Afghanistan News & Discussion

[Rudradev]

And at some point, with the continuing rise of India, the latent conflict will be manifest. At that time, either America will have to concede India's rightful claim to her destiny or India will have to fight to exercise it.

in that case, why would america ever allow india to train ANA under the UN umbrella? it is enabling india to reassert her influence over this region. will this be allowed due to short-term alignment of interests? what can america do to roll it back after that?

America loses nothing by allowing India to contribute to the development of Afghanistan, or the training of the ANA. That's because Afghanistan is entirely within the US sphere of influence... our trainers or engineers or relief workers, are there at America's pleasure and will have to leave when America decides it's time for them to leave. Afghanistan can scarcely be considered an independent nation at all. So where is the question of India "reasserting our influence"?

Training the ANA does not constitute "India reasserting her influence" when seen in the context of (a) the US being the pre-eminent military, political and financial presence in Afghanistan by a long shot and (b) the elephant in the room, Pakistan. The US supports a Pakistan inimically hostile to India, demands that India subordinate her interests in Kashmir with an eye to placating Pakistan, and knows that with Pakistan as a buffer, the quantum of Indian influence in Afghanistan will never grow to a strength anywhere close to challenging the American pre-eminence in the region.

So yes, it is a short-term and narrow alignment of interests... with *America* dictating the terms of exactly how much influence India is *allowed* to accumulate in Afghanistan. Given the checks and balances America has in place (Pakistan, and the complete reliance of the Kabul regime on America for survival) there is no question that India will even accumulate an inconvenient degree of influence in Afghanistan from America's standpoint... let alone a degree of influence that America would have to worry about "rolling back" afterwards.

[Johann]

, I believe I've said all I have to say on the subject here. If this discussion is to continue, let it be on the Iran thread as Shaurya suggests.

...Somehow that discussion became entirely derailed by all this off-topic verbiage and hand-waving about Iran. Though I'm sure that was not Johann's intention

Rudradev, thanks anyway for the long, long Iran-centric reply - but there's no need to be so hard on yourself for it.

We will continue the discussion as to why the Shah was an empire builder rather than a puppet, why most Iranians today don't see themselves as locked in a civilisational conflict with the West, and why the millions of Iranians who live in diaspora matter on the proper thread.

Will an admin please move the the Iran related posts to the Iran thread?

Meanwhile, there were a number of posts before the Iran issue that sketch out the shape of Chinese interests and constraints in Afghanistan-Pakistan, the Indian Ocean Region, and Tibet.

The SCO is China and Uzbekistan's regional bulwark against a northwards explosion of instability out of Af-Pak in to Central Asia.

While India's activities in places like Ayni will be welcome, its not clear that the Chinese-Uzbek-Russian core will be willing to do much to to contain the spillover to the SE in to the Subcontinent.

China in the 1990s was willing to provide weapons to the Taliban, and the Taliban made it clear that it regarded China as different from other kufr nations by sending greetings over Radio Sharia on October 1st, the anniversary of the PRC's establishment. Obviously, Pakistan mediated the relationship.

Its not at all clear that the PRC will not revert to this strategy *if* the PA is able to restore its internal cohesion and end its fraternal war.

[V_Raman]

what if AFG decides to attact POK flank and establish a land corridor with india? not directly but thru non-state actors? they got ANA to protect them from overt PAK military action and the world will not allow that anyway.

[Dhiman]

Even India realizes that there are areas where the US and India can work together, and areas where we will differ. Today we are working with the Americans in those areas where we can.

We also realize, however, that at some point in the future, a collision between Indian aspirations and American interests is inevitable. America will invariably circumscribe the destiny to which India aspires as her civilizational due. America will never allow India to secure her near abroad, or play the role she has historically played in influencing the fortunes of her environs and the world. America will never accept India into an alliance of equals, but demand that India beyond a point recognize the subservience of her interests to America's own. Witness what is happening with Pakistan today.

And at some point, with the continuing rise of India, the latent conflict will be manifest. At that time, either America will have to concede India's rightful claim to her destiny or India will have to fight to exercise it.

Rudradev,

Until the early 1990s, US foreign policy was based on its ideological conflict against the communist USSR and this lead to US involvement in South Asia to dislodge the soviets from USSR. India was perceived to have a tilt towards USSR and US ended-up pouring billions and billions to fund the economy and military of its proxy Pakistan (India's arch rival) in order to support another proxy (Islamic Jihadists) which would eventually fight and dislodge the soviets from Afghanistan. The historical issues between India and US were a result of this and the current Af-Pak Fak-Ap is a problem left-over from of the days of cold war. I am sure you are well aware of this.

It is in the interest of US to stabilize the Af-Pak region. Pakistan is no longer a real threat to India and USSR is gone, so the issue of Indian tilit towards USSR is non applicable. From what I can see all the factors that have traditionally caused a conflict between US and Indian interests are slowly disappearing. The only remaining issue of conflict is US support of Pakistan - a country that has dedicated itself and continues to engage itself in a long-term ideological and physical conflict with India.

So my question is: once both the Af and the Pak situations are stabilized, where is the scope for any "inevitable conflict of interest" between US and India? I am more worried about China investing billions into Afghanistan in order to gain influence there at the expense of Indian interests.

[sanjaychoudhry]

From what I can see all the factors that have traditionally caused a conflict between US and Indian interests are slowly disappearing.

You are wrong. The conflict between America and India is strategic and civilisational -- you are only focusing on tactical scenarios. The conflict will never disapper until one of them emerges a clear winner. This struggle relates to the roots of the civilisations of both the countries. Indian represents something that is a threat to the Western culture led by the US. It is in the best interests of the West to let India die, hence the mindless support to Pakistan and propping up insurgencies all around us, from Punjab to the Maoists.

[Rony]

The gap between India and US in terms of economic and military capabilities is too huge and as such America does not see a "direct" threat to its interests from India.US is a established super power while India is an "emerging" power. As long as India continues to stay in "emerging power" bracket, there will be friendship between US and India . But once India goes to the next stage in economical and military terms where in American perception, India attains the capabilities to inflict damage on American interests, *then* what are all today considered as 'convergence of interests' between US and India will become "conflict of interests". That is invitable. That is the *basic* rule of power relations.It has nothing to do with America being bad or India being good. Because the gap between China and India is not so huge compared to US and India, the Chinese consider India a direct threat to them compared to the Americans and hence China and India are rivals. US courted china in 70s when china was weaker than the Soviets.Now with russia being weak, they rightly consider the chinese direct threat. In the future *if* 1) India's GDP exceeds america's *and* 2) India develops a genuine 12,000 KM range ICBM and long range SLBM armed submarine fleet , then US will start consider seeing India as direct threat to them. 1) might happen around 2050 2)India's pacifist and risk averse leadership might develop just 'technology demonstrators' but may not fully deploy them. Hence US and India's friendship will stay longer time than US -China's friendship of 70s. Added in this puzzle would be the US -China love -hate relationship. The Americans as their power recedes will be tempted some time in the future to acknowledge china as the 'leader' of Asia in return for chinese concessions in other areas. If that happens, all bets are off on US -India ties and we revert back to the cold war era India- Russia - Vietnam vs China-US-Pak days.

