Rahul Shukla wrote: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.
Chinese feints, tactical thrusts and tests of our "readiness" are a permanent fact of life along the long Sino-Indian border. Yes, they intensify during periods of Indo-Pak conflict but of themselves, they have never been of any consequence to our operational (let alone strategic) freedom of opportunity with respect to the conduct of an Indo-Pakistan war.
So I would differ with your assertion that the Chinese "divert" our military capability during an Indo-Pak conflict any more significantly than at other times... they have been a hostile neighbour since 1962, and our overall military posture has developed in accordance with the chronic threat they pose. 14 Corps of Northern Command, practically the whole of Central and Eastern command, the SFF and the ITBP are formations that remain watchful for any Chinese hostile actions on a full-time basis... whether or not we have a war in progress with Pakistan.
Rahul Shukla wrote: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.
Ok, let's assume for arguments sake that you're right. You're postulating a scenario where India is "weakened" as a result of an Indo-Pak conflict to the extent that it becomes a "very attractive" target for China... what does this mean, in real terms?
I can only assume that it means Pakistan has so badly thrashed all our formations deployed along the LOC/IB, that we have to rely on units normally deployed on the Chinese border to defend our homeland against an overwhelming Pakistani assault. There is no other way in which Eastern/Central command would see their warfighting capability severely degraded as a result of an Indo-Pak conflict... even in terms of fuel, ammunition, supplies etc. the Pakistanis would run out long before we did.
So anyway. Let's assume that the worst happens and, as you predict, China launches a full-fledged assault in the NE which we are unprepared to meet because our China-specific formations were redirected to deal with Pakistan.
Unlikely as this scenario is-- if it ever came to pass, which would you rather have? 120,000 more troops within our borders to help defend the homeland? Or those 120,000 standing watch for Unkil against the hashish-jirgas of Paktia? Because there's no guarantee we'll be able to use them against Pakistan from the Afghan front, if they depend on the US and NATO for air-support, intel and supplies.
As for Unkil himself intervening on our behalf against a Chinese move to grab AP ...hey, the Georgians expected the same thing when the Russians grabbed South Ossetia. As a supplier of one of the largest contingents to the American Coalition of the Willing in Iraq, what did they receive? John McCain declaring that "We are all Georgians!" LOL
If Unkil today counsels us to exercise "restraint" against even the Pakis, I don't believe for a moment that he would go up against the Chinese (with all their billions in US treasury bonds) for our sake.
Rahul Shukla wrote: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?
With all due respect, your equal-equal rhetoric here suggests that you favour an across-the-board system of tit-for-tat responses to Chinese containment measures against us. This is impractical. The unfortunate truth being, we don't have the economic or military muscle to play equal-equal with them at this point in time.
I am fully in favor of challenging the Chinese geopolitically on terms where we are strong. Our naval superiority is one of the few relative strengths we have, so I'm all in favor of expanding those exercises with Singapore and Japan in the South China sea.
In other theatres of competition the Chinese have already beaten us to the punch. For example, I'd be most happy if the GOI decided to share some fun technologies with the Taiwanese or the Vietnamese. Brahmos or Prithvi for instance, or maybe even nukes.
However, the problem here is that the Chinese have integrated the economic welfare of Taiwan and Vietnam too thoroughly with their own... and while Hanoi or Taipei might have welcomed such mil-tech cooperation with India under other circumstances, they are not interested in doing so at the expense of their economic development, in which the PRC today enjoys a huge stake. Meanwhile, of course, the Pakis are a rogue state with a hopeless economy, who have nothing to lose by accepting whatever the Chinese give them to kill Yindoos with. Thus the circumstances themselves, do not allow for equal-equal methods to be used in the proliferation game.
Some day when the global economy has as much of a stake in our welfare as in China's, when the sea-leg of our nuclear triad is firmly in place, when we've weaponized and tested nukes and delivery systems a few dozen times to add credibility... then, by all means, let's poke the Chinese in the eye at every turn. That day has not yet come.
