Bharat Rakshak

Viv S wrote: Also, the costs of shipping in supplies by air about 10 times higher than the conventional route - $3/lb to 30¢/lb for surface transport. Those are not sustainable figures for a prolonged period of operations.

THE AFGHAN-PAK LOGISTICS CHALLENGE IN 2012 - Jan 2011

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/trump-ad ... ey-1740778
Trump Administration Had To Put Pressure On India For Afghan Role: Nikki Haley
US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said on Tuesday that the Trump administration had to put pressure on India to step up its role in bringing about a political solution to end the prolonged war in Afghanistan.
World | Press Trust of India | Updated: August 23, 2017 01:44 IST
WASHINGTON: US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said on Tuesday that the Trump administration had to put pressure on India to step up its role in bringing about a political solution to end the prolonged war in Afghanistan.
Her comments came as Trump on Tuesday unveiled his new Afghan strategy retracting from his initial instinct to pull out from Afghanistan. Instead, the US president said, the American troops will "fight to win" the 16-year-long conflict.
In a prime-time address, Trump called out Pakistan for providing safe havens to terrorists but also said that India was making "billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan..."
"We've got to put the pressure on India that they have to be part of the political solution," Nikki Haley told CNN.
The Indian-origin US ambassador to the UN said that Trump was taking a regional approach to end the Afghan conflict. "This is not just about Afghanistan. This is about the region, and so that means that we've got to put the pressure on Pakistan," she said, adding that Pakistan can no longer harbour safe havens for terrorists.
......

ramana wrote:

NRao wrote:Trump mentioned Pakistan as a problem. What he did not do - yet, is name three others: Iran, China and Russia. That shoe has yet to fall. They all are supporting Taliban in one way or another.

However, the US did nail Iran, Russia and NK a few weeks ago and today nailed some Russian and Chinese entities for supporting NK's nuclear effort .

Why don't you pull out the Chinese take out menu?

If Pakistan which is the front end of all those folks is named and blunted what is the need for all those?

NRao wrote:

ramana wrote:

Why don't you pull out the Chinese take out menu?

What is that?

Cosmo_R wrote:

Viv S wrote: Also, the costs of shipping in supplies by air about 10 times higher than the conventional route - $3/lb to 30¢/lb for surface transport. Those are not sustainable figures for a prolonged period of operations.

It's not just the cost of air delivery. What do they fly over? And why would Pakistan allow it?

yensoy wrote:
Forget air, Pakis have to allow transit cargo to Afghanistan as a signatory to UNCLOS - for free (apart from port and haulage charges of course). If Trump decides to, he can enforce this with a big stick and a few carrot shavings thrown in to sway some high level decision makers. Or he can let foggy bottom get blackmailed once again but the dealmaker he is I don't think he likes to get taken for a ride.

...
This pressure comes at a time when Pakland is close to bankruptcy, which will give huge leverage to Western powers at the IMF/IBRD. Yeah Pakis can go running to Uncle Xi but I doubt he will be any more receptive without getting a huge pound of flesh.

Austin wrote:

chetak wrote:
Body bags coming out of afghanistan is a zero sum game.

Indian boots on the ground, either under amreki command or under amreki directions means more Indian body bags and less amreki ones.

what Indian military objectives can we/do we have in afghanistan?? some quickly made up mickey mouse ones to justify the deployment??

India wont put any boots on ground on a foreign country after IPKF fiasco no political party has the stomach for it, The only way for India to be in Afghanistan would be under UN Mandate. In the past GWB Jr wanted India soldiers in IRaq and we refused it then.

What I was trying to say was US has spend $2 trillion in Afghanistan in past 16 years and had lakhs of troops there , The new strategy wont do any good like in the past , They did not do any nation building in Afghanistan the ruling elite just took the money and ran away there , Only India did Nation building work in Afghanistan from its own pocket.

US should cut its losses and get out of Afghanistan thats the only way they can save American soldier there and cut the financial loss , There is no Win coming from Afghanistan for US/NATO

g.sarkar wrote:Tandavji,
USA may have spent $2T on Afghanistan, but it was not for the betterment of that country. Most of it went to the military industry and other private companies, so there was never any question of routing anything through India. DT has now said no more nation building, as if that was ever a goal.
Gautam

The expectation that the US should free Balochistan and fight India's fights is beyond ridiculous

WASHINGTON: US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said on Tuesday that the Trump administration had to put pressure on India to step up its role in bringing about a political solution to end the prolonged war in Afghanistan.

Her comments came as Trump on Tuesday unveiled his new Afghan strategy retracting from his initial instinct to pull out from Afghanistan. Instead, the US president said, the American troops will "fight to win" the 16-year-long conflict.