[Jarita]

SanjayChoudhary
Very well said/
Too many pple seem to be losing sight of this

[V_Raman]

You are wrong. The conflict between America and India is strategic and civilisational -- you are only focusing on tactical scenarios. The conflict will never disapper until one of them emerges a clear winner. This struggle relates to the roots of the civilisations of both the countries. Indian represents something that is a threat to the Western culture led by the US. It is in the best interests of the West to let India die, hence the mindless support to Pakistan and propping up insurgencies all around us, from Punjab to the Maoists.

aha! finally someone spells out the western angst w.r.t india. i dont know if india considers this a conflict. therein lies our strength and survival. but india seems to be fast centralizing. any central power eventually decentralizes and weakens. india needs to be decentralized political/economic state, but a centralized security state to survive in the long term.

[Dhiman]

From what I can see all the factors that have traditionally caused a conflict between US and Indian interests are slowly disappearing.

You are wrong. The conflict between America and India is strategic and civilisational -- you are only focusing on tactical scenarios. The conflict will never disapper until one of them emerges a clear winner. This struggle relates to the roots of the civilisations of both the countries. Indian represents something that is a threat to the Western culture led by the US. It is in the best interests of the West to let India die, hence the mindless support to Pakistan and propping up insurgencies all around us, from Punjab to the Maoists.

Why would India be a threat to western culture or vice versa? Is west forcing its culture on India or is India forcing its culture on the west?

The gap between India and US in terms of economic and military capabilities is too huge and as such America does not see a "direct" threat to its interests from India.US is a established super power while India is an "emerging" power. As long as India continues to stay in "emerging power" bracket, there will be friendship between US and India . But once India goes to the next stage in economical and military terms where in American perception, India attains the capabilities to inflict damage on American interests, *then* what are all today considered as 'convergence of interests' between US and India will become "conflict of interests". That is invitable. That is the *basic* rule of power relations.

From what I can see your basic assumption is that both India and the west want to dominate the world, so this will result into a battle for world domination in which people will perceive simplest of differences as major deep seated ideological differences that is worth fighting for. Sounds a bit far fetched at this point since I don't really subscribe to the basic assumption being made here (i.e everybody is interested in world domination), but I can understand this.

Perhaps at the lack of any real differences, India will start asserting that killing animals for food is inhumane and west will assert its right to kill animals for food, ultimately that will lead to a classic good vs. evil battle. People will invent differences where there aren't really any

[Rony]

Dhiman, no where in my entire para i mentioned about "world domination". I only mentioned about capabilities. India historically never choose to go after 'world domination' either in hard power or in soft power although because of its size and philosophical and cultural ideas it did became semi-world power at certain points of time.So even in the future, India wont go for 'world domination' even by chance it gets the power to do so.What i was trying to say was even genuine Indian regional interests will collide with america's global interests *if* India attains the capability to stand head to head with america. Of course then there will be division of resources and all that. All and all i dont see how India and US can be allies *if* India attains the capability to solve its own regional problems without american help.If some years down the line, if India asks america to wind of diego garcia or america *inspite* of rise of India's power asks India to continue to tolerate pakistani extremism, where do you think the relations will go ? I am not suggesting it will be enmity but more like regional rivalry.

[svinayak]

If some years down the line, if India asks america to wind of diego garcia or america *inspite* of rise of India's power asks India to continue to tolerate pakistani extremism, where do you think the relations will go ? I am not suggesting it will be enmity but more like regional rivalry.

There is increasing likely that Indian interest will go against US interest in the region and also some of the global issues such as climate control.
US policies will go against Indian security policies and expansion. Some of the US policies are designed to limit and also cut of increasing Indian influence in the world due to growing population.The support to Pakistan which is a region of intersection in geography and culture and supporting it as a extreme Islamic country is designed for one purpose.
Out right war and mass population casualties have been war gamed as some of the scenarios in the future.

[A_Gupta]

Silk Road Harvest

Kabul/New Delhi, Nov.24 (ANI): The first shipment of Afghan apples for sale in the Indian market - branded the ‘the Silk Road Harvest’ - left Kabul for New Delhi by an Air India Flight on November 11, 2009.

This very special consignment was seen off at a function at the airport by the Afghan Minister for Agriculture, India’s Ambassador in Afghanistan and farmers from the provinces of Kandahar, Ghazni, Paktia and Wardak.

According to a Ministry of External Affairs press release issued on Monday (November 23), in the Indian market, Afghan farmers will be able to receive four times the current low price that they are receiving for their apple exports. USAID experts in the Afghan Ministry of Agriculture have assisted with technical advice and marketing linkages with supermarkets and fruit markets in Delhi. The Government of India facilitated the mandatory Pest Risk Analysis for Afghan apples and will assist Afghanistan in training Afghan experts in meeting the phyto-sanitary standards required.

[Philip]

"There has to be a better way".Indeed there is,if only the O-Team and the Pentagon and asinine Stae Dept. can think clearly.the problem is not in Afghanistan but Pakistan,where the US is further fanning the flames with even more shipments of arms and aid to Pak.Pak and the ISI begat the Taliban,Pak and the ISI took over Kabul earlier and allowed the "Sheikh" ,Osama Bin Laden to base himself and Al Q's HQ there,Pak is sheltering the Sheikh,Paki is still sending the Taliban (under its control ) over the broder to Afghanistan to kill American troops,Pak is under attack ONLY from those fundamentalist factions that see its military leadership in cahoots with the US,even though it is meerely paying lip service to the Yanquis.

What Uncle O should do is to impose full sanctions upon Pak and watch that state collapse and its military leadership and the ISI brought to its knees.The internal chaos,when its economy collapses, will bring about the people on the streets as they did when Gen.Bandicoot was in power when he sacked the CJ.
When the state is at the very end of its existence,the US can then rein in Pka's nukes before they inevitably land up in the hands of the ungodly.The entire security apparatus is being transformed into hard line Muslim fanatics who will by default possess the bomb.When they have full control,in transition now with Gilani,the sh*t will truly hit the fan.

