India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Aug 2017 05:51

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.
......

I do not think this approach will work with India. India was not allowed into the group for fear of alienating Pakistan. India on its own financed Afghanistan projects to the tune of $2 billion. It is kind of late in the day to abandon Pakistan and to coerce India to come to the table. The few additional troops they are sending will not stem the tide or change the outcome. Furthermore, if trade with the US is put on stake, and India complies, other things will be put on balance to make India acquiesce to Khan's wishes. Buy our outdated aircraft at our conditions or else. India is not Japan or Germany, who were conquered, nor it is UK who have a special relationship. It is not even France that was helped in WWII and after. But never mind, our government has ways of deflecting such wishes quietly, as it was done in the case of Iraq.
Gautam

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 23 Aug 2017 06:11

one thing to be noted ..in all stmts coming out of DC..the reference is always to Haqqani group..never about Let, HM and about Salauddin , Dawood, Hafiz Sayeed or M azhar..and yet they want our cooperation.

sum · Post by **sum** » 23 Aug 2017 06:28

^^ Honestly, Americans would care only about their core interests and dont see why they should give a damn abt us since our own govt doesnt even emphasize these points

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2017 06:50

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?

What is that?

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

No, Pakistan is not a front. No longer. And that is the point. Such old ways need to change.

salaam · Post by **salaam** » 23 Aug 2017 06:55

NRao wrote:
ramana wrote:

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

In US atleast, Panda menus basically have 9-10 ingredients. These are mixed together to create 100's of menu items.

What Ramana is saying if that Pak (main ingredient) is mentioned, what is the need of listing all the derived dishes (Bear/Panda/others).

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 23 Aug 2017 07:54

The new policy is a significant moment. Indian involvement in the new strategy would have been already discussed and mutually agreed upon. However grandstanding on this helps Trump to show a minor foreign policy victory as if his negotiation skills brought India to be involved in Afghanistan. In fact, India has been wanting a seat on Afghan table for long and now it is happening.

The only impediment to putting the plan in motion would be the logistics of supporting a contingent of 15K US troops and contractors. Before the policy is publicly announced, it is obvious that some alternate solution would also have been worked out.

No US President including Trump would go out to articulate a specific war strategy without some thought to how it would be successful. This plan seems to have the backing of all the Generals in his cabinet and has been in the preparation for past few months.

Doval's visits during this period should be seen in that context.

One would also expect US to have already stockpiled enough supplies to last a few months.

In addition to Indian strategy circles, this development would be heartily welcomed by Balochistan freedom movement as for the first time they are likely to get a powerful Ally in their fight against Pakistan's ongoing Balochi genocide.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 23 Aug 2017 08:18

What I see is a realization that the war should be fought by the armed forces, with less micromgmt and stupid restraints from the politicals. DT said that several times, in several ways. Left to themselves, the American soldiers know very well that the Pakis are enemies. If things are actually allowed to work, we may see cross-border strikes into TSP from A'stan, or just strikes on TSP from Dronacharya in good numbers. As for India, I read this as near carte-blanche to set up bijnej - and protect it, which means make friends with Pakhtoonistan and Baluchistan. To set up a viable trade route, security of Indian transport across POK must be ensured. When the Pakis hit that, India will use that and go in to clean up POK. It does require some initiative from Dilli. Better than the BO regime's policy which was to let the Taliban win.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 23 Aug 2017 08:56

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?

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.

There will be no Indian boots on the ground - India will not bite but more importantly US will have to keep Paki sensibilities in mind and Pakis fear nothing more than Indian boots in Afghanistan. At least that is the public posture. Every time US tries to pressure us to putting men in Afghanistan, we will leak a news story to the Paki press and abduls who will go berserk, block highways & do their sh!t and the US will back off.

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.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 23 Aug 2017 09:35

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.

