India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 24 Feb 2009 22:26

Obama nixed full surge in Afghanistan

US House Speaker Pelosi Statement following Meeting with Afghan President Karzai

“In the meeting, delegation Members pressed President Karzai on issues of concern, including:

- The continued corruption and lack of effectiveness by the Afghan police;
- The level of support being provided by allies;
- The resurgence of the Taliban and other terrorist groups;
- How the effort in Afghanistan relates to U.S. national security;
- The need to increase the Afghan leadership role in building communities through vehicles, such as Provincial Reconstruction Teams;
- Improving efforts to reduce poppy cultivation and crack down on drug trafficking;
- And the need to deal with the threats posed by extremists on both sides of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border."


EU to boost civil effort in Afghanistan

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 24 Feb 2009 22:30

Bhaskar wrote:India not to attend conference on Afghanistan with Pakistan, US
http://www.aaj.tv/news/World/129854_detail.html

I don't think india would be sending troops to Afghanistan...


For what it is worth:

Pak, Afghan Foreign Ministers to be in US for policy review

Washington, Feb 19 (PTI) Foreign Ministers from Pakistan and Afghanistan are arriving here next week for consultations, as part of US administration's efforts to contact high-level leaders from the region to frame its new Afghan policy.

India would also be part of the contact group and a high-level team from New Delhi is expected here in the next few weeks to give its viewpoint on the Afghan problem, said Richard Holbrooke, the Special US Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby Lalmohan » 24 Feb 2009 22:31

Acharya wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:i think that most people (at a state level) are missing a trick here, the old TSPA game of riding the jehadi tiger is over. the tiger is well on its way to crunching down on the neck of the TSPA and will soon suffocate it.

Dont write it off soon.
Uncle is also riding the tiger in the shadow zone pretending to clean up the jihadi tiger.


perhaps, however i think that the tactically brilliant TSP-closet khilafatists are trying to bring down the remaining superpower just like they brought down the CCCP. uncle is being taken for a huge ride and they dont see it

Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby Bhaskar » 24 Feb 2009 22:33

Obama’s Afghan “surge” sows seeds of new wars
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/pers-f24.shtml

Islamabad charges that India, with the US's blessing, has greatly increased its influence in Afghanistan since 2001. Indeed, India has lavished aid on the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai and, according to a recent report in the news magazine India Today, Indian strategists view Afghanistan as "a strategic pivot for India... They believe that in case Islamabad cannot be disciplined through diplomatic means, Afghanistan could prove to be a launching pad for action against the Afghan border."

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53934
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby ramana » 25 Feb 2009 01:19

Bhaskar, one way to put things in prespective is to tabulate what was the extent of aid given to Afghanistan and what is needed?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Feb 2009 20:34

A Dangerous Plan for Afghanistan

Under this new program, designed to complement the U.S. surge, lightly trained militias will be set up in the provinces to help enforce order. According to the Afghan interior minister, America will pay for the upkeep of the militias and provide them with Kalashnikov automatic rifles as well as other arms. The militia are modeled on the U.S.-established Sunni "Awakening Councils" in Iraq, which have been credited with significantly reducing violence. The first such Afghan militia units, already being trained, are set to be rolled out shortly in Wardak province.

At the same time, Washington is unveiling a quantum jump in aid to Pakistan, tripling its nonmilitary assistance to an annual $1.5 billion and maintaining its existing munificent level of military aid, without seeking to bring the rogue Inter-Services Intelligence agency under civilian oversight. This is also a repeat of the 1980s, when the ISI was the main conduit in the covert war and the U.S. provided multibillion dollar aid packages to Pakistan while turning a blind eye to the ISI's nuclear-smuggling and other illicit transborder activities.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby Rudradev » 26 Feb 2009 01:52

Under this new program, designed to complement the U.S. surge, lightly trained militias will be set up in the provinces to help enforce order. According to the Afghan interior minister, America will pay for the upkeep of the militias and provide them with Kalashnikov automatic rifles as well as other arms. The militia are modeled on the U.S.-established Sunni "Awakening Councils" in Iraq, which have been credited with significantly reducing violence. The first such Afghan militia units, already being trained, are set to be rolled out shortly in Wardak province.


