Rudradev wrote:What HAS the Chinese response been whenever Yindoos went to war with Pakistan before? A little innocuous saber rattling... even when Kissinger was practically begging them to get involved during the '71 conflict, that's as far as they were willing to go.
Chinese may have never entered into a full-fledged shooting match with India during an Indo-Pak war but they do force yindoostan to divert a significant portion of its military capability towards the northern and north-eastern frontier. In the end the effect is the same - the dilution of Indian offensive capability wrt Pakistan. Btw, I would advise caution on presuming that Chinese would hesitate to initiate war in AP during an Indo-Pak duel. As early as Kargil, they repeatedly tried to capture an inactive Indian airfield in Ladakh and pursued aggressive formation maneuvers in AP.
Rudradev wrote:See, China will give weapons and such galore to Pakistan. It will be very happy to see Yindoos and Pakis nuke each other. However, it's not about to put its own troops (or its own H&D) on the line to save the Pakis. India can seriously hurt them, and without an achievable geopolitical objective of real value to be gained, they're not going to send PLA into action for the Pakis' sake.
They will not do it for Pakistan but for themselves. A weakened India as a result of an Indo-Pak conflict is a very attractive target. Any Indian response to a Chinese infiltration is likely to be used as an excuse for a full-fledged assault in NE. Limited territorial gains will be the objective especially to bring some key monastaries under Chinese control.
Rudradev wrote:On the other hand... Indian troops in Afghanistan under an American aegis is exactly the kind of thing that makes Beijing feel that its geopolitical interests are being properly threatened. It will immediately see an Indo-American axis competing against it for access to Central Asian resources. It is this kind of thing... Indian naval exercises with Singapore and Japan for instance... which is far more likely to goad a serious Chinese military response. Not the survival of the Pakis, who are ultimately just a bunch of marginally useful monkeys from Beijing's point of view.
And on the other hand, continued WMD assistance to Pakistan is exactly the kind of thing that makes India feel that its geopolitical interests are being properly threatened. India will immediately see a Sino-Pak axis competing against for access to Central Asian resources. It is this kind of thing... Chinese naval exercises with Pakistan and Bangladesh for instance... which is far more likely to goad a serious Indian military response...
You catching my drift saar? So IMHO, Beijing can go to hell with its point of view. We can make them see our point of view as well, no?
Rudradev wrote:I don't know, boss, what incentive? Russia is being threatened by US/NATO expansion in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe, will they care enough about Indian participation in a NATO force in Afghanistan to help out against Chinese aggression? Or will Chinese cash payments for Russian weapons, and the need to develop the SCO as a strong geopolitical contender, prove a stronger influence on Moscow's actions?
There's an article (Pg 1 or 2, i think) in which the a senior Russian minister is quoted as saying that inspite of differences with US on many issues, Russian cooperation with US on Afghanistan will continue. So despite being threatened, why is it that Russia is still allowing its arch enemy USA to send non-lethal supplies via road across its territory? Why are they considering allowing the USA to transport weapons/ammo through their airspace? Because they know that in return they can force US to concede on NATO expansion and European BMD initiatives. If Russia can cooperate with its arch-enemy USA to that extent in realistic pursuit of its geo-strategic objectives in Afghanistan, why would they be so opposed to an Indian participation in Afghanistan which does not in any way conflict with Russian objectives?
Rudradev wrote:Similarly what have the Japanese ever had to fear from "Al-Qaeda"? And why would they jeopardize a Sino-Japanese trade relationship worth $236 Billion by menacing China on behalf of Indian troop deployment in Afghanistan?
I agree with you here. Japan's participation in India's favor in response to Chinese military maneuvers during an Indo-Pak conflict is a stretch of my imagination. But it is upto India to strengthen its relationship with Japan. However, Uncle does have significant influence on Japan which can be brought to bear on the Chinese, if necessary.
Rudradev wrote:I don't understand the generalization. "Combined assault" of what sort, to what end? China and Pakistan are not going to amass their combined forces and ride for Delhi like Marshal Zhukov (and if for some reason they did, both would get nuked). If you're talking about border nibblings, India is certainly strong enough to keep the Chinese deterred while kicking the daylights out of the Pakis... we have done that many times before.