The key quote:

He says the last four administrations have failed to understand the one universal motivating factor of Muslims: their Islamic faith. This faith guides everything they do, and is more pervasive and durable in its influence on individuals, personal relationships, community affairs and international relations than any of the other great religions of the world.

There has to be a better way
By June Bower — special to the CNA

SharePresident Obama’s decision to substantially increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan was not the decision I wanted to hear.

I was pretty sure he was headed in that direction when I heard him say recently he wanted to finish the job. With almost 100,000 troops assigned to the task of fighting the war in Afghanistan, he and his generals apparently believe we can win. I just don’t know what they mean by “winning” or what the president meant by “finishing the job.”

I wish now I hadn’t just read a book called “Marching Toward Hell – America and Islam After Iraq” by Michael Scheuer. If he’s right about how Islamist terrorists think, we are in a world of hurt with this so-called new strategy for Afghanistan.

Scheuer is a 22-year CIA veteran, and currently a professor of security studies at Georgetown University. From 1996 to 1999, he served as chief of the bin Laden CIA unit, and later worked as a special adviser to that unit from 2001 to 2004. He begins his book with the premise that even 200,000 or more troops would have only the slightest chance of succeeding at what he calls Washington’s Afghan nation-building project.

Scheuer believes American politicians have failed miserably in understanding the enemy. Conservative leaders tell us terrorists are jealous of our liberty, freedom and democratic elections, while liberal leaders tell us terrorism is caused by poverty, poor health, illiteracy and hopelessness.

Scheuer calls both these premises nonsense.

He says the last four administrations have failed to understand the one universal motivating factor of Muslims: their Islamic faith. This faith guides everything they do, and is more pervasive and durable in its influence on individuals, personal relationships, community affairs and international relations than any of the other great religions of the world.

According to Scheuer and other terrorism experts, Osama bin Laden attacked America because he and his followers didn’t want us in their region. They had been angry ever since the Gulf War in 1991 when western nations drove Saddam out of Kuwait. They didn’t like Saddam particularly, but, more importantly, they resented mightily us being on their soil.

When the U.S. continued to maintain a military presence in the region, bin Laden’s followers began to attack Americans around the world as early as 1992. Scheuer says al-Qaida’s 9-11 attack was a defensive reaction to U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world. They wanted us out of Arabian territory then; they continue to want us out today.

But, now, we’ve just signed on for another three years of occupation, which is just going to make Muslims hate us even more.

Scheuer says for us to believe we can turn Islamic nations into democracies is ridiculous and he blasts the Bush administration for not having the slightest understanding of Islamist theology and history before invading Iraq. He scoffs at the idea that we can create democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan in three or four short years and says it shows a frightening ignorance even of our own history, pointing out that Americans had 150 years of self-governing experience before the Declaration of Independence was ever signed.

Since 1989, western diplomats have been obsessed with building western-style secular democracies in places where they are not wanted. Scheuer had predicted U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East would not change with the election of Barack Obama, and after listening to the president’s speech Tuesday night, I’m afraid he was right.

I was hoping Obama would withdraw troops and find better ways of protecting America. I thought we could better protect ourselves from terrorists by fiercely guarding our own borders and beefing up intelligence and security. I wanted to concentrate on ending our dependence on foreign oil instead of trying to protect our access to oil in the Arabian Peninsula.

I wanted to save the $1 million it costs us annually to keep each individual soldier engaged in war.

I wanted to save the billions we’re spending in Iraq and Afghanistan rebuilding their schools, government buildings, roads, bridges and electrical systems, and use it for our own schools, buildings, bridges and electrical systems. I didn’t want our children to suffer decades of war that has resulted in so little gain but cost us dearly in life, limb and treasure.

As I listened to the president’s speech, I thought how much his words echoed those of the previous administration, and I was very disappointed.

Our founding fathers warned against military intervention abroad, but we continue today to fight wars in foreign lands and to believe we can win over Muslim hearts and minds while occupying their nations.

We create more enemies every day we remain there. Why is that so hard for Washington to understand?

[vishwakarmaa]

There has to be a better way
By June Bower — special to the CNA

SharePresident Obama’s decision to substantially increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan was not the decision I wanted to hear.

I was pretty sure he was headed in that direction when I heard him say recently he wanted to finish the job. With almost 100,000 troops assigned to the task of fighting the war in Afghanistan, he and his generals apparently believe we can win. I just don’t know what they mean by “winning” or what the president meant by “finishing the job.”

I wanted to save the billions we’re spending in Iraq and Afghanistan rebuilding their schools, government buildings, roads, bridges and electrical systems, and use it for our own schools, buildings, bridges and electrical systems. I didn’t want our children to suffer decades of war that has resulted in so little gain but cost us dearly in life, limb and treasure.

One sided story of how great America is for re-building schools in Iraq, which they destroyed in blind bombings. Also, as if Iraqis can't do so themselves. He deleted other part of story, the loot of Iraqi Oil,Gas and natural resources on which American dollar empire is running now. Also, the rampant proliferation of church militia in Iraq now poses a threat to native culture in region.

Typical psy-op article with hollywood style half-truth.

[krisna]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and- ... full.story

Obama vows to break Taliban

(with help of good pakitaliban)

Based on Obama's schedule, the war would begin to wind down nearly 10 years after it began -- and as the 2012 presidential campaign begins to heat up.

Although the commitment falls somewhat short of the 40,000 troops McChrystal had requested,

The Obama administration is hoping that North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies will contribute as many as 5,000 additional troops.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and- ... 3885.story

Under strong pressure from the Obama administration, NATO said Friday that its members would add 7,000 soldiers to the 40,000 non-American allied troops already in Afghanistan.

The new troop commitment, announced at a meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels, includes about 2,500 soldiers who are already in the Central Asian nation, many of whom were sent for the recent elections and will stay on.

http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/02/europe ... mes_inline

Of the roughly 110,000 foreign troops now in Afghanistan, 68,000 are American. The United Kingdom provides the second-largest contingent, with 9,000 troops, and has pledged another 500 in the coming months. Germany has the third-largest force, with 4,365 troops, followed by France's 3,095 soldiers. Canada, Italy and the Netherlands have between 2,000 and 3,000 troops in country as well. It will take very talented diplomatic arm-twisting to bring about sizable increases in those numbers.

[RamaY]

Every US administration knows that the problem is Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Yet they support Pakistan. By some calculations Pakistan gets more aid than Afghanistan. That means Pakistan has better net strategic value to USA. What that could be?

That is the direction where Acharya-jis and Jarita's point to.

[Dhiman]

All and all i dont see how India and US can be allies *if* India attains the capability to solve its own regional problems without american help.If some years down the line, if India asks america to wind of diego garcia or america *inspite* of rise of India's power asks India to continue to tolerate pakistani extremism, where do you think the relations will go ? I am not suggesting it will be enmity but more like regional rivalry.