Can you believe these people? Instead of empowering the Afghan National Army and the Karzai government, they're going to funnel money into the creation of more militias that will soon align themselves with various factional warlords and compound the problem of nation-building even further. This is all because they want to keep the pro-India Karzai government weak, so that the Pakis will be happy.

Meanwhile, the tripling of "non-military" :roll: aid to the Pakis while keeping the level of military aid constant with no strings attached, makes it clear what the Obama regime plans for Afghanistan. They not only intend that the Pakis should reclaim their strategic depth in Afghanistan, but they want to make the American taxpayer shell out the funds to finance the expansion and maintenance of this Pakistani empire.

Clearly Joe Biden and Sam Brownback weren't given "Hilal-e-Pakistan" for nothing.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53934
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby ramana » 26 Feb 2009 01:59

The Afghan National Army is mostly northern Tajiks. So there is need for these local sarkari Pashtun militas to fight the Taliban. The ANA wont fight as they dont have holding power. If you lokk at it the Taliban gets defeated and runs away. Then the troops move away and they rush back on in. So whats needed is holding troops aka local militias for it will cost an arm and a leg to deploy centralised ANA holding troops. So this is cost effective method.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby Rudradev » 26 Feb 2009 02:06

Ramana Garu: then as Chellaney suggests, why not expand the ANA itself to incorporate more Pashtun elements that will act as holding units in the South? Why raise potentially competing centers of military power with these independent "militias"... doesn't Afghanistan have enough autonomous bands of gunmen already?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53934
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby ramana » 26 Feb 2009 02:08

Cost, Cost and Cost.

If ANA formal troops is deployed it will cost much more and US doesn't have deep pockets after WS collapse. The militias can be regualrised if they are successful.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby Rudradev » 26 Feb 2009 02:14

ramana wrote:Cost, Cost and Cost.

If ANA formal troops is deployed it will cost much more and US doesn't have deep pockets after WS collapse. The militias can be regualrised if they are successful.



But can't the costs be amortized by, say, not tripling the "non-military" aid to $1.5 B a year for TSP?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53934
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby ramana » 26 Feb 2009 02:16

If ANA consolidates it can become an important state institution and thats not conducive to outsiders interests.

Why not look into equip profile of the new ANA?
LINKS:

Long War Journal's assessment of ANA

Order of battle for ANA

and

Official Website of ANA

They clearly state the difficulties in recruiting the Pashtuns- local warlords and language barriers.


They have grand names for their formations. Call division sized formations as Corps.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby ShauryaT » 26 Feb 2009 07:10

Swat a ruse to regain Kabul. Ashok Malik

This month, Pakistan has sent two asymmetrical signals in terms of the war against terror. One, Islamabad finally admitted the November 26 attack on Mumbai was masterminded within Pakistani territory. It seemed to make efforts to arrest or otherwise control Lashkar-e-Tayyeba operatives waging jihad against India.

Two, somewhat contradictorily, the Pakistani Government approved an agreement between the administration of the North-West Frontier Province and the Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi, one of the many front organisations of what is called the Pakistani Taliban, to introduce shari’ah and religious courts in Malakand division and its seven districts.

One of the seven districts is Swat, which has fallen to Taliban militias in recent weeks. The Pakistani Government has claimed that Maulana Sufi Mohammed, the leader of the TNSM, has promised to ask Pakistani Taliban forces to give up warfare.

