Afghanistan News & Discussion

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 27 Feb 2010 18:36

Planning for doomsday: should India send troops to Afghanistan?
Old news:Tuesday, 15 July 2008

It seems that there need to be a strong Indian military presence in Afghanistan not just for providing security to Indian doctors, construction workers, aid workers or training Afghan soldiers and policemen but also to raid Pakistani territory from Afghanistan. It's time that we pay back. Cooperation with world community can be possible in this area.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 27 Feb 2010 18:40

The stupid Americans are arming and abetting the Taliban through Pakistan. If they have taken a tough stance by hitting Pakis and not supplying the terrorists with dollars, this problem must have been solved long back. The American foreign policy is the worst in the world since it has always sided with terrorists and armed and abetted terrorism either directly or indirectly.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Feb 2010 19:07

uddu wrote:The stupid Americans are arming and abetting the Taliban through Pakistan. If they have taken a tough stance by hitting Pakis and not supplying the terrorists with dollars, this problem must have been solved long back. The American foreign policy is the worst in the world since it has always sided with terrorists and armed and abetted terrorism either directly or indirectly.

How will the US hammer Pakistan when they can't hammer the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Every country makes a big deal of the quantum of SF in J&K. To fight terrorists you require a great number and what the ISAF has is peanuts to even control Afghanistan, let alone Pakistan.

Yet, salami tactics may work.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Feb 2010 19:53

CFR Media Conference (x-posted from TSP thread)

A piece of the puzzle:

QUESTIONER: Yeah. Elizabeth Pond again.

I'm sorry. I missed the beginning of this. I hope you haven't addressed this already.

But what level of talks with the Taliban or contact with the Taliban does the U.S. seem to want when you're there on the ground? Only defectors in the village, not senior commanders? How about local commanders?

MARKEY: Yeah. I guess what I can say about reintegration and reconciliation is that there is a pretty clear and strong consensus among U.S. and other coalition forces that reintegration makes all the sense in the world and they're pursuing that to the extent that they can; that bringing low-level fighters, even low-level commanders, back in, trying to buy them off, providing them with opportunities to come back into the local economy and so on. All that is fairly uncontroversial.

But the debate has clearly moved onto the question of reconciliation, that being higher-order negotiations with Taliban, former Taliban and associates. And there, I would say confusion reigns.

You know, it's certainly not clear precisely where Karzai is going with this. I think a lot of U.S. and other internationals are concerned that he may be taking it in a direction that is good for his own personal interests, maybe good for the interests of his brother and several other Pashtun power brokers in the south and the east but maybe very detrimental to the interests of the north and west and non-Pashtuns in general; and that it may also be that he's looking for deals that would ultimately undermine U.S. -- and, you know, we've got some British outlooks on this -- U.S. and U.K. goals for Afghanistan and would threaten the core mission which, at the very least, is to preserve of Afghanistan that will be less likely to provide safe haven to international terrorists in the future.

And leaving aside, even, other concerns about human rights, women's rights, and so on, which are quite pervasive and which are directed tied to the idea of bringing back, you know, some of the worst of the Taliban leadership.

So, again, confusion reigns, and I think that confusion also translates into concern and also confusion and possibly worse on the Pakistani side of the border where they don't know what to make of this. They have been repeatedly told by the United States not to make deal with the Taliban. They are roundly chastised for allowing Taliban to have haven in Pakistan and not doing more about it. And here we see the Afghans themselves trying to do deals with the Taliban.

At least a mixed message here and possibly worse. So this needs to get hammered out. And I got a pretty strong sense of the worries and concerns along these lines while I was there.

QUESTIONER: As a quick follow-up to that, what are the concerns in terms of how the ethnic -- other ethnic groups are viewing this in terms of, say, how the Hazaras or the Tajiks or the Uzbeks and viewing what's happening in all this talk about negotiations, whether they're arming themselves or if there's fear if they're going to do so.

MARKEY: There is concern that they will. And I cannot break it down by ethnic group or by particular leader. We can't have enough time to really explore it at that kind of depth, but we did get an overview about the kind of conversations that are being had in the non-Pashtun communities, and they are scared about what this looks like. There has always been a kind of a concern that Karzai is not quite the figure of national unity that his symbolic attire might lead you to believe or that a lot of the rhetoric would lead you to believe -- the kind of rhetoric that we heard years back -- that he may, fact, simply be a Pashtun tribal leader who is looking to do well by his Pashtun tribal colleagues and everybody else will have to make their own way.

And we did not -- personally, I didn't get the sense that this is already leading to a massive shift in terms of hedging bets, buying arms, preparing for another round of civil war. No, I didn't hear that. What I did hear was, well, that would be the natural consequence if this continues to go down this path and we continue to be lacking a confidence in what Karzai is really up to.