There is no reason why white people from thousands of miles away should be holding territory in the middle of Indian ocean. The sooner they are kicked out the better. Once this Af-Pak Fak-Ap starts getting stabilized, India should start putting increasing pressure on UK/US evil colonial empires to wind up their crackpot ops in Diego Garcia and abdicate Diego Garcia forever with no rights to step foot in the area ever again even as tourists.

[vishwakarmaa]

There is no reason why white people from thousands of miles away should be holding territory in the middle of Indian ocean. The sooner they are kicked out the better. Once this Af-Pak Fak-Ap starts getting stabilized, India should start putting increasing pressure on UK/US evil colonial empires to wind up their crackpot ops in Diego Garcia and abdicate Diego Garcia forever with no rights to step foot in the area ever again even as tourists.

Agree on this.

But I doubt West aping puppet lobby will allow GoI to follow a confident foreign policy. They would love GoI to remain under Western umbrella so that they keep getting baksheesh from Western MNCs in form of pony deals.

I am strong supporter to the view that India should send its army to Afghanistan and ask USA,NATO to leave the region. Create a permanent Indian military base in Afghanistan until Afghan army matures and equips itself to be powerful enough to answer Pakistan Army on border.

Western presence in Afghan is no good for India. Sooner or later, India has to take "decisive" and "confident" steps if she is really want to see herself as a regional power.

Without fighting war, you don't become a power. You can only become a poodle(Japan) which confines itself within its borders. Those who cross borders and take control of things into own hands become powers. Examples are Russia in Georgia, China in Vietnam.

Mr.MMS, this is a perfect time to take a call in history. This is an opportunity which is being offered to get out of shell.

Confidence and guts of Indians is real issue here. To become a geo-politic power, India shouldn't shy shedding blood on foreign lands for achieving security at home and region. Others(Russia, China) prooved they can do it. I won't blame just leaders here. Indian Common people are same. IC-781 incident and relatives begging like idiots in media to release terrorists, is good example of insanity. Same will happen with soldiers families, they will force India to bring Indian army back from wars.

This alone will decide if India becomes a poodle(Japan) of West or it becomes a confident and active power(Russia, China) in next 5 to 6 years.

One thing is sure though. Americans doesn't want to see Russia out of India. They "want" India to follow Japan model. Be a good boy and send army as "addition" to western troops which will operate under western controls in Afghanistan.

Can India do it? In my opinion, not possible. 250 years of cultural and social oppression under British has left a deep moral, and lack of self-respect,confidence in Indian psyche that they are not made up as a "war material".

This fact is represented in Indian freedom struggle which was suicidal. Instead of fighting for freedom, Indians killed themselves with massive hunger strikes and those who were fighting with British were abandoned as militants by main Indian freedom leader(Mahatma Gandhi) and he got most public support in his hunger strikes movement. Very few Indians today know that India got freedom because Britain was very weak after World-war II and Gandhi had no role in freedom but in fact, he "delayed" Indian freedom by opposing open war against British rulers. In constrast, China fought wars for its freedom. War and power-games are for advanced societies only, which are Chinese, Anglo-saxons, Russian Caucasians which have guts to shed blood on war-ground.

If this was not enough then, India repeated mistakes of 1962,1965 wars in 1971 and left the enemy of Indian state walk free, just for sake of petty selfish domestic minority votebank politics. I. Gandhi had guts but a short-sighted leader, not visionary in this case. Because of her grand mistakes of granting a "pardon" to Pakistan in 1971, India is spending billions of dollars today in Kashmir and borders. A visionary leader fixes problem once for all while a short-sighted leader is confused with short-term benefits(Muslim votes, fame in world for being peace messenger). Clearly, she was the latter.

Indians need to find confidence, in their own culture first before talking about being world-power.

A country who dumped its own roots and adopted a western system, doesn't stand a chance to become a leader comparable to Russia,China,USA. It will only end up as a poodle even if tries to. First recognize your roots. Thats the start.

[Atri]

Reconquest of Gilgit and Northern Areas in exchange of Indian boots in Af-Pak.

We have to be ready to put boots on ground in Afghanistan ( to protect our investments) when we are asked by the anglo saxons but bargain hard - why not a land corridor through northern areas, 100 km wide. Independent command and staying in the north of afghanistan

An excellent idea, however, directly in contradiction with Chinese interests. Their entire investment in Gwadar is wasted if this happens. Given the tango of Ombaba with Hu, I doubt whether this bargain will be offered to India in near term. Instead, PRC may offer to put Chinese boots on Afghan territory to stabilize the region. Anyways Obama has indirectly hinted as informal "G-2" agreement and distribution. If this happens, India (and US and EU and Russia in long term) will fall in deep shit.

if NATO stays in Pak-Afghan region for 12-15 years more (which most probably they will), they will end up exhausting and squandering most of their wealth and lots of their men in the region.

The direct beneficiaries of this scenario will be China, Islamic world and in weird way, India. I consider this situation similar to one in deccan in late 1600's when 27 year long Deccan conquest of Aurangjeb ended up weakening Mughal empire and strengthening Marathas. Now, who will play the role similar to the one which Marathas played in 1700's is matter of great interest.

- http://kalchiron.blogspot.com/2009/02/w ... er-15.html

Now, India, Sunni/Wahabi Islamic caliphate and PRC have opportunity to rise over the ruins of the west. Reality tells us that PRC and Islamic confederacy have higher chances of assuming the mantle, than India. NATO asking India to deploy troops in Afghanistan won't happen until India proves that it can do it any ways. For that, India needs a land-access to Afghanistan via Northern areas.

The point is, when NATO decides to quit, the strongest in the region will take its place (through formalization by west), just like Mughals asked marathas (marathas would have done it anyways, Mughals simply declared victory after downhill skiing). Fortunately then the strongest were Marathas.

Unfortunately now, the strongest in the region are Chinese (with dense network of Asian-Highway project, they are well placed to mobilize troops in Afghanistan via Xinjiang and Wakhan corridor. US is already thinking of relinquishing Asia to Chinese. Why OR for what will anglo-saxons ask India to do the job, unless it is clear that India is in position of doing that any ways, in spite of NATO's choice.

For that, India needs to win back NA beforehand and develop road network there and establish contact with CAR. If NATO is thinking of asking India to assume the principle role in af-pak in mid-term(10 years); then

1. India should be allowed to win back NA and KSA funding should stop to Pakistan OR
2. Iran-India relations must be allowed to strengthen; OR
3. NATO must ensure an independent Baluchistan meanwhile, if Iran is to be enervated.