I suspected as much, but did not know the relevant regulations. Bottom line is, Pak does not have the capability to do this. Paradoxically, US dependence on Pak goes higher the larger the number of troops in Afghanistan! Smaller the number, the lower the logistics requirements, and consequently, lower the dependence and higher the freedom of action. Paks can not even stop US war planes from bombing their sovereign territory, if they shoot down or otherwise hinder the logistics for the US war effort under this new administration, the consequences will be severe.

tandav · Post by **tandav** » 23 Aug 2017 09:59

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

I for one disagree with the above... India has to reclaim and protect its historic ties with Gandhar. Had the $2 trillion that the USA spent in Afghanistan had been routed through India with US making and supplying equipment and logistics and India taking the lead in manpower, we would have been far more successful in bringing peace back to Afghanistan. Instead we see the sorry state that Afghanistan is in by outsourcing this activity to a rapidly ISIS-fying Pakistan. Trump can convince KSA to start taking security support from India+USA in return for oil to fuel this effort. It is in India's interest to pacifying the murderous strain in Islamism outside its borders, India has to protect Moderate Muslims from the extremists who are desecrating the religion itself and not allowing peace to reign. CIvilizationally Indians understand Afghans far more than the Americans, we can help bring modernity to the region. Heck with Indian troops even Russia may want to support this

Indian Military objectives are but obvious
1) Retake POK and so that a land bridge can be created between India and Afghanistan
2) Retake Balochistan and Sinndh so that the Baloch/Sindhis can get their rights (Constrain Pakjabis)
3) Counterbalance Chinese role in the region
4) Be net security providers for Middle East and Central Asia
5) Many radicalized Muslims want to fight... we should encourage them to go to say Dar ul Harb like Tora Bora where the full spectrum military options can be used against them, they will be more than happy to die fighting the good fight and get their 72 and we can limit the collateral damage in our homelands.

Costs will be massive! but this effort will also provide employment/military discipline to many youth in our over populated land. It is a price that we have to pay to reclaim our heritage.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Aug 2017 10:15

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

tandav · Post by **tandav** » 23 Aug 2017 10:20

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

Yes! Let the USA make them weapons and lease it to India and IA for use in Afghanistan. Win Win

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 23 Aug 2017 10:40

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 23 Aug 2017 10:55

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.

arun · Post by **arun** » 23 Aug 2017 11:28

Indian Origin US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley:

"We've got to put the pressure on India that they have to be part of the political solution"

I wonder where the f**k this US arrogance that they can “pressure” a country like India comes from such that it can even warp the judgement of an Indian Origin individual like Nikki Haley

I hope this arrogance is not a case of the “Saudi Half Wit Prince” type abjectly grovelling type flattery of Donald Trump regards North Korea by our PM Narendra Modi, boomeranging back on us in India as the US assumption that it can pressure India when it has not been able to pressure the much smaller Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is plain ludicrous.

See 5:15 of the below CNN Video for the Nikki Haley’s arrogant comment on pressurising India:

NIKKI HALEY FULL INTERVIEW WITH CHRIS CUOMO - NEW DAY (8/22/2017)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Aug 2017 11:31

US Had To Put Pressure On India For Afghan Role: UN Envoy Nikki Haley

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.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2017 11:33

Ha!Ha! Good one Manish.Expecting Modi to be "Tonto" to the Lone Stranger ,the Donald,ain't gonna happen.Nevertheless,the dawning in the US estab. that India has a powerful role to play in the Afghan imbroglio,as it has been erstwhile doing for centuries,must result in a better understandiong of India's needs too.Firstly,the cleansing of the Paki terror stables.Either Pak starts putting its genuine anti-terror act together or the US and India should do it for them. The US can easily bring Pak to grovelling and prostrating before it by cutting off all mil and eco aid,plus blacklisting/re-carding its key generals who are sustaining the terror cancer and responsible for N-proliferation with NoKo.

This is the "First Commandment" that India must obtain from the US,that Pak must obey,obey,obey.The rest will come once this commandment has been shoved up the nether end of the Paki military pinned to the sharp end of a bayonet!.Until and unless Pak is labelled and treated as a "rogue state",the situ will further deteriorate and conflict will b with us forever.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 07481.html

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.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Aug 2017 13:46

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.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 23 Aug 2017 18:26

While China can support Pakistan militarily and diplomatically, commercially Pakistan is dependent on US big time. All pakistani exports which earn them $$ are to US and Western Europe. A small change in the US/Europe procurement could lead to massive unemployment in Pakistan and a North Korea like financial squeeze situation. US can also influence the remittances into pakistan by influencing Gulf States to limit pakistani labour from coming in. China needless to say is not going to import Pakistani merchandise or the jihad influenced vermins into their territory.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 23 Aug 2017 20:54

A lot of posters have mentioned a line of argument to the effect of 'Pakistan would not allow it..', 'it' being anything that is against its interests of installing the Taliban in Kabul and against its 'sovereignty'.