So it's not here now, but it is a threat that could play into the next months and year.

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 27 Feb 2010 21:32

RayC wrote:
uddu wrote:The stupid Americans are arming and abetting the Taliban through Pakistan. If they have taken a tough stance by hitting Pakis and not supplying the terrorists with dollars, this problem must have been solved long back. The American foreign policy is the worst in the world since it has always sided with terrorists and armed and abetted terrorism either directly or indirectly.
How will the US hammer Pakistan when they can't hammer the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Every country makes a big deal of the quantum of SF in J&K. To fight terrorists you require a great number and what the ISAF has is peanuts to even control Afghanistan, let alone Pakistan.

Yet, salami tactics may work.

Pakis have an army, nuclear plants, missiles, Air Force which is a legitimate target like Iraq was. If the military infrastructure of Pakis is attacked, those jokers would fold like cheap suits as they did in 1971 and would have ended the terror campaign a long ago. Paki beggars are playing these games because of the money they can grab from uncle. It is in their best interests to keep the terrorism and Taliban going. Why leave billions of dollars of free money when idiots in DC are doling out a part of which is used by the beggars to kill marines in Afghanistan.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 27 Feb 2010 21:46

Carl_T wrote
In some cases they did not need to invade India after Darius due to their vassals, in others they did. However, since you do not see their control as "invasive" perhaps you can explain how the Sassanids established control to the Indus after Greek and Kushan rule.

I am "denying" conclusive evidence of "control/dominance". Since you claimed earlier that such control existed why not put up some refs in one of the history threads? It will be fun!

If you do not see warfare in the pre-Islamic era in India characterized by brutality and violence towards non-combatants, it would be great if you can characterize it. I will retract my statements!

Once again, you claimed that there were "equal-equal" violence, now clarified that "non-combatants" were also targeted. So the onus of proof is again on you. You will land up in quoting or "interpreting" narratives - which again will be fun for me! Even from the narratives it will be most difficult to construct support for violence on non-combatants in pre-Islamic narratives, whereas they are most common and religiously justified post advent of Islam.

The problem you get into "nations are the modern manifestations of ethnic identities" you're interpreting history through a modern conception of ethnic identity. Considering you've railed against using "modern conceptions to interpret history!" continuously, I find this quite interesting!

The argument that nations are modern versions of ethnic identities is an assumption more than anything else because that ethnic identity has to be imagined. (I think you know exactly what I'm talking about)

No contradiction here - imagined/reconstructed/changed whatever - they are still some concept of ethnicity - culture assumed to accrue by being derived through biological descent.

Any further discussion - can you please take it to any of the relevant history threads?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 27 Feb 2010 21:55

Actually India has a good excuse now since targeting of Indians have been established. India can "strongly" urge the AFG gov to accept Indian military presence to secure the humanitarian work being carried out by India. India can guarantee that India will leave AFG whenever any non-Taleban AFG government requests to do so, and that AFG soil is not being used by any group that targets India.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Feb 2010 00:06

Japan offered to hide Bamiyan statues, but Taliban asked Japan to convert to Islam instead

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Feb 2010 00:39

shaardula wrote:
ManuJ wrote:
On a different note, while driving home today, I heard the Afghanistan attack described on NPR news. It went something like this - "There was an attack on Afghanistan capital Kabul today in which about 16 people died. Among the dead was one Italian...." No mention that the attack was directed at Indians and the majority of the dead were Indians. After all, one Italian is so much more precious than six(?) Indians...Gives you a clue of where India and Indians are in American consciousness.
i too was listening to this and was very upset at their apathy.

Contact NPR and your local public radio station and express your dissatisfaction. And tell them you dont want to contribute any money due to incomplete if not inaccurate or mis-reporting.

It has to be a letter for they don't care.
And if you can post your response in the Psy-ops thread so others can follow-up too.
Upset is not enough.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 28 Feb 2010 00:55

Was the presence of Indian officers in Kabul publicly known or at least semi-public?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 28 Feb 2010 01:00

i don't think India should send troops. Rather India should use the same strategy US is using i.e drones that drop bombs. nothing like dropping a bomb on a taliban goon when he least expects it.

it will also give India a good opportunity to test out various war fighting concepts with UCAVs.

has DRDO developeed a simple UCAV mini bomber yet or are they still sleeping.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 28 Feb 2010 09:02

Blaming Iran for Taliban attacks in Herat

The Salma Dam on the Hari Rud river, funded by a 150 million US dollars grant from the government of India, is located in the district of Chesht-e-Sharif, 180 kilometres east of Herat city and well away from the border with Iran. Once completed, it will provide irrigation for 75,000 hectares of farmland and generate electricity. But Iran will lose the unfettered use of the water now flowing to it from the Hari Rud river.