[Guddu]

[quote="Chiron"]Reconquest of Gilgit and Northern Areas in exchange of Indian boots in Af-Pak.

An excellent idea, however, directly in contradiction with Chinese interests. Their entire investment in Gwadar is wasted if this happens. Given the tango of Ombaba with Hu, I doubt whether this bargain will be offered to India in near term.

1. "India should be allowed to win back NA and KSA funding should stop to Pakistan OR
"

Chironji, as long as we seek permission, we will be denied. We need to do whatever is in our interests and not seek approval.

[Atri]

Reconquest of Gilgit and Northern Areas in exchange of Indian boots in Af-Pak.

An excellent idea, however, directly in contradiction with Chinese interests. Their entire investment in Gwadar is wasted if this happens. Given the tango of Ombaba with Hu, I doubt whether this bargain will be offered to India in near term.

1. "India should be allowed to win back NA and KSA funding should stop to Pakistan OR

"

Chironji, as long as we seek permission, we will be denied. We need to do whatever is in our interests and not seek approval.

Although our options are expanding along with our capabilities, this power (which you are suggesting will not be present with India for at least a decade, Guddu ji. One cannot make entire world one's enemy and hope to succeed. But that does not mean one should sit quite until then. I guess this will be India's move in case of an overtly apparent NATO fatigue in fak-ap...

[Vikas]

But I doubt West aping puppet lobby will allow GoI to follow a confident foreign policy. They would love GoI to remain under Western umbrella so that they keep getting baksheesh from Western MNCs in form of pony deals.

I am strong supporter to the view that India should send its army to Afghanistan and ask USA,NATO to leave the region . Create a permanent Indian military base in Afghanistan until Afghan army matures and equips itself to be powerful enough to answer Pakistan Army on border.

Western presence in Afghan is no good for India. Sooner or later, India has to take "decisive" and "confident" steps if she is really want to see herself as a regional power.

Without fighting war, you don't become a power. You can only become a poodle(Japan) which confines itself within its borders. Those who cross borders and take control of things into own hands become powers. Examples are Russia in Georgia, China in Vietnam.

Mr.MMS, this is a perfect time to take a call in history. This is an opportunity which is being offered to get out of shell.

Confidence and guts of Indians is real issue here. To become a geo-politic power, India shouldn't shy shedding blood on foreign lands for achieving security at home and region. Others(Russia, China) prooved they can do it. I won't blame just leaders here. Indian Common people are same. IC-781 incident and relatives begging like idiots in media to release terrorists, is good example of insanity. Same will happen with soldiers families, they will force India to bring Indian army back from wars.

This alone will decide if India becomes a poodle(Japan) of West or it becomes a confident and active power(Russia, China) in next 5 to 6 years.

One thing is sure though. Americans doesn't want to see Russia out of India. They "want" India to follow Japan model. Be a good boy and send army as "addition" to western troops which will operate under western controls in Afghanistan.

Can India do it? In my opinion, not possible. 250 years of cultural and social oppression under British has left a deep moral, and lack of self-respect,confidence in Indian psyche that they are not made up as a "war material".

This fact is represented in Indian freedom struggle which was suicidal. Instead of fighting for freedom, Indians killed themselves with massive hunger strikes and those who were fighting with British were abandoned as militants by main Indian freedom leader(Mahatma Gandhi) and he got most public support in his hunger strikes movement. Very few Indians today know that India got freedom because Britain was very weak after World-war II and Gandhi had no role in freedom but in fact, he "delayed" Indian freedom by opposing open war against British rulers. In constrast, China fought wars for its freedom. War and power-games are for advanced societies only, which are Chinese, Anglo-saxons, Russian Caucasians which have guts to shed blood on war-ground.

If this was not enough then, India repeated mistakes of 1962,1965 wars in 1971 and left the enemy of Indian state walk free, just for sake of petty selfish domestic minority votebank politics. I. Gandhi had guts but a short-sighted leader, not visionary in this case. Because of her grand mistakes of granting a "pardon" to Pakistan in 1971, India is spending billions of dollars today in Kashmir and borders. A visionary leader fixes problem once for all while a short-sighted leader is confused with short-term benefits(Muslim votes, fame in world for being peace messenger). Clearly, she was the latter.

Indians need to find confidence, in their own culture first before talking about being world-power.
A country who dumped its own roots and adopted a western system, doesn't stand a chance to become a leader comparable to Russia,China,USA. It will only end up as a poodle even if tries to. First recognize your roots. Thats the start.

I won't blame just leaders here. Indian Common people are same. IC-781 incident and relatives begging like idiots in media to release terrorists, is good example of insanity. Same will happen with soldiers families, they will force India to bring Indian army back from wars.

Another arm-chair critic with his contempt for GoI, PoI and families of soldiers and his CT with
Well are you not part of Indian common people whom you have dubbed as idiots ? When have families of soldiers forced the GOI to bring them back from war theaters. Were it not the same common idiot people who have thronged army recruitment centers during various wars
and backed their country to the hilt rather than dub their country to future poodle-dum. Thank God for SUCH Idiot people.

If this was not enough then, India repeated mistakes of 1962,1965 wars in 1971 and left the enemy of Indian state walk free

Gandhi had no role in freedom

Can you read your history rather than making juvenile statements.Also check your facts because it was Indian Airlines Flight 814 (call sign IC-814) and not IC-781.

This fact is represented in Indian freedom struggle which was suicida

But you are still alive and live in an independent country, aren't you that is assuming you live in India and by your post, doesn't look like you participated in that suicidal freedom struggle or you have any freakin' clue about the freedom struggle.

Can India do it? In my opinion, not possible. 250 years of cultural and social oppression under British has left a deep moral, and lack of self-respect,confidence in Indian psyche that they are not made up as a "war material".

Why this rant and whining and hoping GoI would follow your prescription when you already know in YOUR opinion that "THEY" are not made up as war material.

A country who dumped its own roots and adopted a western system, doesn't stand a chance to become a leader comparable to Russia,China,USA. It will only end up as a poodle even if tries to.

So what is the purpose of fighting wars and crossing borders.Anyways as per your opinion, would end up as Poodle.So why waste time,money ,resources and lives of soldiers on something which you have already declared as unachievable.
Have a great day!

[rsingh]

I am strong supporter to the view that India should send its army to Afghanistan and ask USA,NATO to leave the region. Create a permanent Indian military base in Afghanistan until Afghan army matures and equips itself to be powerful enough to answer Pakistan Army on border

.
Why would you want to spill Indian blood for problem created by unkil? Let them to realize that solving short term problem by creating long term problems is not smart idea. They are in stuck and they think Bakistan will help them. Let them to see reality. IMO sending Indian troops is not a smart idea. We have to keep Bakistanis busy milking Americans until America realizes their mistake.