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?

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.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Aug 2017 01:52

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.

this time it is very different, chalk and cheese different.

The last time it was the mortgaging of sovereignty, this time it is more like a sale. The consequences and the masters are very different. This one will neither tolerate, forgive, nor forget.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 24 Aug 2017 04:17

To be charitable, she may be conveying to bakis, that India is not a willing participant and that the US forced India to pay up in Afghanistan. This maintains a bit of paki H&D, for the narrative becomes the USA forced India to payup (wihout altering any facts on the ground wrt to India)...ie = =

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 24 Aug 2017 06:16

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.

If China can covertly help North Korea which is directly threatening the US with nuclear weapons, you think they won't help Pakistan, which in any event says "Hain Huzoor", every time the US looks at them? The biggest reason China has to prop up Pakistan is to keep India distracted. How much do you think that distraction is worth to China?

While it will be very nice for India to have some kind of overt military presence in Afghanistan, the biggest and IMO insurmountable obstacle is the lack of direct access to support that military presence. Iran is a very un-reliable actor vis-a-vis India. It is rapidly slipping into China's orbit and to rely on the goodwill of Iran for any kind of transit is IMO highly risky with the high probability of China leaning on Iran at some point of time in the future to block Indian transit rights into Afghanistan and other places in Central Asia. That will be how the India China competition for influence will play out.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2017 07:34

^^^^^

I think so too - Iran is going into the Chinese orbit - China has become a player in A'sthan (like Russia). Which is why the Paki influence will/should decline WRT A'sthan, but will be used by China to throttle India.

However, I do not think that it will work: Indo-Pacific. With the reorder in progress, the Chinese team - worldwide - is under pressure. And for once it does nto seem that the US wants to lead. So, I suspect, it will actually be more of team effort to unplug China.

BTW, that speech by Trump (on A'stan) is actually one provided by the Generals, with a few sentences (India makes billions from US, .....) to allow Trump to toot his horn. And Nikki betti has egg on her face. Within a week or two of her personally thanking Chinese support on NK sanctions in the UN, the US has slapped Chinese companies/individuals with sanctions!!!! Unless it was a great act on her part.

I would not be surprised if Doval had input into all this. I bet he and McMasters sat and gamed the rough draft ............ months ago.

The opportunity has arrived. Just hope India is prepared. I seriously think this is India's chance to displace China in the longer run. And, IMHO, she can do it.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Aug 2017 09:36

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.

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.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 24 Aug 2017 09:41

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.

If they head towards Kashmir, we'll handle them in Kashmir border no? It's not as if there aren't any infiltration attempts now.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Aug 2017 10:08

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?

arun · Post by **arun** » 24 Aug 2017 11:17

US Secretary of State humbly and politely enough requests India to “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”.

India should in turn politely tell the US that we in India have no intention in interfering in the internal affairs of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan

by mitigating the blowback of the policy followed by the Islamic Republics Punjabi Military dominated Deep State of fomenting Mohammadden Terrorism in a vain attempt to intimidate neighbouring States like India.

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.

From the US State Department website:

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Press Availability

Meanwhile any notion that the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan may have nurtured that US Secretary of State Tillerson’s call for “Rapprochement” implied a change in the hands-off US policy on Jammu & Kashmir, in line with India’s position that no third party mediation will be permitted in the resolution of J&K, goes up smoke. In addition any hope that the Punjabi Military dominated Deep State of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan may have harboured of leveraging a down hill skiing surrender to the US on the matter of fomenting Mohammadden Terrorism in Afghanistan for support on Jammu & Kashmir, goes up in smoke.

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.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 24 Aug 2017 11:21

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?