When the governor of Chesht-e-Sharif district, Abdulqudus Qayam, was killed along with five security officials in mid-January, the Afghan media called it an insurgent attack. The Taleban accepted responsibility, but many in Herat saw it as part of a wider problem the province is having with Iran. Qayam had been instrumental in pushing the construction of the Salma Dam, according to Gulbuddin, head of the police battalion guarding the project.

While predominantly Shia Iran would seem to be an unusual partner for the overwhelmingly Sunni Taleban, observers have suggested that Iran may think that by keeping the United States pinned down in Afghanistan it will be unable to direct its full attention to Iran.

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 28 Feb 2010 11:57

Blast part of effort to drive India out

NEW DELHI: Damayanti Behn and Sunita Kumari were out when the Taliban assault team burst into their room in Kabul on Friday morning, shooting on the bed, under the bed, and in the wardrobe. They would have shot Basharat Pathan but let him go when they heard his name, thinking he was an Afghan, not aware Pathan is a famous name among Gujarati Muslims. {Err what is the implied suggestion here? Convert to the religion of peace and you will be safe? }

Major Deepak Yadav of the Army Education Corps was not. He was in Afghanistan to teach English to its security personnel, but the Taliban got him.

Major Jyotin Singh, unarmed, of the Army Medical Corps, working in the Indira Gandhi children's hospital, grappled with the suicide bomber forcing him to detonate himself outside the Arya guesthouse. This gave others nearby to run for cover and save themselves. But the Major from Manipur fell.

Bhola Ram, deputy general manager of Power Grid Corporation who was on his last month in Kabul, having completed the high-profile Pul-e-Khumri transmission link, was also killed.

Very curious way of showing gratitude for the 1.5 Bil spent to develop local infrastructure and civil society.
Not withstanding the Pacqui involvement and instigation one is hard pressed to believe that such repeated specific attacks are happening without significant local support.

There may be some in A'stan who may have some soft corner towards India but the pull of religion is much stronger for the vast majority making them sympathetic to the Talib/Pacquis. This is the only reason a ragtag army (albeit with the support of their TSP masters) was able to run over large parts of a country filled with well armed warlords. To believe that such a population can be bought over by building road/school/hydro-electric dams and bollywood fantasy is delusional. The soviets did lots of these infra development in 1950-70 and all that goodwill went up in smoke at the first touch with violent religious rhetoric. The current rulers may be antagonistic towards TSP but they have little hold over their own capital let alone the country which could be used for any strategic benefit by India.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 28 Feb 2010 12:09

Masaru wrote:Blast part of effort to drive India out

NEW DELHI: Damayanti Behn and Sunita Kumari were out when the Taliban assault team burst into their room in Kabul on Friday morning, shooting on the bed, under the bed, and in the wardrobe. They would have shot Basharat Pathan but let him go when they heard his name, thinking he was an Afghan, not aware Pathan is a famous name among Gujarati Muslims. {Err what is the implied suggestion here? Convert to the religion of peace and you will be safe? }

Major Deepak Yadav of the Army Education Corps was not. He was in Afghanistan to teach English to its security personnel, but the Taliban got him.

Major Jyotin Singh, unarmed, of the Army Medical Corps, working in the Indira Gandhi children's hospital, grappled with the suicide bomber forcing him to detonate himself outside the Arya guesthouse. This gave others nearby to run for cover and save themselves. But the Major from Manipur fell.

Bhola Ram, deputy general manager of Power Grid Corporation who was on his last month in Kabul, having completed the high-profile Pul-e-Khumri transmission link, was also killed.
Very curious way of showing gratitude for the 1.5 Bil spent to develop local infrastructure and civil society.
Not withstanding the Pacqui involvement and instigation one is hard pressed to believe that such repeated specific attacks are happening without significant local support.

There may be some in A'stan who may have some soft corner towards India but the pull of religion is much stronger for the vast majority making them sympathetic to the Talib/Pacquis. This is the only reason a ragtag army (albeit with the support of their TSP masters) was able to run over large parts of a country filled with well armed warlords. To believe that such a population can be bought over by building road/school/hydro-electric dams and bollywood fantasy is delusional. The soviets did lots of these infra development in 1950-70 and all that goodwill went up in smoke at the first touch with violent religious rhetoric. The current rulers may be antagonistic towards TSP but they have little hold over their own capital let alone the country which could be used for any strategic benefit by India.