This fact is represented in Indian freedom struggle which was suicidal. Instead of fighting for freedom, Indians killed themselves with massive hunger strikes and those who were fighting with British were abandoned as militants by main Indian freedom leader(Mahatma Gandhi) and he got most public support in his hunger strikes movement. Very few Indians today know that India got freedom because Britain was very weak after World-war II and Gandhi had no role in freedom but in fact, he "delayed" Indian freedom by opposing open war against British rulers. In constrast, China fought wars for its freedom. War and power-games are for advanced societies only, which are Chinese, Anglo-saxons, Russian Caucasians which have guts to shed blood on war-ground.

This argument is often heard from educated Punjabis ( uneducated folks come st to the point and give credit to the likes of Bhagat Singh). It is very difficult to explain power of ahimsa to the folks from Haryana Punjab. Armed revolutions unless handed very carfully and brutally.................never bring peace and stability. You talk about China...............please read chinese revolution and what it gave to China. They have world record of killing their own people because of their policies. All these modern Chinese achivements are due to West. West can stop tap any time. I lived in Russia before and during peristroika and I have seen people living in prison state. People want freedom more then anything; that is the difference between animals and human being. You can feed nationalism to people if they are not hungry. But this is very dangerous path. I am not sure India would be a democracy today if we had armed revolution leading to independence. So please leave Gandhi alone and try to read more about him before commenting.

A country who dumped its own roots and adopted a western system, doesn't stand a chance to become a leader comparable to Russia,China,USA. It will only end up as a poodle even if tries to. First recognize your roots. Thats the start.

Agree but we had to choose a system that gives voice to every body. It is very imporetent for multicultural country like India. We have to take best that suits to our requirement. Otherwise I fail to understand why you drive car the was invented in US, why watch TV which was inventd in west. Russia tried other system.............oops didn't work. Chinese are in other system which is kept alive by advancement of democratic free societies.

[A_Gupta]

Thriller writer Geoffrey Edward West Household (November 30, 1900 — October 4, 1988) or someone of the same era (sorry, my memory isn't what I remember it to be), wrote in one of his fiction books what in my opinion is a great compliment to Indian Sanskriti.

Namely, one of his (European) protagonists explains to another that Indians don't make good terrorists. When they have their target in the crosshairs, they tend to remember that they are about to hit a human being, and that induces a hesitation that is usually fatal to their efforts. People from various other (European) cultures tend not to have those hang-ups.

Shanti and Ahimsa are a deep cultural aspirations. While recognizing the necessity of self-defense, let us not abandon that. It alone will enable India to ride out the coming storms.

[JE Menon]

A timely statement A_Gupta. Very well said.

[Neshant]

I am strong supporter to the view that India should send its army to Afghanistan and ask USA,NATO to leave the region.

That is exactly what US wants - to offload this hugely expensive problem onto someone else.

This Afg training thing is an attempt to get India to pay the bills while they call the shots.

I do agree however that a stable Afg is in India's interest however India should not be left holding the bag.

In the end, US will just cut & run from Afghanistan after claiming victory against Al-Queda (if there even is such a group).

[shyamd]

I am glad US refused the Indian offer for troops in Afg. India should help train Afghan forces, We can get the US to airlift them into India. US did this for Iraqi's, sent Iraqi's secretly to Oman for training. Training is our bill, its our contribution - Ultimately a stable afghanistan is in India's interest. There was a small Indian unit(80 I think the number was) that was despatched in June/July last year for training Afghan forces?

[Dhiman]

I am strong supporter to the view that India should send its army to Afghanistan and ask USA,NATO to leave the region. Create a permanent Indian military base in Afghanistan until Afghan army matures and equips itself to be powerful enough to answer Pakistan Army on border

.
Why would you want to spill Indian blood for problem created by unkil? Let them to realize that solving short term problem by creating long term problems is not smart idea. They are in stuck and they think Bakistan will help them. Let them to see reality. IMO sending Indian troops is not a smart idea. We have to keep Bakistanis busy milking Americans until America realizes their mistake.

Afghanistan is not yet fit to govern itself and when it does become fit to govern itself, we want to make sure that its policies are India friendly rather than Pakistan or China friendly. India cannot afford to have an Afghanistan that allies with either Pakistan or China. We already have unfriendly states to the west (Pakistan) and north (China), would you rather let chance dictate whether the state to our northeast becomes friendly or unfriendly?

At this point in history, Afghans don't like Pakistanis and they have not yet engaged with Chinese in any significant way. So having strong Indian cultural influence and presence in Afghanistan significantly improves the odds of having a friendly Afghanistan since we would be able to better influence the future of Afghanistan with direct involvement rather than just wishing that all the problems will go away and Afghanistan would emerge as a friendly state.

If India succeeds in Afghanistan with direct involvement and Afghanistan becomes a secular, pluralist, open democracy (after say 50 years), then Pakistan will become a country that is surrounded by democracies on two sides and that itself will put pressure on Pakistan to reform. Also, it will also put pressure on China to limit its hostile activities against India. However, if Afghanistan goes in Pakistani or Chinese camps, the pressure on India will increase exponentially.

The alternative is to rely on Unkil to determine the level of influence that China, Pakistan, and India have on Afghanistan. As far as I can see that is simply too risky. Sending troops to Afghanistan and doubling aid to Afghanistan is the least that can be done at this point given the long-term security implications.

Anyone who thinks that India should not directly involve itself in Aghanistan is gambling with future of Indian security.

[SwamyG]

Shanti and Ahimsa are a deep cultural aspirations. While recognizing the necessity of self-defense, let us not abandon that. It alone will enable India to ride out the coming storms.

Both Shanti and Ahimsa can stand and benefit only if people stand up and protect the environment that cherishes these. DharmO Rakshati Rakshitah!!!

[rsingh]

Anyone who thinks that India should not directly involve itself in Aghanistan is gambling with future of Indian security

.
Chinese will never enter Afganistan. They are extreemly cautious about HD. Afganistan is a lawless wilderness composed of tribes......that are loosly bounded by religion. China sees Muslim world as its friend just as USSR used to think. China has always tried to avoid confrontation with muslim countries on international fora. Instead China bank on Bakistan to do the dirty work. China will be happy if Bakistan takes control of Afganistan. Now that is completly different issue. Unkil has seen the light it seems. Prolonged conflict may give birth to 2 or three new countries. Unkil is knee deep in mud and it is no business of Indians to bail him out. Remmember .........it is very easy to deploy forces but very difficult to pull out with HD intact. So do not panic and see the katl-e-Bakistan from front seat. Salam

[abhishek_sharma]

Afghanistan is not yet fit to govern itself and when it does become fit to govern itself, we want to make sure that its policies are India friendly rather than Pakistan or China friendly. India cannot afford to have an Afghanistan that allies with either Pakistan or China. We already have unfriendly states to the west (Pakistan) and north (China), would you rather let chance dictate whether the state to our northeast becomes friendly or unfriendly?