However, analysts in Islamabad have pointed out that Sufi Mohammed was influential in the 1990s but is a spent force now. His leverage with his estranged son-in-law — Maulana Fazlullah, who led the Taliban forces in the ‘conquest’ of Swat — is limited. Neither can he speak for Maulana Fazlullah’s comrade Baitullah Mahsud, commander of the Tehreek-e-Taliban, the collective of Pakistani Taliban private armies.

As such, the ‘peace pact’ in the NWFP is as likely to fail as the agreement between Gen Pervez Musharraf and assorted tribal elders in North Waziristan in September 2006. It led to the scaling back of the military offensive against the Taliban in exchange for vague promises of the cessation of jihadi activity.

North Waziristan is a component of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which is immediately to the west of the NWFP. Both regions border Afghanistan and have become sanctuaries for Taliban and Al-Qaeda affiliates fighting American forces.

In 2006, Gen Musharraf had sold the ‘Waziristan Accord’ as an attempt to use local tribal traditions to isolate religious extremists. It was presented as a tactical retreat but a strategic advance. It turned out to be a hoax.

The chess moves — admitting to guilt in the 26/11 attack and introducing shari’ah in the NWFP — would appear to cancel out each other. Is there a method to Islamabad’s schizophrenia?

Superficially, the Pakistani establishment was sending a straightforward message to Mr Richard Holbrooke, the United States special representative whose visit coincided with the actions. It was that Islamabad was a willing ally and trying to help with Mumbai. On the other hand, it faced a compelling military threat in Swat and elsewhere.

There is, however, a more cynical view. Anticipating Mr Holbrooke’s tough message, the Pakistani military-strategic core was also creating a number of diversionary ‘crises’ and smoke-screens so that expectations on it to deliver would be minimal.

Having annexed Swat Valley, the Taliban may be only a short distance from Islamabad, but would it be prudent to see a takeover of the Pakistani capital as logical? It is worth noting that there are no essential differences between the strategic goals of the Tehreek-e-Taliban and the Pakistani Army/ISI.

There may be varied opinions on whether, for instance, America is partially useful or implacably hostile — or on the degree of Islamisation the predominantly-Punjabi Pakistani elite must be subject to. These are concerns for the long term. Right now the Pakistani Army is playing a short-term game, with an immediate and, it feels, realisable prize.

The priority for the Generals in Rawalpindi as well as the intersecting Taliban militias on either side of the Durand Line is to regain control of Kabul. This is the greater jihad. For the moment, Kashmir is the lesser jihad; it can be revved up later. That is why Islamabad is pragmatic enough to be willing to sacrifice low-level LeT assets.

The Swat agreement is going to be held up as a template deal with the so-called ‘moderate Taliban’ and with elements within the Islamist collective that are apparently amenable to a political solution. There are three reasons why the Pakistanis hope they will be heard.

First, while US President Barack Obama is committed to intensifying operations in Afghanistan — and the Taliban is already apprehending a ‘Spring Surge’ — it is questionable whether America has the stomach for a potentially 20-year military commitment to the region.

Already there is talk in Washington, DC, of less ambitious goals for Afghanistan. The objective of nation-building is gradually giving way to that of containment. Admittedly this is not the only assessment in the US capital but it is one that has more takers than at any time since 9/11.

Second, America’s oldest ally, Britain, is clearly tired. It has experienced military reverses in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. That aside, it fears a renewed war — as Mr Obama has promised — will lead to retaliatory strikes by Al Qaeda sleeper cells among British Pakistani communities. America, with its relatively robust integration model, will be sequestered; Britain worries it will bear the brunt.

An idea of British anxiety was provided, albeit crudely, by Foreign Secretary David Miliband when he visited India and said the global conflict against Islamist terror was more or less a myth. More recently, Britain has appointed Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles as its special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan — he is Mr Holbrooke’s equivalent.

In his earlier job as Ambassador in Kabul, Sir Sherard was famously sceptical of winning the war. He is expected to spend the coming months seeking the ‘moderate Taliban’. No doubt Islamabad will help him by exhibiting suitable candidates of its own.