Yes, provided we are there primarily to handle our troubles, not somebody elses.. Please explain how we are going to have POK in pincer when we are 'requested' to do only 'nation building' (whatever that means) and not have any military prescence.. is whatever we have done so far in Afghanistan not considered to be 'nation building'?

With regards to arms ...i would rather it was arms sales (INSAS, Dhruvs, Mahindra/TATA MRAPs, Arjuns) and not just arms purchases donated to them as gifts.. No doubt the afghans would use them against the pakis (if that is the pincer you are referring to) but the afghans will primarily use them as and where they see fit. They are loathe to be told what to do and are just as liable to turn on us kaffirs if they get it into their heads that we are dictating to them.

Agree with you that more scum is headed to Kashmir, that is happening even now and the rate will pick up even more as Pakistan goes in deeper and deeper.

Totally agree with your point about the MEA wanting the US to stay in afghanistan. India would be truly happy if the US takes out ALL the jihadis.. not just the ones which threaten the US service members, officials and interests.

India had tried to take the initiative when 9/11 happened but was totally rebuffed. Now the US needs us and wants us to take the initiative. 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 ?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Aug 2017 11:40

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.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 24 Aug 2017 11:45

^ Exactly, Sir. We need to make sure that the transaction is beneficial to us. Thankfully we have a hard nosed business minded 'chaiwallah' prime minister, who will take utmost care to buy into whatever they are trying to sell us only if it is of benefit to us.

arun · Post by **arun** » 24 Aug 2017 12:35

Unfortunately our "hardnosed businessminded chaiwallah" seems to have fallen under the thrall of US President Donald Trump and slipped into an abjectly grovelling flattery mode. I hope this is a momentary aberration:

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

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Aug 2017 13:25

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?

Well, Pakistan allowed the Afghan Taliban & Quetta Shura to thrive within its borders. It allowed OBL to live in garrison town in the Pakistani heartland (and had the Americans brought them in, would probably have enabled his escape) and allowed Mullah Omar to receive medical treatment in Karachi. And even today, its actions against the Haqqani group remain 'insufficient' (as the US Congress is annually notified by the DoD).

Pakistan is indeed a weak state. So was Vietnam, circa 1963-72. What it is, is an example of the limits of hard power. What matters more than power, is the perception of power, and the last 15 years have not been good to the global perception of US power.

An equally big problem is that the US is not dealing with an entirely rational actor. The Pakistanis have convinced themselves that China and the CPEC will be their salvation - and they hold on to that belief like a fidayeen holds onto his faith in paradise. Add to that a "we will eat grass" national ego and its evident that there will be no practical shift in the status quo.

The trade/financial sanctions weapon can be used against Pakistan only once - and that's when the ISAF mission in Afghanistan has been written off and securing its supplies lines is not a factor. Until then the facade of cooperation/alliance has to be maintained.

As for Trump, lets just say I'd be surprised if he could point out Pakistan on a map without getting it mixed up with Iran or Afghanistan. His real strength, coming from years in marketing & reality TV, has been to convince his supporters that his views perfectly line up with their own (even though his support base spans a wide variety political & economic beliefs).

The libertarians and anti-globalists are convinced that he'll pull America out of all these expensive pointless overseas entanglements while the militarists & nationalists are convinced he'll double up and go even harder in an effort to crush ISIS & the Taliban. Meanwhile, all poor Donald wants, is to play the occasional round of golf at one of his resorts and for the press to say nice things about him or at least stop saying mean things.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 24 Aug 2017 13:35

India should commit absolutely no blood or treasure to Afghanistan until the US proves it is serious about holding Pakistan accountable. I give no credence to Trump's recent statements about Pakistan. Even if Trump could find Pakistan on a map, even if he understood their true nature, it wouldn't matter as the Deep State won't allow any punitive action against sacred cows like Pakistan, Saudi, etc.