At this point in history, Afghans don't like Pakistanis and they have not yet engaged with Chinese in any significant way. So having strong Indian cultural influence and presence in Afghanistan significantly improves the odds of having a friendly Afghanistan since we would be able to better influence the future of Afghanistan with direct involvement rather than just wishing that all the problems will go away and Afghanistan would emerge as a friendly state.

If India succeeds in Afghanistan with direct involvement and Afghanistan becomes a secular, pluralist, open democracy (after say 50 years), then Pakistan will become a country that is surrounded by democracies on two sides and that itself will put pressure on Pakistan to reform. Also, it will also put pressure on China to limit its hostile activities against India. However, if Afghanistan goes in Pakistani or Chinese camps, the pressure on India will increase exponentially.

The alternative is to rely on Unkil to determine the level of influence that China, Pakistan, and India have on Afghanistan. As far as I can see that is simply too risky. Sending troops to Afghanistan and doubling aid to Afghanistan is the least that can be done at this point given the long-term security implications.

Anyone who thinks that India should not directly involve itself in Aghanistan is gambling with future of Indian security.

If Pak-backed Taliban rules Afghanistan, India will bleed slowly. We can expect more terrorist attacks and IC-814 type hijackings.

However, if we send troops, we can expect hundreds, if not thousands, of fatalities. Is it worth it? Probably not.

[Atri]

If Pak-backed Taliban rules Afghanistan, India will bleed slowly. We can expect more terrorist attacks and IC-814 type hijackings.

However, if we send troops, we can expect hundreds, if not thousands, of fatalities. Is it worth it? Probably not.

Not if India has a continuous land-access to AFG, and preferably a sea-access too, via baluchistan..

death is part of warfare. you cant shy away from war to avoid death. Just that, if one decides to go for war, go for lasting peace and solution thereafter. IMO, China is well placed to deploy troops in AFG. Whether they will do it OR not, it remains to be seen...Pakis would definitely prefer them to takeover, instead of India. If PRC takes over, TSPA might even tone down the mujahideen resistance to PLA, just to facilitate their occupation. The worries for PRC is about that jihadi mentality spilling over in Xinjiang along with establishment of supply chain for east turkestanis.

So sooner or later the job is India's job. This is the responsibility of India.. AFG was part of Indic civilization and resisted the expansion of political Islam in AFG and subsequently in India for 250 years after fall of Iran in 7th century. India has that debt to repay.. There is no running away from that debt.

[Dhiman]

Anyone who thinks that India should not directly involve itself in Aghanistan is gambling with future of Indian security

.
Chinese will never enter Afganistan. They are extreemly cautious about HD.

Myanmar is under a military dicatorship, yet stable. Myanmar is also under Chinese influence, despite the fact that historically Myanmar has always fallen under Indian control. By not entering Afghanistan in a big way, India is basically inviting China to bring Afghanistan under its influence. Keep in mind that Afghanistan is another state that has historically fallen under Indian influence. This is exactly what the Chinese did in Myanmar becuase India tried to completely isolate Myanmar by not even trading with Myanmar. The mistake was realized only after Myanmar came firmly under Chinese influence and now India is trading with Myanmar (but that is unlikely to bring much benefit to India as history has already been written).

If India does enter Afghanistan in a big way, we will be in a much better position to ensure that Afghan government does not come under Chinese influence like the way Myanmar government has come under Chinese influence. We slept while China was taking over Myanmar by co-opting Myanmar's economy and by settling Han Chinese into Myanmar's territory bordering China. We also slept while China took over Tibet and if we continue to sleep and not do anything about Afghanistan, rest assured, China will extend its influence over Afghanistan as well.

In Afghanistan India has a unique opportunity to not repeat past mistakes of sitting idle while the Chinese extended their influence over Tibet and Myanmar.

Unkil has seen the light it seems.

Unkil will be more than happy to surrender Afghanistan to Chinese influence and get out even if that means that Afghanistan becomes another Myanmar which would automatically create more pressure on India just like Tibet and Myanmar create pressure on India. By entering Afghanistan in a big way, we ensure Afghanistan development as a democratic country friendly to Indian security interests.

Remmember .........it is very easy to deploy forces but very difficult to pull out with HD intact. So do not panic and see the katl-e-Bakistan from front seat. Salam

Nobody is talking about pulling out. If Indian troops enter Afghanistan, they stay there for next 500 years and any loss of live will be small as compared to long term security that it brings to India and its 1+ billion people. Unkil will withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as Afghanistan is half as stable is Myanmar today and as soon as their is no threat from Taliban to American interests. At that time China will step in exactly like they have done in Myanmar. And if that happens, rest assured, we are surrendering the security of our Northern (Chinese), Eastern (Myanmar), and North Western (Afghanistan) borders to China. The long term pressures on India of such a situation unfolding is extremely bleak. To avoid this, India must get involved in Afghanistan in a big way.

[Prasad]

A question to those who are in favour of indian intervention in afghanistan -

The americans entered afghanistan to hunt down obl, mo and al-qaeda, setup a working democracy and get the hell out of dodge. They fumbled, went into iraq and totally lost the plost. They are now stretched fighting two wars and unable to dictate course of action in either country. It is not certain what the future holds and unless they are struck by a divine spark, out of ideas as to what to do other than cutting losses, announce a 'grand' victory a few years down the line and retreat.

In this situation, how exactly should india intervene? India is currently involved in reconstruction activity - parliament building? schools? roads, infrastructure etc. Not sure about political support. We did provide support for the elections iirc. We turned down armed support back in ABVs time.

If we are to move in militarily, what would the objectives be in realistic, practical achievable terms? What are we going to set out to achieve? How would we be able to ensure that we don't get bogged down like the americans are currently? How are we going to ensure a peaceful democratic process in a country of IEDs? What are we going to bring to the table of the afghans in terms of a political settlement to the country that the fighting stops and they get on with country-building? Can we please have definite answers towards these? That imho would help to decide if we really should be involved militarily in afghanistan. Not questioning other forms of intervention/support to their rebuilding.

[abhishek_sharma]

Nobody is talking about pulling out. If Indian troops enter Afghanistan, they stay there for next 500 years and any loss of live will be small as compared to long term security that it brings to India.

If we are involved in a UN-type peacekeeping mission, then the causalities would be small. We can be pretty sure that the Pakis will find it easier to motivate their citizens to fight against us. This implies that we would face a full-scale guerilla war and the loss of lives would not be insignificant.