Third, Afghanistan is due to hold its presidential election in August. The US is certain to dump President Hamid Karzai, convinced he has failed. His family’s alleged links with the opium trade are also being used against him. Mr Holbrooke, for one, has “long held the view that Karzai is inept”, according to a Washington-based source. The Pakistanis want to see Mr Karzai go, as they consider him too India-friendly.

The search is on for a new Afghan President. Islamabad is determined that it must have its man, and must regain the grip on Kabul that it lost after the Taliban forces were routed in November 2001. All its exertions — whether small concessions to India or alarmism about Swat — are aimed at enhancing bargaining ability and ensuring the West gives it a greater say in who runs Kabul.

After all, as the Pakistanis believe, some day the Americans will leave.

malikashok@gmail.com
Ashok ji is reading it right. Just right. Why is my nation sleeping?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 26 Feb 2009 07:20

why not expand the ANA itself


The proposal is to expand the ANA from the current 72,000 to 120,000.

Two problems. One: the 120K is by most accounts not sufficient. Two: even at 120K, the time taken to raise than many and THEN to train them is a few years efforts.

The problem s time.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 26 Feb 2009 07:35

JMTs:

First, while US President Barack Obama is committed to intensifying operations in Afghanistan — and the Taliban is already apprehending a ‘Spring Surge’ — it is questionable whether America has the stomach for a potentially 20-year military commitment to the region.


Besides what Holbrooke stated (he said that they will stay), the US has plans to stay - for CA oil. It necessarily has to mean military presence.

Second, America’s oldest ally, Britain, is clearly tired. It has experienced military reverses in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. That aside, it fears a renewed war — as Mr Obama has promised — will lead to retaliatory strikes by Al Qaeda sleeper cells among British Pakistani communities. America, with its relatively robust integration model, will be sequestered; Britain worries it will bear the brunt.


It is a matter of time. If the Brits think that allowing a strategic depth will make the issue of sleeper cells go away they are more than mistaken. The issue is not hurting Brits or anyone else. It is to convert by force to Islam. Britain is a small island and the easiest to use force on ............ not to mention the amount of Islamists, including professionals.

Third, Afghanistan is due to hold its presidential election in August. The US is certain to dump President Hamid Karzai, convinced he has failed. His family’s alleged links with the opium trade are also being used against him. Mr Holbrooke, for one, has “long held the view that Karzai is inept”, according to a Washington-based source. The Pakistanis want to see Mr Karzai go, as they consider him too India-friendly.


I think Karzai is planning on an early election - whatever that means to getting himself elected.

IMHO, the Islamists will use the US to force the issue of universal Islam. There is really no other way for Islamists to go! This is the way they survived the first decade or two.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 26 Feb 2009 07:40

Interesting stat:

Image

Afghan Buildup Includes Billions to Fight Bombs

As part of its buildup in Afghanistan, the Pentagon plans to deploy billions of dollars in heavily armored vehicles, spy planes, jamming technology and even experimental ground-penetrating radar to defend troops from increasingly lethal roadside bombs.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby ShauryaT » 26 Feb 2009 09:23

Stop this Faustian bargain. Brahma Chellaney

Less obvious is the Obama administration’s interest to seek a political deal with the Taliban behind the cover of a US troop ‘surge’ in Afghanistan. Its approach seems simple: if you can’t defeat them, buy them off. Having failed to rout the Taliban, Washington is now preparing the ground to strike a deal with the Taliban leadership, but from a position of strength. That is why the surge has begun.
...
The very day Obama announced the surge last week, he acknowledged there can be no military solution. Even as US officials expand contacts with the Taliban, General David Petraeus, the Centcom chief, is openly looking for ways to win over Taliban commanders. His boss, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, has gone one step further to say Washington could accept a Swat-style agreement with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