I dont expect the Chinese to try to take over New Delhi. That is indeed invitation to nuclear war and that has never been the Chinese objective. Chinese goal remains capturing key territory in NE that further consolidates their hold on Tibet. A limited war scenario below Indian nuclear threshold immediately following or prior to the end of an Indo-Pak conflict or in response to a major territorial gain by India in Pakistan is not beyond contemplation.
Rudradev wrote:The fact is, it has never been in the Chinese interest to pose an existential threat to India... only to keep India contained. The Chinese don't want to erase India and have to deal with an Israel-to-Indonesia expanse of crazy nuke-toting Ummah instead. For their part, America, Russia, the EU and others also do not want to see the China-India balance altered so drastically that China becomes the uncontested and dominant power in Asia.
Chinese WMD assistance to Pakistan has and continues to pose an existential threat to India. The Chinese are already comfortable dealing with Syria-to-Libya-to-Saudi-to-Pakistani expanse of crazy nuke-toting ummah. If India refuses to act in its national interest, China-India balance will indeed be altered drastically and China will become the uncontested and dominant power in Asia.
Rudradev wrote:In sum, in the case of any Indo-Pak conflict, Chinese aggression beyond a very low level of frontier harassment is unlikely... and if it should actually happen and pose a serious threat to India, other powers are likely to get involved against China.
I disagree. PLA will most likely try to make limited territorial gains in NE below Indian nuclear threshold to further consolidate their grip on Tibet.
Rudradev wrote:None of this changes for the better if we send 120,000 troops to Afghanistan... on the other hand, the Chinese are likely to respond to a beefed up Indo-American presence on their Western border with much more belligerence.
None of this changes, period, whether we do or dont send 120,000 troops to Afghanistan. On the other hand, if we do, the Chinese will see India stand up to Sino-Pakistani challange and that may help contain their belligerence. Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka will learn a much needed lesson from a Paki @ss-whipping and that lesson is much overdue.
Rudradev wrote:Agreed, but I'm more concerned with the bigger picture. Sending troops to Afghanistan steps us up to the level of a NATO ally of the US -- at least in Chinese eyes. Probably in Russian and Iranian eyes as well.
With China, so be it. Russia will understand as long as Indian goals in Afghanistan are clear and do not conflict with Russian interests. And they do not. Iran... well, you can't please everybody all the time can you? So shall we sit quietly and not do anything because some Arab nation being bissed is inevitable if/when India decides to defend its interests wrt Pakistan?
Rudradev wrote:In the coming decades of geostrategic contest, I would much rather that India did not throw in its lot so early in the game with any particular side. It is far better to play them off against each other in increments, exacting benefits from all of them over the long term, than to show our hand so wholeheartedly for the Americans when the stakes are still so modest.
Much in line with your point of view, I have repeatedly advocated earlier that India should wait to see the intent of the incoming US administration wrt Afghanistan prior to making a major commitment. The incoming US administration under Obama is committed to a surge in Afghanistan and to take the war to NWFP, if required. Obama is not Dubya and will not pursue the same failed strategy. This will be the perfect time to seek an alliance with US in Afghanistan with a clearly stated goal of neutering TSP. In this war, India has to take a stand, pick a side and stick with it. NAM part deux is not an option here.
Rudradev wrote:I have, thanks... but I still remain confused as to why we're even thinking of giving something away (120,000 troops to the US war effort in Afghanistan, plus all the money to pay for them) without a clear indication of what the benefits would be, over and above situations that are likely to develop of their own accord without this action on our part.
The benefits need to be negotiated by India prior to any deployment. The goals can be broadly defined as elimination of Paki terror mechanism and of Pakistan itself, if necessary. Indians should insist on the right to engage in hot-pursuit and cross-border attacks to kill terrorists. If uncle agrees, deploy or tell them to take a hike. Your concerns about air-cover, intel-sharing, logistics etc. can be covered by clearly defined rules of engagement.
... Create a disruption, Status quo gets you nothing. What you guys are proposing is not a game changing scenario. 
Imagine the impact this aparthied can have on IM's. Once this move is rejected and rebuffed, don't you think it will be easier for us to manage them.
nice, observation ... but these are what our army lags, which US will provide, as it provided to countries such as Poland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia even Iceland (a country near bankruptcy). These countries are much much poorer than India but are better equipped than us... 