It is not only religion, but good money that is there to fund them.

Afghans love money!

Kabuliwalas!

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 28 Feb 2010 12:32

What is the latest on Stanley Boy's exploits? Lindesy Von, Julia Mancuso, Apollo Ohno etc are hogging the headlines on US media. I assume Stanley boy has nothing much to show because entire US mouthpiece media were hyping up a non existant Tsunami threat to Hawaii. All of the investment, sending reporters etc went kaputz. Mother nature, for some reason always seems to target the less well off. I wonder what kind of God derives perverse pleasure hurtng the already hurt (Haiti, Chile etc). But coming back to Afghanstan, something is remiss. I cannot believe that unless US has a visible "victroy" to show off on Fox/CNN/BeeB, they will be happy with TSP ruling the roost. TSP celebration maybe yet be a bit premature

. As for India, as some others pointed, US media reports "There was a Taliban attack in Kanul in which at least 1 Italian was killed" (10+ Indians killed and scores injured is just random noise

).

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Feb 2010 16:04

Kabul attack similar to 26/11: Investigators

The terror attack in Kabul was on the pattern of the 26/11 Mumbai carnage, with six to eight terrorists targeting two hotels and hunting for victims during the strike in which nine Indians were killed.

Investigators suspect involvement of the Taliban, particularly the Haqqani group, in league with elements of Lashkar-e Taiba in Friday's assault, sources said.

The attack was carried out in a coordinated manner with the terrorists first exploding bombs and then launching the armed assault, hunting for the targets, particularly the members of the Indian medical mission, a pattern seen in Mumbai during the 26/11 attack, they said.

Two major-rank officers of the army were among the nine Indians killed and some others, including five army officers, were injured in the assault.

Yesterday's attack was the fourth on Indian interests in Afghanistan since July 2008 . . .

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Feb 2010 16:49

Neshant wrote:i don't think India should send troops. Rather India should use the same strategy US is using i.e drones that drop bombs. nothing like dropping a bomb on a taliban goon when he least expects it.

it will also give India a good opportunity to test out various war fighting concepts with UCAVs.

has DRDO developeed a simple UCAV mini bomber yet or are they still sleeping.

Boss, don't drag the DRDO into this!

We need concrete results and quickly too.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Feb 2010 16:56

brihaspati wrote:Actually India has a good excuse now since targeting of Indians have been established. India can "strongly" urge the AFG gov to accept Indian military presence to secure the humanitarian work being carried out by India. India can guarantee that India will leave AFG whenever any non-Taleban AFG government requests to do so, and that AFG soil is not being used by any group that targets India.

brihaspati ji,

Every one there (goras included) have been for long urging India to contribute militarily. The minute our troops land there, all the other "contributors" will withdraw post haste.

I think its India that is not convinced and very rightly so.

We should just increase security for our own guys.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 28 Feb 2010 22:19

What can Pakistan possibly do if we land troops on Afgh soil?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Feb 2010 22:39

Chetak ji,
landing troops in AFG is something of a good fortune you best wish on your enemy. Problem, is that does India have any or will have any choice? If POGWI gets a cut of the AFG pie, then also southern AFG will be used against India (excuses, excuses, excuses - they are Afghan non-state actors not one of us...blah blah). If POGWI doesn't get a cut, even then southern AFG will be used against India. It is one of the gretaest generators of non-budget income through the heroin trade that can be used by a wjole lot of players to carry out their covert ambitions.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Feb 2010 22:45

Carl_T wrote:What can Pakistan possibly do if we land troops on Afgh soil?

1) You don't really want to know.

2) The paki nightmare of encirclement would have truly begun.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Feb 2010 22:50

brihaspati wrote:Chetak ji,
landing troops in AFG is something of a good fortune you best wish on your enemy. Problem, is that does India have any or will have any choice?

Bridge to be crossed when reached saar.

How do you figure our supply lines would flow?

Sustained airlift is just out of the question.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 28 Feb 2010 22:53

chetak wrote:
Carl_T wrote:What can Pakistan possibly do if we land troops on Afgh soil?

1) You don't really want to know.

2) The paki nightmare of encirclement would have truly begun.

Isn't this the best time to encircle them? Taliban are on a retreat, once Unkil leaves, we will need to get in before TSP/Pakiban does.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Feb 2010 23:03

chetak ji,
ah we go back in cycles. No wonder our ancestors thought of histiry and time as cyclical. Last time we discussed this, we had a choice. Now perhaps there will be no choice.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Feb 2010 23:08

brihaspati wrote:chetak ji,
ah we go back in cycles. No wonder our ancestors thought of histiry and time as cyclical. Last time we discussed this, we had a choice. Now perhaps there will be no choice.