...
A surge-and-bribe experiment is unlikely to yield a ticket out of Afghanistan for the US military. The Af-Pak tactical gains Obama is seeking will come at strategic costs. The notion that attacks against America can be prevented not by defeating terrorism but by regionally confining it is preposterous. Terrorism cannot be boxed in hermetically in the region that already is the wellspring of global terror. Before he moves too far to retrace his steps, Obama must rethink his Af-Pak strategy and resist the temptation to pursue narrow, short-term objectives.
There is only one way out for the US but they will have to be bold to do such a thing. They will have to agree to the plan to breakup TSP and allow India a major stake in the region. I have little hopes from a democratic administration of such bold foreign policy changes.
Last edited by Gerard on 27 Feb 2009 02:52, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: copyright

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 26 Feb 2009 09:40

There is only one way out for the US but they will have to be bold to do such a thing. They will have to agree to the plan to breakup TSP and allow India a major stake in the region. I have little hopes from a democratic administration of such bold foreign policy changes.


Ghee + sugar.

BUT, we cannot expect that from anyone.

What we can expect is local events gaining a momentum of its own and making it happen.

I am hopeful. Even the Atlantic Council report, IMHO, is already outdated. They got Mumbai attack into the report, but did not even dream of the Swat deal!!! A deal that bowled even the Great Holbrooke, who was surprised by the act ........ right AFTER a trip to those regions (by helo).

We need another Swat ASAP. This time 20 miles from Islamabad.

BTW, with such deals the US does not need to aid TSPA any more.

(the biggest joke of the Atlantic Council report was to raise 15,000 Paki police!!! To police which area? The areas that need them the most, the police are resigning or getting killed!!)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 27 Feb 2009 00:12

Afghan Policy Review news items:

Pakistan wants drones on table in US-Afghan review

Pakistan called for talks on ending controversial US drone attacks on its territory as it prepared for a three-way session Thursday with Afghanistan to chart a new "war on terror" strategy.

Pakistan said it was asking the United States to transfer technology {for the drones!!!} to allow Islamabad to carry out the unmanned aircraft on its own, saying it would remove a major irritant between the allies.


U.S. positive on Afghan input in policy review: Spanta

Clinton Meets Pakistani Foreign Minister on Regional Policy Review

Afghan review to ensure there is no further attack on US: WH

There you have it from the horse's mouth:

The Obama Administration is currently doing a review of the Afghan Policy with an aim to make sure that it does not become a safe haven for terrorists again to plot strikes on the US, the White House has said


So, Kashmir IS expendable in this equation.

U.S. losing war in Afghanistan, McCain says


Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby Tilak » 27 Feb 2009 07:46

A Strategy for Afghanistan
By Henry A. Kissinger
Thursday, February 26, 2009; Page A19

The Obama administration faces dilemmas familiar to several of its predecessors. America cannot withdraw from Afghanistan now, but neither can it sustain the strategy that brought us to this point.

The stakes are high. Victory for the Taliban in Afghanistan would give a tremendous shot in the arm to jihadism globally -- threatening Pakistan with jihadist takeover and possibly intensifying terrorism in India, which has the world's third-largest Muslim population. Russia, China and Indonesia, which have all been targets of jihadist Islam, could also be at risk.

Heretofore, America has pursued traditional anti-insurgency tactics: to create a central government, help it extend its authority over the entire country and, in the process, bring about a modern bureaucratic and democratic society.

That strategy cannot succeed in Afghanistan -- especially not as an essentially solitary effort. The country is too large, the territory too forbidding, the ethnic composition too varied, the population too heavily armed.


Even attempts to establish centralized Afghan control have rarely succeeded and then not for long. Afghans seem to define their country in terms of a common dedication to independence but not to unitary or centralized self-government.
...
.....

