government and Balochi is a recognized national language in that country. Thus Pashtun presence in a free Balochistan may lead to the creation of a stable state.

If stability is the name of the game, a far better option will be for Greater Afghanistan, after dissolution of the Durand line to incorporate the TSP portion of Baluchistan. It will make up for the weaknesses of Baluchistan as a separate entity and provide Afghanistan with access to the Sea.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 Feb 2009 22:01

RayC wrote:if Indian troops are deployed in Afghanistan, there is every possibility that it will activate Pakistan into organising greater mayhem in Kashmir and more terrorist attacks in hinterland India.

Not just a possibility but a guarantee that it will be their most likely course of action. Our actions and plan should factor for this.

This type of action by Pakistan would surely mean war.

That depends on India's planning, response and other pressure points, India has created. The capability of our nation's offensive posture against TSP have to be used to further Indian interests and control our periphery or we will forever be on the defensive.

And since Pakistan would be cornered from both sides and given the 'responsible' military and govt they have, they will in all probability use their nukes as this will be a do or die situation for them.

A counter view.

- TSP does not have an army, the army has a state!
- As long as this state exists and a bulk of the capacities of this army exists, it is unlikely the leadership of the army, will jeopardize its interests (the control of a state) and push the nuclear button
- The defense of Islam is used as the rationale to hold this state and its peoples as ransom
- The Taliban is the creation of TSP as an expansion of the ambitions of the Pakistan army
- They have been able to achieve this through the exploitations and perpetuation of a set of dismal circumstances in Afghanistan. These circumstances included decades of war and continued instability.
- These circumstances can be reversed, through the institutions of a state, and the attraction to the Taliban minimized, especially if known that it is a way for TSP to exercise control of Afghanistan and keep the Pashtuns divided.
- If the Pashtuns decide to revolt against TSP, with Indian help, it will be a setback to the ambitions of the Pakistani army but they will still have their moth eaten state
- The Punjabis and the Sindhis along with the Mohajirs can form a viable state and continue to keep a bulk of their military, economic strength and populations.

There are other actions, India will have to take in that eventuality. But, but, we are jumping 5-10 years ahead, at least. The situation can take many dimensions but none of this will be a possibility, if India does not get a stake in the security of Afghanistan, today.

If India does not act now, almost a virtual guarantee that eventually TSP will be able to control Afghanistan and continue to use that land and its peoples, for its machinations.

There can be only one type of result of these machinations. Negative for India. Here is a hypothesis.

The more unstable TSP gets the more stable India will be and vice versa, until such a point, where the external factors that prop up TSP can be eliminated.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 03 Feb 2009 04:31

Afghan War and Regional Players

The security of Afghanistan is assuming greater urgency in the US-led coalition’s war on ‘extremism’.

There has lately been a perceptible movement to increase the involvement of regional stakeholders such as Russia, China, India and Iran in the country. Pakistan, even though recognised as a key player vital to the coalition’s fight against the Taleban and Al Qaeda, has also been labelled disappointing for its failure to rein in the pro-Taleban militants and root out Al Qaeda.

As militants incensed by the continuing drone attacks in the tribal belt stepped up attacks on Nato supply trucks and ambushed convoys carrying essential supplies to the allied forces on the Khyber highway — the main supply route running through the border — western strategists began to review other alternate routes for supplies to their forces in Afghanistan. Alternate route options passing from China, Central Asia and Iran had been considered before. However, the existing routes running through Pakistan  emain the most feasible in terms of distance  and time.

Unless the new US administration manages a breakthrough with Teheran, it is unlikely to use Iran as a conduit for its strategic supplies to the ISAF. It would also be wary of Iran’s outwardly conciliatory and good neighbourly approach towards rebuilding Afghanistan as Iran would naturally be inclined to extend its influence eastwards. As Afghanistan hosts a theatre for regional power struggles and proxy conflicts between states like Pakistan and India, it could see further chaos with Iran’s growing role and assertions in militarising Afghanistan’s Shia population. India’s assertion of its role as a regional power and its activities in Afghanistan, including its desire to play a more active role in Afghanistan’s security architecture has been a source of great concern to its neighbour. Pakistan has accused India of subversive activities in both Balochistan and FATA (federally administered tribal areas) and has in turn been blamed for attacking Indian interests and role in Afghanistan. India has played a smart role by forging links with Iran and Kabul while limiting Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan.

Last month’s opening of the $150 million, 220-km road linking Delaram in Nimroz in South West Afghanistan with Zaranj and the Iranian port of Chahbahar, funded entirely by India, is of strategic import. It underscores Delhi’s determination to consolidate its foothold in Afghanistan as well as opening vital trade and communication routes with the country and other Central Asian states — thus bypassing Pakistan.

India’s plan of establishing a naval base on the Iranian coast to counterbalance Chinese presence at Pakistan’s Gwadar port is doubly significant. The security and stability of Afghanistan is essential and should ideally include all regional players to participate and partake in the responsibility. But the country shouldn’t end up as a theatre of proxy wars between regional stakeholders. It is bound to create further chaos and will not only undermine the southwest Asian security but also have an impact on the Gulf states considering their regional proximity and the threats they face from transnational issues of terrorism and drug-trafficking.