In a prime-time address, Trump called out Pakistan for providing safe havens to terrorists but also said that India was making "billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan..."

"We've got to put the pressure on India that they have to be part of the political solution," Nikki Haley told CNN.

The Indian-origin US ambassador to the UN said that Trump was taking a regional approach to end the Afghan conflict. "This is not just about Afghanistan. This is about the region, and so that means that we've got to put the pressure on Pakistan," she said, adding that Pakistan can no longer harbour safe havens for terrorists.

"We need to continue to let Iran know that all of this terrorism and their sponsorship of it is not something we're going to put up with. And we need the international community to step up and say, look, if we're going to do this, we're doing it together. It's not the US alone," Nikki Haley said.


She said America's enemies were no longer going to know "what the timeline is".

"What our enemies are going to know is, we're not putting up with the terrorism anymore and we're going to do whatever it takes," she told the network.

Senator Ben Cardin, a ranking member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supported Trump's Afghan policy.

"I think the president, is calling on regional cooperation. That is the right thing. We need to have Pakistan as a more cooperative partner in dealing with Afghanistan. India could be an important partner in dealing with this," he told on MSNBC News.

"What I find difficult to follow is what he's doing on the military side. It looks like he is dealing another surge with additional troops being put into Afghanistan," he said.

Ben Cardin said the US needed a diplomatic surge. "That, to me, is going to be the key, whether he can implement a surge and have the confidence of our regional partners that we can really bring peace to Afghanistan," the Democratic Senator said.

Rex Tillerson laments 'erosion of trust' with Pakistan as he calls for peace talks between Taliban and Afghan government
'Fighting is going to take everyone nowhere', the Secretary of State said

Alexandra Wilts Washington DC

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson leaves after speaking at the State Department AP
Donald Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said it is time for Afghanistan and the Taliban to begin hammering out a peace accord and that Pakistan can play an important role “in delivering the Taliban to the negotiating table”.

“Fighting is going to take everyone nowhere,” Mr Tillerson told reporters at the State Department in Washington, DC, adding that the US wants to facilitate a reconciliation and peace process but it will ultimately be the responsibility of the Afghan government and the Taliban “to sit down and sort this out.”

“We are going to be there to encourage others,” Mr Tillerson said. “But it is going to be up to the Afghan government and the representatives of the Taliban to work through a reconciliation process on what will serve their needs and achieve the American people’s objectives, which is security – No safe haven for terrorists to operate anywhere in Afghanistan now or in the future.”

READ MORE
Trump says rapid Afghan exit would leave 'vacuum' for terrorists
He also said has been an “erosion of trust” between the US and Pakistan in recent years “because we have witnessed terrorist organisations being given safe haven inside of Pakistan to plan and carry out attacks against US servicemen, US officials, disrupting peace efforts inside of Afghanistan.”

“Pakistan must adopt a different approach, and we are ready to work with them to help them protect themselves against these terrorist organisations ... We are going to be conditioning our support for Pakistan and our relationship with them on them delivering results in this area,” Mr Tillerson added, suggesting that the US would cut off its monetary aid to the country if it does not alter its behavior.

“The idea of US leverage in Pakistan is deeply exaggerated,” Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the US-based Wilson Center's Asia Program, said in an email to the Associated Press. “No matter the punishment, policy, or inducement, there's little reason to believe that Pakistan will change its ways.”

*(Then what do you do> You then have to exterminate Pak with the utmost prejuudice.Threaten to send Pak back into the stone age as was done after 9/11)

“Pakistan has an unshakeable strategic interest in maintaining ties to militant groups like the Taliban because they help keep Pakistan's Indian enemy at bay in Afghanistan,” he added.

The US has been accusing Pakistan of providing safe havens to terrorists for years, and both Democratic and Republican administrations have attempted to address the issue.

On Monday night, Mr Trump declared, “We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately.”

In a reversal of his stance on Afghanistan, Mr Trump said this week that he would carry on the nearly 16-year-old war, promising that American troops “will fight to win”.

While Mr Trump did not specify how many US troops he would send to the country, Mr Tillerson said the troop levels would be announced when the decision is made.

Defence Secretary James Mattis also declined to say how many more troops will be deployed in Afghanistan.

“I'd prefer not to go into those numbers right now," Mr Mattis said during a press conference in Baghdad, adding, “There is a number that I'm authorized to go up to.”

There are an estimated 8,400 US troops currently serving in Afghanistan. While a portion is involved in counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda and Isis-Khorasan, the Isis affiliate in the country, the majority are part of a mission that trains, advises and assists Afghan security forces in their fight against the Taliban insurgency.