Military strategy should concentrate on preventing the emergence of a coherent, contiguous state within the state controlled by jihadists. In practice, this would mean control of Kabul and the Pashtun area. A jihadist base area on both sides of the mountainous Afghan-Pakistani border would become a permanent threat to hopes for a moderate evolution and to all of Afghanistan's neighbors. Gen. David Petraeus has argued that, reinforced by the number of American forces he has recommended, he should be able to control the 10 percent of Afghan territory where, in his words, 80 percent of the military threat originates. This is the region where the "clear, hold and build" strategy that had success in Iraq is particularly applicable.


In the rest of the country, our military strategy should be more fluid, aimed at forestalling the emergence of terrorist strong points. It should be based on close cooperation with local chiefs and coordination with their militias to be trained by U.S. forces -- the kind of strategy that proved so successful in Anbar province, the Sunni stronghold in Iraq. This is a plausible approach, though it seems improbable that the 17,000 reinforcements President Obama recently committed are enough. In the end, the fundamental issue is not so much how the war will be conducted but how it will be ended. Afghanistan is almost the archetypal international problem requiring a multilateral solution for a political framework to emerge. In the 19th century, formal neutrality was sometimes negotiated to impose a standstill on interventions in and from strategically located countries. This provided a framework for defusing day-to-day international relations. (Belgian neutrality, for example, was not challenged for nearly 100 years.) Is it possible to devise a modern equivalent?

In Afghanistan, such an outcome is achievable only if its principal neighbors agree on a policy of restraint and opposition to terrorism. Their recent conduct argues against such prospects. Yet history should teach them that unilateral efforts at dominance are likely to fail in the face of countervailing intervention by other outside actors. To explore such a vision, the United States should propose a working group of Afghanistan's neighbors, India and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Such a group should be charged with assisting in the reconstruction and reform of Afghanistan and establishing principles for the country's international status and obligations to oppose terrorist activities. Over time, America's unilateral military efforts can merge with the diplomatic efforts of this group. As the strategy envisaged by Petraeus succeeds, the prospects for a political solution along these lines would grow correspondingly.

The precondition for such a policy is cooperation with Russia and Pakistan. With respect to Russia, it requires a clear definition of priorities, especially a choice between partnership or adversarial conduct insofar as it depends on us.

The conduct of Pakistan will be crucial. Pakistan's leaders must face the fact that continued toleration of the sanctuaries -- or continued impotence with respect to them -- will draw their country ever deeper into an international maelstrom. If the jihadists were to prevail in Afghanistan, Pakistan would surely be the next target -- as is observable by activity already taking place along the existing borders and in the Swat Valley close to Islamabad. If that were to happen, the affected countries would need to consult each other about the implications of the nuclear arsenal of a Pakistan being engulfed or even threatened by jihadists. Like every country engaged in Afghanistan, Pakistan has to make decisions that will affect its international position for decades.

Other countries, especially our NATO allies, face comparable choices. Symbolically, the participation of NATO partners is significant. But save for some notable exceptions, public support for military operations is negligible in almost all NATO countries. It is possible, of course, that Obama's popularity in Europe can modify these attitudes -- but probably to only a limited extent.

Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby Bhaskar » 27 Feb 2009 09:02


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53934
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby ramana » 27 Feb 2009 10:39

HAK is addressing his article to Gates et al who were comfortable making a SWATesque treaty in Afghanistan. He is drawing a red line on Talijabistan.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 27 Feb 2009 21:52


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 28 Feb 2009 08:39

NRao wrote:posted: 22 Feb 2009 04:41 pm
kasthuri wrote:
NRao Ji: Which country do you think will have a maximum repercussion if US exits, India, Iran or Russia?


UK


Feb 25, 2009 :: Armed Forces 'are fighting British Muslims with Yorkshire accents' in Afghanistan


The Armed Forces are increasingly fighting British Muslims with Midlands and Yorkshire accents on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

Intelligence reports show that rising numbers of home-grown jihadists have joined the Taliban so they can kill British soldiers


Quantum leap in the UK?

Image

that is a very large jump in a 4 year span!