The wait is not so far off now brihaspati ji.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Mar 2010 00:16

I dont think Paki are aware that 2 new Mountain Divisions raised by India can easily be sent to Afghanistan .

This will be first appearance of Freddy Kruger in lonnnng nightmare for lucky Pakistan .

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 Mar 2010 01:35

Troops in AFG is not needed to sort out our problems. Whats needed is covert action. Besides RAW had prior intelligence of ISI & Hekmatyar meetings. RAW should have disrupted the efforts, but we are walking around with a bunch of mic's instead of guns.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 01 Mar 2010 02:01

I think troops in afg is needed to prevent pakization after unkil leaves.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Mar 2010 03:18

The Kabul Test

Ind Exp op-ed.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 01 Mar 2010 03:25

Sorry if this was posted here earlier. Beheading the Sikhs: Pak Taliban’s Historic Blunder

It is in this context that the unfolding drama across the border may revive the Khalistan demand in a new avatar. Current reports suggest that ISI is reviving the Khalistan insurgency. Good! This might become the agency’s biggest ever goof up. Because now all the Sikh militants who are given sanctuary by ISI in Pakistan could eventually switch loyalties. Egged on by Sikhs in India and their NRI financial backers abroad they could turn against ISI and Taliban. Defying New Delhi India’s Sikh militants could infiltrate into Pakistan not to seek sanctuary but to create disruption. There could develop for Pakistan a Kashmir syndrome in reverse. Might not Sikhs eventually seek common ground with the Pashtuns who share greater affinity with Afghanistan than with Pakistan ? Might not the Afghan Taliban, which does not share as much the long-term goals of the Al Qaeda as does the Pakistan Taliban, dump the ISI?

If such developments do occur the Khalistan demand might revive for a region encompassing as much of Pakistan ruled Punjab as the Indian Punjab. Along with Pashtunistan and Baluchistan, Khalistan too could become Pakistan’s headache. Islamabad and New Delhi, caught in the pincer move of Sikhs and the Pashtuns, could be compelled to fundamentally alter the present sub-continental arrangement.

Does this sound like a wildly improbable scenario? Perhaps. But do wait for at least one year before arriving at a final judgment.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 01 Mar 2010 03:41

Afghanistan needs a stong army under the command of its own government. Whatever India can do to help develop a strong Afghan army, we should and we must. We don't need to go to Kabul to fight Pak terrorists / Pak sponsored terrorists - plenty on our own door step / inside the house!

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 01 Mar 2010 04:35

Afghanistan needs a stong army under the command of its own government. Whatever India can do to help develop a strong Afghan army, we should and we must. We don't need to go to Kabul to fight Pak terrorists / Pak sponsored terrorists

What else would they be doing if not that?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 01 Mar 2010 07:34

~deleted~

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 01 Mar 2010 08:46

^^^Sending troops to Afghanistan would be a nightmare scenario, much as we would like it...The easiest logistics train passes through Pakistan (the primary reason why even the US puts up with Paki nonsense in A'stan), and dont presume the Pakis would be all that keen to facilitate supply to our troops! The other option would be a complicated, and hugely expensive air supply corridor through Iran - the expenses are far too much to even start thinking about..

The "best" option IMO would be to offer to train the Afghan National Army...Currently, we are deputing specialist trainers in A'stan (language, medical etc)..We should be making a grand offer to the US to train up Afghan soldiers in scale numbers..That is critical to the Obama plan of withdrawal by 2011...Given the ethnic composition of the ANA currently, primarily Tajiks and Hazaras (though they have been trying hard to induct Pushtoons), these guys wont agree to be trained in Pakistan..India can step in..And importantly, it can do the job much cheaper than the current US model (talk of outsourcing!!)..

If we train up 5-6 brigade strength troops, we can then also send selectively "advisors" to A'stan to continue the process...It will pretty much achieve most of the strategic objectives in Pak's feared nutcracker scenario...

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Mar 2010 09:09

Somebody removed my post

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 01 Mar 2010 09:14

Regarding the attack, was the presence of IA officers there publicly or semi publicly known?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Mar 2010 15:30

deleted - copyright

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 01 Mar 2010 16:04

and India has given a free run to pakis in nepal and b'desh... i think some napakis need to be taken out from there.. isnt nepal and b;desh our strategic backyard?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 01 Mar 2010 22:49

I wonder if powers-that-be are listening to this forum to pick up tips.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Mar 2010 01:18

If the Baloch's declare independence, that opens up a corridor from Gwadar. The more PRC invests in that port the better.