The question is whether US and Afghan forces, even if bolstered by a new strategy involving more troops to target the Taliban, can bring enough pressure to push the war towards a settlement.

Critics of an escalation have argued that even the Obama-era surge did not bring any Taliban concessions.

yensoy wrote:Forget air, Pakis have to allow transit cargo to Afghanistan as a signatory to UNCLOS - for free (apart from port and haulage charges of course). If Trump decides to, he can enforce this with a big stick and a few carrot shavings thrown in to sway some high level decision makers.

This pressure comes at a time when Pakland is close to bankruptcy, which will give huge leverage to Western powers at the IMF/IBRD. Yeah Pakis can go running to Uncle Xi but I doubt he will be any more receptive without getting a huge pound of flesh.

Viv S wrote:

yensoy wrote:Forget air, Pakis have to allow transit cargo to Afghanistan as a signatory to UNCLOS - for free (apart from port and haulage charges of course). If Trump decides to, he can enforce this with a big stick and a few carrot shavings thrown in to sway some high level decision makers.

UNCLOS also says -

"Transit States, in the exercise of their full sovereignty over their territory, shall have the right to take all measures necessary to ensure that the rights and facilities provided for in this Part for land-locked States shall in no way infringe their legitimate interests."

Which would be no doubt be used to refuse transit for any non-civilian goods. Also, given that the US isn't signatory to the UNCLOS its locus standi in terms of enforcing UNCLOS mandates is questionable, to say the least.

This pressure comes at a time when Pakland is close to bankruptcy, which will give huge leverage to Western powers at the IMF/IBRD. Yeah Pakis can go running to Uncle Xi but I doubt he will be any more receptive without getting a huge pound of flesh.

And Pakistan is willing to give him his pound of flesh. They mortgaged their sovereignty before, to the US, they'll happily mortgage it again, to China this time.

Bottom-line is, as long as China is backing them (and it is), the US will have limited leverage over Pakistan, regardless of how clear policy directives from the top are.

sudeepj wrote: Pak is in a weird place now.. The only benefactor left is China (US, US, Japan and Arab Sunni powers are gone) and China may well find it challenging to prop up their shitty economy with grants and trade concessions. So far they have extended unaffordable loans and ports, bridges and roads to nowhere that can only create a greater debt burden that will bankrupt the recipients even more than they already are. The Chinese will definitely find it impossible to stop the wrath of the great Khan and the great Chakravartin.

Manish_P wrote:

The expectation that the US should free Balochistan and fight India's fights is beyond ridiculous

Just as ridiculous as the expectation that India fight the fights of the US, as and when decreed by the US - like it expects from it's rent-boy states.

Now look here you Injuns, you made billions from us. Now it's time for you to earn your keep by covering our ass.

Cain Marko wrote:

Manish_P wrote:
Just as ridiculous as the expectation that India fight the fights of the US, as and when decreed by the US - like it expects from it's rent-boy states.

Now look here you Injuns, you made billions from us. Now it's time for you to earn your keep by covering our ass.

So tell me why mea was in such a tangle to get the US to stay the course in afg. India needs the US there or expect more scum to head towards kashmir. more importantly Nobody is asking India to fight anybody else's fight. Time to let go of sensitive egos and realize, this is very much Indias fight and an opportunity, something that doval and modi have worked hard to setup. If India wants to control the situation, it will have to take the initiative. What form this takes is the question.

Remarks
Rex W. Tillerson
Secretary of State
Press Briefing Room
Washington, DC
August 22, 2017 ……………………

MS NAUERT: Last question. Welcome, AFP. Front desk here.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Don’t you fear on the other side that too much pressure, too tough pressure on Pakistan may destabilize the Islamabad and may have destabilizing all the region with having Taliban stronger in the country?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: That is a concern, and that’s why I made the comments I just made, that I think it’s important that Pakistan begin to think about its ability to contain these groups as well.

It’s why, though, we take a regional approach. The U.S. alone is not going to change this dynamic with Pakistan. India and Pakistan, they have their own issues that they have to continue to work through, but I think there are areas where perhaps even India can take some steps of rapprochement on issues with Pakistan to improve the stability within Pakistan and remove some of the reasons why they deal with these unstable elements inside their own country.

As I said, other regional players have strong interest in Pakistan. China has strong interest in Pakistan. Having a stable, secure future Pakistan is in a lot of our interests. They are a nuclear power. We have concerns about their weapons, the security of their weapons. There are many areas in which we believe we should be having very productive dialogue that serves both of our interests and regional interest as well.