The worst situation we could create for ourselves, though, would be sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan. This not only provokes the Chinese by posing an apparent geostrategic challenge on their Western border... but at the same time, it also leaves India less well-equipped to deal with a Chinese response.
Sure, pick a fight with the neighbourhood bully, but pick it on your own terms. Do not pick it after tying one hand behind your own back... you're very unlikely to make him see your point of view that way.
Rahul Shukla wrote: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?
It's not a question of whether Moscow would be "opposed" to Indian troops deployed in Afghanistan. You're right, they probably would not.
However, consider what you're expecting from them in lieu of a proposed Indian deployment in Afghanistan (which in itself does not benefit them directly in to any great degree). Your wish list includes (a) a guarantee of keeping supply lines open to Indian troops in Afghanistan regardless of any of the myriad geopolitical compulsions that may arise to the contrary... including but not limited to a worsening of Moscow's relations with NATO and (b) menacing the Chinese by mounting aggressive maneouvres in their Far East if China threatened our territory.
Given the degree to which we've seen the Russians become very canny and very watchful of their self-interest even in dealings like the Gorshkov sale, do you think that's a realistic expectation? Realistic enough to gamble the welfare of our troops on?
Rahul Shukla wrote: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.
All the more reason to have our 120,000 troops here at home. Where is this vaunted Afghanistan deployment going to come from, by the way? I hope for Allah's sake that they aren't going to be culled from any of the units deployed along the LOC or IB, now of all times. Unless we're giving up on taking an Indo-Pak war into Paki territory, I hope they aren't going to be drawn extensively from our strike corps (1st, 2nd, 21st) either.
So at the expense of which unit will they be deployed? Our other formations are either in reserve or ranged along the Chinese border, as far as I know. Sending a significant number of them to Afghanistan might only encourage the Chinese to launch any assault they might have been planning.
Rahul Shukla wrote: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.
Maybe we disagree on the definition of "existential" threat. India will be knocked out of the running as a geopolitical competitor to China, in the aftermath of a nuclear war in which the Pakis use Chinese WMD against us. We will suffer greatly in many respects, especially in economic terms; however, there's little doubt that we would survive as a political entity. This is certainly not something any Indian wants to see happen, but it's not an existential threat either.
By contrast, the USA and USSR actually deployed enough nukes to pose existential threats to each other during the cold war... those nations would have literally ceased to exist as governable entities had an exchange taken place. Indian nukes pose an existential threat to Pakistan, partially because we have a far better warhead-to-target ratio than the Pakis, and partially because of Pakistan's inherent lack of viability as a state.
The Chinese are comfortable dealing with the world as it is, because they have very carefully scoped out the system of various geopolitical checks and balances that define its power equations. Their strategy is very well thought out to maximize returns while minimizing risks. Much of it revolves around denying strategic opportunity to rivals, rather than claiming and enforcing strategic control beyond China's near abroad.
Yes, the Chinese are comfortable dealing with the nuclear Ummah as it is today, but that's only because they are fully cognizant of the forces arrayed against that Ummah. The Chinese play a delicate balancing game with global power centres to serve their own purpose, but will never upset the balance entirely. A total US defeat in Iraq/Afghanistan will empower the Ummah to an extent the Chinese will surely come to regret... and so will the elimination of India as a balancer to that Ummah along one of China's longest international borders. Beijing is quite aware of this.
What will happen if India refuses to act in its national interest, of course, is another question entirely... but not the question we're discussing here. I believe it is not in India's national interest to send 120,000 troops to fight the Americans' Afghan war for them.
Rahul Shukla wrote: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.
Here, I believe, is the crux of our disagreement.
I do not think there will be any Paki @ss-whipping even if India sends 120,000 troops to Afghanistan. We will have limited operational control over those troops, but with supply lines, air support and intel dependent on the Americans, there is no question of using them strategically in any way the Americans don't agree with. Whatever we may agree to on paper, the Americans will control the reality on the ground. If we realize later on that we don't like this state of affairs, it will be a lot harder for us to withdraw those troops once having committed them.