We'd be fools to go gaga over this apparent policy reversal. Nothing will come of it.

srin · Post by **srin** » 24 Aug 2017 14:34

Every problem is an opportunity. If we have been and further going to spend money on Afghanistan, then I say, spend in military training of the Afghans. Heck, convince Afghans to start military draft of their women and invest our money in training and equipping them with guns and light arty. That will take care of the Talibs, AQ and ISIS. And some special forces to operate in Balochistan. Why should we alone worry about fighting one-and-half or two-and-half front wars.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Aug 2017 14:40

All we will get from Afghanistan are body bags of Indian Soldier , All that US and NATO got from Afghanistan are body bags in past 16 years , $4 Trillion Spent , Nothing to Show

Trump is doing nothing new that Obama & GWB jr didnt try , its just a continuation of the same policy under new name.

If any thing else ISI will use Afghanistan as a staging ground to kill more of our soldiers in a more Determined Jihadi Manner , Let the US solve the Afghan problem on its own since they and Paki created this , So let the two friends solve their problem , Let us wash our hands off and just help the Aghan people which we are doing for a decade now.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 24 Aug 2017 17:27

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.

We have a paltry 27 billion trade surplus compared with 350 china has and 60 Germany has. So does Mexico. And any money they spend on India is recovered many times more by re exporting the services/software to the rest of the world. Apple, google, MS, facebook makes most of their revenue outside US. It is highly debatable how much they would have been adapted outside or overcome world wide competition without access to Indian human resources. Google already makes 1 billion from India. Each of these companies will probably start making much more from India in a decades time at which time I doubt India will have any surplus with USA. In fact, India should welcome Trumps statements of protectionism and encourage domestic tech companies.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 24 Aug 2017 17:46

Viv S wrote: Well, Pakistan allowed the Afghan Taliban & Quetta Shura to thrive within its borders. It allowed OBL to live in garrison town in the Pakistani heartland (and had the Americans brought them in, would probably have enabled his escape) and allowed Mullah Omar to receive medical treatment in Karachi. And even today, its actions against the Haqqani group remain 'insufficient' (as the US Congress is annually notified by the DoD).

Since this happened November 2001, perhaps many of the young 'uns on BRF are not aware of it, but the American and Afghan Northern Alliance forces had chased the Taliban and al Qaeda bad guys and their Pakistani ISI and military supports into Kunduz and had the town surrounded.

But then, instead of wiping them out, the Americans allowed an airlift out of Kunduz, supposedly just for the Pakistanis, but it turned out a lot of the bad guys were airlifted out of Kunduz into Pakistan.

So remember, Republican President, America smarting over 9/11 just about 2 months previously, the biggest attack ever on US soil; America in full war mode, America shooting at Pakistanis, American public opinion as resolutely warlike as it can ever be; and the outcome, America let Pakistan off the hook along with Taliban and al Qaeda. The best face one can put on this is that somehow the US government believed that a Pakistani jihadi is innocent compared to other jihadis.

So don't hope that America, Trump or not, is going to seriously squeeze Pakistan until **after** the fact.

And if Pakistan allowed bad guys to live on their soil, America allowed them to be transported there, to bedevil American troops in Afghanistan for the last sixteen years. For all the lip service that American politicians pay to their soldiers and veterans, the American GI is simply cannon fodder for them; American politicians will sacrifice them to "geopolitical compulsions" or whatever bullshit. They want to play their games, and divert federal dollars to arms manufacture, contracts for the armed forces, and for paying mercenaries -- and those entrepreneurs help finance their election campaigns. So far the most corrupt Indian politicians have been more hesitant to put Indian soldiers in harms' way for bullshit reasons, and BRF should hope that that does not change.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Aug 2017 19:30

Only quid pro quo for Indian involvement in Afghanistan is independence of Balochistan from Pakistan and reintegration of PoK with India. In any case these are the prerequisites of having a viable supply route to Afghanistan for India.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 25 Aug 2017 00:25

I haven't followed the thread for quite a while now. Too much of an effort to go back and get on top of issues.

Like RajeshA saar, we would grant access to Afghanistan via Kashmir via road and air if the US gets bakis out of POK. That would be our main contribution to the Afghan war effort.

Plus we could offer to build the dam on Kabul pronto and help bring irrigation and electricity to the development table. Plus some other small developmental projects like schools, hospital, transmission lines, road, etc.