So this is – again, this is not a situation where the U.S. is saying, “Look, it’s just us and you.” What our approach is to bring – as I said, these regional approaches is to bring all the other interest into this effort. Much as we’ve done with North Korea and assembling this global effort in North Korea, I think too often we try to distill these challenges down to where it’s just the U.S. and some other country and only between the two of us can we solve it. We have to enlarge the circle of interest and bring others to – into the effort as well, and that’s what we’ll be doing with Pakistan as well.

Heather Nauert
Spokesperson
Department Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 23, 2017 ………………………….

QUESTION: And – thank you. Just in terms of the – of Pakistan, yesterday, Secretary Tillerson said that India – even India could take some steps of rapprochement to remove some of the reasons why Pakistan deals with these unstable elements inside their country. What was he referring to in terms of the steps India could take?

MS NAUERT: I think one of the things that we would do is ask or encourage India and Pakistan to sit down together and engage in direct dialogue that is aimed at reducing tensions between both of those countries.

QUESTION: So is he linking, for example, a solution – a policy on – of – for a solution on Kashmir with Pakistan-Afghanistan issues?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think going up to 30,000 feet, we view the whole strategy and handling Afghanistan as being a regional strategy, and that, of course, incorporates India as well as Pakistan, so incorporating all the nations in that region who can – we believe can help assist and help make Afghanistan a stable place where you’ll never have a terror group that will take root in that country again and can launch attacks on other countries.

QUESTION: Yeah, but does the U.S. see pushing for a solution on Kashmir as part of this regional strategy to deal with Afghanistan?

MS NAUERT: In terms of Kashmir, our policy on that has not changed. We continue to encourage the sides to sit down and talk together about that.

Cain Marko wrote:Is always nice to handle trouble away from ones own borders no? Not to mention the many advantages in terms of holding pok in a pincers and easier access to Balochistan.

Anyway regarding Indias response. ...my guess is arms purchases will boom, and Afghanistan will see more Indian hardware. ..hinds, dhruvs?, t72s?

Manish_P wrote: Fine, but there must be quid pro quo on pro rata basis... not on 'India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States' and so it must do this and it must do that.. No sensitive ego, just plain business.. something which Trump should comprehend ?

arun wrote:

Prime Minister Modi thanked President Trump for his strong leadership uniting the world against the North Korean menace.

If true that this is indeed what our Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, I am truly disgusted at this abject grovelling our Prime Minister. I say that as North Korea is a minor direct security threat in comparison to the menance of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Peoples Republic of China etc., as at worst North Korea represents a menace only from the limited standpoint of proliferating missile technology to the Islamic Republic. If on the other hand this is a bit of Self Aggandisement by Donald Trump then India must officially deny.

Bollocks to any “Half Wit Saudi Princes”, “It's in our national interest to flatter them” type arguents that were trotted out in the Hindustan Times article posted by me on this same page of this thread (Clicky)


Readout of President Donald J. Trump’s Call with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India

sudeepj wrote:My question is, did Pakistan 'allow' the drone strikes? Did Pakistan 'allow' the killing of Bin Laden? Does Pakistan 'allow' the things they say RAW does in Karachi? Did Pakistan 'allow' the Afghan invasion?

Fact of the matter is, Pakistan is a weak state, subject to superpower whims and fancies. A state whose 'mahishiyat' is dependent on exporting 'tauliya' and 'chadar' can not impose conditions on superpowers that also happen to be its sole market for its commoditized exports. People mention Salala, but Salala and the subsequent happenings occurred at a time when there was no CPEC, no upping of the ante in SCS, no detente between India and the US and no Trump.

If they try to obstruct the Americans, the American/NATO response may well be to impose trade sanctions on Pak (under some obscure bylaw and rule they will discover or invent.. dont start quoting WTO rules now!) and that will be truly catastrophic for Pak economy. There is nothing they can sell to China.. And no more takers for their nuke and missile technologies. North Korea has better nukes and missiles, Libya is gone, Iran is a threat to them, Saudis are naraz and reassured that US is back as a security guarantor, so which customer is left?

SSridhar wrote:

Manish_P wrote: Fine, but there must be quid pro quo on pro rata basis... not on 'India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States' and so it must do this and it must do that.. No sensitive ego, just plain business.. something which Trump should comprehend ?

In fact, he is being a businessman when he says, "India makes billions of dollars in trade with us . . .". Like any American President he is also thinking of a transaction here. At the same time, he wants to preempt India demanding its pound of flesh for such a cooperation by claiming that India's trade balance with the US already offsets any favours/demands from India.