[Hari Seldon]

Afghanistan is a collection of tribes that can also broadly be described as subnationalities. What is the level of support for a united afgn am,ong all these tribes? I can imagine the hazaras not wanting to live under sunni pusthun domination should the yanks pull out and the talibs retake kabul. Nor would the tajiks and the uzbeks be that welcoming of a TSP proxy rule in the country either.

Point is, maybe breaking up Afgn could be a possible exit strategy for unkil? Rendering the entire area unusable for other powers as well.

[Atri]

A question to those who are in favour of indian intervention in afghanistan -

The americans entered afghanistan to hunt down obl, mo and al-qaeda, setup a working democracy and get the hell out of dodge. They fumbled, went into iraq and totally lost the plost. They are now stretched fighting two wars and unable to dictate course of action in either country. It is not certain what the future holds and unless they are struck by a divine spark, out of ideas as to what to do other than cutting losses, announce a 'grand' victory a few years down the line and retreat.

In this situation, how exactly should india intervene? India is currently involved in reconstruction activity - parliament building? schools? roads, infrastructure etc. Not sure about political support. We did provide support for the elections iirc. We turned down armed support back in ABVs time.

If we are to move in militarily, what would the objectives be in realistic, practical achievable terms? What are we going to set out to achieve? How would we be able to ensure that we don't get bogged down like the americans are currently? How are we going to ensure a peaceful democratic process in a country of IEDs? What are we going to bring to the table of the afghans in terms of a political settlement to the country that the fighting stops and they get on with country-building? Can we please have definite answers towards these? That imho would help to decide if we really should be involved militarily in afghanistan. Not questioning other forms of intervention/support to their rebuilding.

Sooner OR later India will be asked by NATO in take care of AFG. May be in 10 years OR so, this will most probably happen..

It will be mostly establishing institutions and creating ANA and rebuilding measures until NATO is present. Thereafter, when NATO presence is greatly reduced, NATO may either call upon TSPA (if it exists till then) to occupy AFG along with PLA and establish law and order. OR alternatively IA will be summoned. In latter case, The military role of IA will only come if TSPA/Talibani forces start active struggle towards AFG occupation. Furthermore as long as proxy war for AFG control continues, ANA will be the helm of resistance towards TSPA and Talibani thrust. India needs a land access to replenish ANA and AFG, in such scenario. The replenishment of resources will need to be contributed by USA as well.

In this case, IA and IAF will require to have a permanent garrison in AFG to play a complementary role towards ANA and ANAF. After first few years of joint patrolling, the ANA will need to be given exceeding liberties, taking due care that the Jihadi tendencies are minimal amongst ANA jawans and officers. The institutions like NDA and IMA should greatly expand their capability of churning out talented officers to fill in the deficit of Indian armed forces, as well as build a base for ANA and ANAF. Perhaps it will require a construction of such infrastructure somewhere in AFG. The officers of ANA should be trained in discipline and mindset of IA.

Geopolitically, it becomes essential to unite the lands to the west of Sindhu river. NWFP must become AFG for effective control. Sindhu must be made the boundary between TSP and Afghanistan, that is much more of a natural boundary than artificial Durrand line. This again must be done by ANA (at least it must be seen that way by abduls of that region) with IA playing second fiddle, working under a Durrani C-i-C who is trained in discipline and mindset of IA. It is important to be seen that Afghans are unifying Afghanistan which would have been impossible without Indian help.

Meanwhile, GOI must build up enormous cultural ties with AFG, boost trade, make AFG similar to Nepal by taking the people in confidence. India can do that rather easily. The schools, colleges, universities, art galleries, bollywood movies, encouraging Pashto film/drama industry, science exhibitions, bla bla; basically all the soft-power projection stuff needs to be built up. All this requires a presence of at least 30 years. Thereafter GOI should decide what to do based on ground realities in AFG, NWFP and most importantly Pakjab and Gangetic plains. If Pakjab has been neutralized and defanged by then thoroughly and gangetic plains quelled, IA can either initiate the strategy of integrating AFG in greater Indian confederation OR assimilating it into Indian Union (like sikkim) OR withdrawing from AFG territory.

In either case, one has to remember that the region has to be kept in leash thereafter by extensive usage of soft-power. A cultural investment of 50 years in AFG at a stretch will ensure stable future of Indian heartland for next 200. meanwhile, India will move towards a federal structure.

Whatever be the case, IA won't be summoned until NATO fatigue in Af-Pak is starts becoming visible. Thereafter, the primary aim of IA is to keep ANA well equipped, backed up, and in correct state of mind which opposes the penetration of Jihadi mentality. As long as ANA is projected to be leading from front and IA is seen to have a secondary role, there should not be any problem for India to have military presence there for much longer...

The biggest direct role played here by Indian armed forces is in Arabian sea (blockading TSP) and Northern Areas (to avoid PRC direct help). rest can be managed by ANA. Something needs to be done regarding KSA's monetary support to TSP. India cannot do it alone, except by increasingly shifting to oil and gas from other sources and renewable energy resources.

[Raju]

>> Sooner OR later India will be asked by NATO in take care of AFG. May be in 10 years OR so, this will most probably happen..

within 4 years, it will happen all of sudden. They will take unilateral decision to withdraw. India must be prepared within that timeframe to undertake additional responsibilities.

[Johann]

By not entering Afghanistan in a big way, India is basically inviting China to bring Afghanistan under its influence. Keep in mind that Afghanistan is another state that has historically fallen under Indian influence.

When in power Taliban was willing to place limitations on the Uighurs for the Chinese, who were quite generous in their appreciation.

The Taliban was never willing to go as far against the Arab jihadis for either the USG or indeed even Arab governments.

A return to the Taliban-PRC agreement is probable if the Taliban were to triumph.

Whether even the Taliban can deliver to China, given the factional nature of Afghanistan and the Taliban is another question. The SCO 'Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure' is China's hedge for that.

[Rahul M]

India is in no position to nurture afghanistan all by herself. there has to be sustained diplomatic effort to maintain a non-pak, non-chinese international force presence in afghanistan for the next decade.

the perils of withdrawing now has to be hammered into the minds of every politician of every member country of ISAF, it will be a complete waste of everything that these countries have done in afghanistan since 2001. it will take a minimum of 4-5 years to train the afghan forces to take control of the country and there would still be need of a powerful international presence for at least 4-5 years from that time in order to stiffen the spine of afghan forces.

In return, India should be ready to commit troops (maximum of 10000 i.e around division strength similar to UK's commitment) and equipment (transport and attack helos, APCs etc) under a UN mandated force.