Interesting stats, again in the UK:

Image

anjali
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 31 Jan 2009 04:12

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby anjali » 28 Feb 2009 09:16

So the next time the West and its protagonists in India (Suzanne Roy et al) come up with statements to the effect " The muslim population in India is very subjugated, economically underpriveleged etc,"....we should counter that with the above statistics. I really think these stats should be stored for future use.

OT...and I don't really know how this transformation occured but starting around the time of the Mumbai attacks, I find myself
really p**ssed off with the world at large but especially at the trapped situation that India finds itself today. I fail to see how we can hope for a better future for India when the odds are piled sky-high.

Regards

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby vsudhir » 28 Feb 2009 09:19

aha, NRao garu,

thou hath gladdened me heart onlee....

I continue to maintain that the UKstani gobar-mint deserves every Paki it has sheltered and assylumped in UKstan x10...... bad karma shall extract its price.... and moi will celebrate the day......

Heard the beeb today referring to how 'both sides' i.e. Russia and Georgia were squabbling like school kids over rights abuses. Soon, moi hopes to hear DD talking abt how both sides i.e. $hitish Pakis and $hitish natives will squabble over the boundaries of the no go darul islam territories springing up... heh heh

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 28 Feb 2009 22:12

at the trapped situation that India finds itself today. I fail to see how we can hope for a better future for India when the odds are piled sky-high.


That is THE easiest problem to solve.

Send ALL Indian leaders to take posts in Louisiana, US of A.

India's problem is her own leadership. Arthritic and bankrupt. One feeding on the other - both as persons and habits.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 01 Mar 2009 05:17

Pakis are now taking US TV crews on pleasure trips to Bajaur (ABC News) and rest!! :)

Peace has come to the region - they claim (who is going to question a Paki General?). But with 80% of the buildings destroyed they want immediate aid to reconstruct - of course, before the overthrown Taliban take advantage of the situation (disgruntled population!!).

With a destituted country, of course, Uncle Kerry to the rescue.

And, since the Taliban have been paid, when the money dries up, Taliban will recycle old strategies. Uncle Kerry is still there. There was a Marshall, now we have the Kerry Plan. Except that one succeeded.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 01 Mar 2009 23:31

Slooooowly things are unraveling!!

Democratic Congressman, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI 1st District) (Hawaii), JUST stated (on CNN State of the Union) that the "surge" was to oversee that the opponents in Iraq, who had been paid not to shoot at US troops, keep their word!!!!!

This is the same deal, made between the Taliban and TSP, in Swat!!!

Oh boy. Zakaria is now talking about Taliban - he now have two bad Taliban groups - his provisional thoughts on the subject he says.

The longer India keeps quite the more yahoos will take over the strategy in the region.

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby Tilak » 01 Mar 2009 23:38

Pro-Taliban chief may end exile
Published: Feb. 27, 2009 at 2:44 PM

KABUL, Afghanistan, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- Secret negotiations are reportedly under way to allow the head of an organization fighting alongside the Taliban to return to Afghanistan, news sources say.

Gulbaldin Hekmatyar, who has been in hiding for seven years, would be given immunity from prosecution and allowed to go back his country, al-Jazeera reported Friday.

The news organization says Hekmatyar's return is being discussed by the Afghan government, Western officials and mediators linked to the Taliban.

Mullah Mottawakil, a former Taliban foreign minister, says the talks will fail if the plan is to split the Taliban.

"It will not benefit anyone if he (Afghan President Hamid Karzai) brings one part of the Taliban into the government, and leaves the other part behind," said Mottawakil. "It will not finish the war."

Hekmatyar's organization, Hezb-i-Islami, fights alongside the Taliban. It has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.


"Change" is finally coming to Afghanistan!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 05 Mar 2009 08:03


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 05 Mar 2009 08:05


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 05 Mar 2009 08:08


Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby Sanjay M » 05 Mar 2009 13:44

TIME:Can Obama Avoid Quagmire in Afghanistan?