If the Americans choose to counsel restraint after the next terrorist attack on an Indian city, that is what our 120,000 jawans in Afghanistan will be forced to show... restraint.
Far better to have them at home, so that there's scope to actually deploy them in our own interest.
Rahul Shukla wrote: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?
Please indicate where in any of my posts, on this or any other topic, I've advocated sitting quietly and doing nothing.
Do you honestly think that "doing nothing" is the only alternative to this Afghan deployment scheme? Meaning: either we let Unkil keep fighting his "War on Terror" at the expense of Indian civilians getting killed by Pakistani terrorists... or we offer up 120,000 of our jawans to Unkil as pawns and hope he will be more grateful to us than he was to the Georgians? Sorry, I'm holding out for a better way.
Rahul Shukla wrote: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.
NAM is an unnecessary bogey to raise in today's context. NAM was a platform of self-righteousness for nations who exercised no real power of their own, to project their facade of neutrality upon while actually cutting backroom deals with the superpowers.
The LAST thing India needs is to "pick a side" in America's war with anybody, until and unless there are unmistakable guarantees of America's interests converging entirely with our own in the prosecution of that war. And I mean *entirely*.
Refraining from jumping in bed with Washington before it makes its intentions entirely clear, does not equal "NAM part deux". First let Obama-not-Dubya take the war to NWFP, THEN we'll punch across the Indus and take the TSPA in the rear while they are fighting him.
Rahul Shukla wrote: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.
I still don't see how the plan holds water. If the US is serious about eliminating the Paki terror mechanism, even for the sake of winning its own Afghan war, it will need to go to war against Pakistan. If it goes to war against Pakistan, we will be perfectly happy to help by attacking on Pakistan's eastern front.
Thus far the US has made two decades' worth of promises about "getting Pakistan to roll up its terror infrastructure"; and wherever that infrastructure was dedicated to terrorism against India, the US has done nothing beyond the purely cosmetic. Even now, in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, confronted with every conceivable form of evidence of Pakistani government and Pakistan Army sponsorship, the US is mumbling equivocation and sending out track-two feelers about "Kashmir solutions" rather than doing anything to address the problem.
You can say, "why should the US do anything about the problem posed by Paki terrorists to India"? Fine, maybe they have no reason to, but by the same token: why should we help the US achieve their geopolitical objectives when those objectives are in conflict with our own security?
Only a sucker of the first order would hand over an advance payment to someone who has proved themselves a dishonest broker time after time. That's what this "120,000 troops to Afghanistan" business amounts to.
The US promised Georgia no end of things on paper, I am sure. They also promised Pakistan a great deal in exchange for helping out with the Chinese in 1971, but did not intervene strongly enough to prevent them losing Bangladesh. They also had a mutual-defence pact with the Argentinians while actually helping the UK against them during the Falklands war of 1980.
In the end, America has quite often bailed on carrying through its commitments to its clients...something that history has demonstrated over and over again.
In the final analysis: if the Americans plan to invade Pakistan, they don't need 120,000 of our troops in Afghanistan (except possibly in the aftermath, which can be negotiated). If the Americans don't plan to invade Pakistan and destroy the Pakistan army, we'd be fools to send any more troops to Afghanistan than are needed to protect our own people there.
Finally, the Congress government would be committing electoral suicide if it announced such a deployment before the May 2009 polls. Every Indian Muslim votebank they rely on would instantly switch over to the Left/Mayawati combine. Rarely have I seen a proposal with disaster written larger on every facet of it.
No wonder America (after the USSR) is losing the war against Pakistanis. Sending them USMC guys with a jambhavan-era mace and clarinets to fight the well-hung pakistani fighters with NVGs and push-button radios (with speed dial and roll-over minutes) is suicide. Fire Patreaus!!