On the Friday after he was inaugurated, Barack Obama held a full-scale National Security Council meeting about the most serious foreign policy crisis he is facing — the deteriorating war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "It was a pretty alarming meeting," said one senior Administration official. "The President was extremely cool and in control," said another participant. "But some people, especially political aides like Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod who hadn't been briefed on the situation, walked out of that meeting stunned." The general feeling was expressed by one person who said at the very end, "Holy s***."

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 05 Mar 2009 18:32

Another in this series:

NRao wrote:posted: 22 Feb 2009 04:41 pm
kasthuri wrote:
NRao Ji: Which country do you think will have a maximum repercussion if US exits, India, Iran or Russia?


UK


Scottish police put Muslims first

Police in Scotland have been ordered to give special priority to crimes where the victims are Muslim.

In a move that last night sparked a fresh row over political correctness, a senior officer revealed that the race and religion of a victim has now become a crucial factor in how police respond to crime.

Inspector Tom Galbraith, of Lothian and Borders Police’s diversity unit, told a conference on tackling terrorism that it was important to stop Scottish Muslims feeling “vulnerable” in case they were driven towards radicalism.


The same radical Islam that Zakaria wants us ALL to live with!!!!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 06 Mar 2009 05:19

Clinton seeks international meeting on Afghanistan

All invited, including Iran per ABC News.

Then we also have ........................ Iran throws conference to support Hamas

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby Johann » 06 Mar 2009 07:12

NRao wrote:Feb 25, 2009 :: Armed Forces 'are fighting British Muslims with Yorkshire accents' in Afghanistan

The Armed Forces are increasingly fighting British Muslims with Midlands and Yorkshire accents on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

Intelligence reports show that rising numbers of home-grown jihadists have joined the Taliban so they can kill British soldiers


Hi N Rao,

The current security environment in the UK makes it very hard for radicalised young men to succesfully conduct terrorist attacks in the UK; if you really want to wage jihad and become a shaheed you have to go to Pakistan, and stay there. The other stream are young men visiting families in places like Mirpur where there is a very strong jihadi current, and are influenced by the general environment and join up.

Quantum leap in the UK?

Image

that is a very large jump in a 4 year span!

Interesting stats, again in the UK:

Image


The figures went up roughly one percent, mostly because of revised estimates of illegal immigrants, backlogs in deportation, etc. So its not so much an increase in the population, as a revision of estimates of people who arent in the census.

V Sudhir, sorry to disapoint, but the majority of illegal Muslim immigrants arent actually Pakistanis. They are a pretty assorted lot - Iranians, Iraqis, Kurds, Somalis, Eritreans, Nigerians, Afghans, and of course Pakistanis.

rahulranjan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 08 Nov 2008 10:05

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby rahulranjan » 06 Mar 2009 14:18

US, Canada discuss India's role in Afghanistan
.........
"We touched briefly on the involvement of India within that context. And certainly that is also an important country, a very major player within the region," Mackey said as a joint media briefing with Secretary Gates...............


The comprehensive approach that Canada has taken in building capacity of the Government of Afghanistan, we think through that prism we should also be looking at ways that we can help the Pakistani people," Mackey said.


Is Canada involved only in capacity building? What more role they play as part of ISAF in Afghanistan.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Postby NRao » 06 Mar 2009 21:39

Well Johann, THE Brit could not have said it better to prove my point. X-posting (Philip did not provide a URL):

The security situation in Pakistan is "very grave" and fuelling terrorist plots in Britain, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, has said.

By Jon Swaine
Last Updated: 12:03PM GMT 06 Mar 2009


People think that a slide in A'stan will impact India the most. Actually it is Britain and the US that will face the biggest problemS. India, IMHO, is not even on the radar for these yahoos. Not YET. Not until the UK is resolved first.

India is ONLY important to test their theories of warfare. That is it.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest