India / Afghanistan - A New Strategic Relationship

[Rudradev]

Coup will happen when Unkil decides he has the right jernails in hand to back in TSPA... not before, and not otherwise.

Question: Unkil Iraq or Libya mein itnay jaldi kaisay jeeta?

Ans: Unkay Jernailon ko ghoos khilaa kay.

Amidst all the stories of shock n awe and overwhelming force... the primary American tactic by which military victory was secured over the national armies of these two states is all too often ignored.

Consider Iraq. Invaded on March 20, 2003. Invaders were immediately met with stiff resistance. Even to clear minor towns and areas at points of ingress and logistical entry... Umm Qasr, Al Faw, Basra... took several days each, and the invaders were pinned down in tough firefights against a mobile and motivated enemy. Notwithstanding all the PGMs, Paveways, Daisy Cutters, total air superiority with thousands of sorties, the Iraqi forces were fighting back and fighting hard.

Padhiye:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Umm_Qasr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... %282003%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Basra_%282003%29

Fedayeen Saddam had bogged down the invaders in Umm Qasr from March 21-25. In Al Faw, an Iraqi armoured brigade actually staged a counterattack under withering airstrikes. In Basra, the invaders came under constant attack from Fedayeen paramilitaries beyond April 6. All these battles occurred hundreds of miles from Baghdad at the very southern extremity of Iraq.

And yet, on April 9... three short days later...US 3rd ID was in Baghdad, pulling down statue of Saddam, meeting little to no resistance until the insurgency started in earnest much later. Mission Accomplished and all that.

I am not saying the Iraqis would have won otherwise. They would have lost anyway... but upto April 6 at least, the will to fight was there in huge quantities. The advance would have become very costly for the invaders; facing brutal urban warfare mile by mile, town by town, street by street as they fought their way slowly to Baghdad. All despite their overwhelming conventional superiority.

So what happened in three short days? How come all of a sudden Baghdad itself was a total walk-over?

Ans: Unkil nay ghoos khilaya. There is no other explanation.

Not that shock n awe, airstrikes etc. did not serve a purpose... of demoralizing the Iraqi jernailship against the idea of fighting indefinitely... but all said and done, when the collapse came it was definitely because the top Iraqi army leadership had been bribed.

In Libya, exact same thing. Airstrikes did not stop Qaddafi's army from bottling up the rebels in the East, and even attacking their stronghold of Benghazi. News reportage showed that the "rebels" were a bunch of idiots militarily... rushing headlong into attack against entrenched positions, panicking and running under fire, then regrouping to attack again exactly the same way. These guys could not even have won a hockey-stick brawl in an Indian college canteen, let alone all out war against a professional army led by a seasoned soldier like Qaddafi.

That is, as long as the Libyan Army (or most of it) continued to fight for Qaddafi. When they stopped... again all of a sudden... the American proxy "rebels" had taken over Tripoli! We all remember this... check the Libya war thread... the news came practically overnight! Aisay kaisay hua?

When some currency notes and promises changed hands, key jernails stopped backing Qaddafi and he had to flee Tripoli with only a few die-hard loyalists, who accompanied him to Sirte. When Qaddafi was killed last week he was fleeing from even Sirte... even among his inner circle, somebody had been compromised and he was no longer safe even in his hometown.

The moral of the story is... Unkil wins because he offers supari that jernails cannot resist.

Unkil so far has sought to prevail over TSPA by offering only the bribery, and no PGMs. Tomorrow he will not rely on PGMs alone to prevail over Pakistan. PGMs will be an added disincentive, but the main incentive will be bribery as always. I will bet my left ball that there is an office of people in Quantico, VA whose *SOLE* purpose is to collate files on every TSPA corpse commando and high-ranking military figure, carefully determining the extent to which each of them is susceptible to bribes in exact dollar amounts, and exactly what is the value of influence that each individual will provide for the money, the degree of his ideological commitment, the potential for blackmail, the willingness to go against Nazariya-e-TSPA for Unkil's sake etc. etc. etc.

This is how the USA is calculating its chances of success in Pakistan... identifying who can it bring to the head of the TSPA who will actually do its job (INCLUDING providing total, unhindered access to the crown jewels.) I bet the whole lot of TSPA's jernails are susceptible to bribes, particularly the kind of cash and added incentives that Unkil can lay out. But the question is, how to select one who will stay committed to Unkil after taking the money, and who will be influential enough to make the difference when Unkil takes military action into Pakistan's borders. If we can name that person, we will be looking at the next post-coup CEO of Pakistan.

And when he takes office, the process of the Pakistani state unraveling will have begun in earnest.

[Altair]

Rudradev
OT,Do you watch "Criminal Minds"?

[Rudradev]

Altair... I've heard of the show but never seen it Is it good?

[Altair]

Altair... I've heard of the show but never seen it Is it good?

The concept is good. Your post mentioned about people in Quantico collating about Corpus commandus and "profiling" them. That is exactly what the "Criminal Minds" people do. So I thought you watch the show.

[ramana]

altair, If they think massa is going for clown jewels it will be bloody.

[rajrang]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 455950.cms

Either this rhetoric is meant strictly for internal consumption in Afghanistan/Pakistan or the Mayor of Kabul - Mr. Hamid Karzai has seriously lost it...

"God forbid, if at any time there is a war between Pakistan and America, then we will be with Pakistan," Karzai said in an interview with Pakistan's Geo News, excerpts of which were aired by the channel this afternoon.

Asked specifically if Afghanistan would back Pakistan if it was attacked by India, Karzai replied: "Anybody that attacks Pakistan, Afghanistan will stand with Pakistan. Afghanistan will be a brother of Pakistan. Afghanistan will never betray a brother".

When Karzai was asked what he would do if there was a war between Pakistan and India, he replied: "If Pakistan is attacked by anyone, and if the people of Pakistan need Afghanistan's help, Afghanistan will be there with you".

Kazrai had been critical of Pakistan's role after the assassination of former President and peace envoy Burhanuddin Rabbani. The Afghan President even said that the Taliban will not be able to move a finger without Pakistani support.

However, Karzai turned soft on Pakistan during the interview, calling it a "brother".

"Afghanistan is a brother. (Despite) all that the Pakistani establishment has done to Afghanistan, Afghanistan is still a brother," he added.

At the same time, Karzai sought to address Pakistan's concerns about the strategic partnership agreement signed recently by Afghanistan and India, saying the two countries had been working on the pact for years.

"Now, our relation with India, our signing of the strategic partnership with India, it did not happen at the spur of the moment. This is something that we have been working on for years now," Karzai said.

"But the visit (to India) was not after these troubles that took place. It was planned long, long before," he added.

Karzai's recent visit to India during which New Delhi and Kabul signed a strategic partnership agreement had come amid tensions in Afghanistan's ties with Pakistan.

Karzai also said the tensions between the US and Pakistan had not had an impact on Kabul's attitude towards Islamabad.

"You know that we have had this engagement with Pakistan for a long time and if it comes to a brother-to-brother relationship, you'll find that Afghanistan will be there with you in times of difficulty," he said.

"Please, brother, stop using all methods that hurt us and are now hurting you. Let's engage from a different platform, a platform in which the two brothers only progress towards a better future in peace and harmony. And Afghanistan will be with you," he said.

There may be subtle differences.

He says if there is a war between the US and TSP, Afghanistan will be with their TSP brothers. Though this appears unequivocal, yet being "WITH" TSP does not necessarily include sending Afghan forces to fight with US forces. If it did he could have said so. In any case such a move would be impractical since US and NATO forces are in his country protecting him and maintaining Afghanistan's security and economic growth. Only someone educated in madrassa schools will believe this nonsense.

However with India, he says if TSP is ATTACKED by ANYONE AND if the people of TSP need Afghanistan then Afghanistan will be with TSP.
1) First it is often a subjective decision regarding which country is the attacker. Further, this is also conditional because if TSP is judged to be the attacker then such help may not be forthcoming.
2) Second he did not refer to India, he said ANYONE (in the world?), again impractical.
3) Third he said IF the people of TSP need Afghanistan - could be an exit clause - just because the government of TSP calls for help from Afghanistan does not mean that the PEOPLE of TSP need help and it may also be up to Afghanistan's judgment whether TSP or its people need help.
4) Fourth as above, being "with" TSP does not necessarily include sending Afghan forces to fight alongside TSP forces. If it did he could have said so.
5) Fifth in Central Asian tradition, being called a "brother" may not mean so much - do we not know from history how often brother has to kill brother to ascend the throne.

Using an analogy, he seems to have given a blank cheque of support to TSP, but only because he knows the bank has no funds.

Overall his remarks with respect to the US are impractical and therefore baseless. In addition his remarks with respect to India has some ambiguity relative to his (baseless) remarks about the US. I think the American politicians have done a good job of training him to parse words.

While my opinion is that there is nothing to worry about Mr. Karzai's statements, I could be wrong. Perhaps I wonder if the Indian foreign ministry should ask Mr. Karzai for clarifications.

I believe that Afghanistan should sign security treaties with Russia, China, as well as the US and major West European powres. A strong and independent Afghanistan is in India's interest.

[g.sarkar]

Either this rhetoric is meant strictly for internal consumption in Afghanistan/Pakistan or the Mayor of Kabul - Mr. Hamid Karzai has seriously lost it...
Still perhaps I wonder if the Indian foreign ministry should ask Mr. Karzai for clarifications.

Sirji,
Mr Karzai has not lost anything, and no need for clarification. He comes from a special country and has to take precautions. Just look up the castration and death of President Najibullah and it will be clear to you.
Gautam

[chetak]

Either this rhetoric is meant strictly for internal consumption in Afghanistan/Pakistan or the Mayor of Kabul - Mr. Hamid Karzai has seriously lost it...
Still perhaps I wonder if the Indian foreign ministry should ask Mr. Karzai for clarifications.

Sirji,
Mr Karzai has not lost anything, and no need for clarification. He comes from a special country and has to take precautions. Just look up the castration and death of President Najibullah and it will be clear to you.
Gautam

He has not lost anything YET!

He's just trying to protect what's left of his family jewels.

Dragging India into his bombastic rhetoric was in extremely poor taste.

Ungrateful wretch but then everyone who deals with this culture knows this already.

[Narad]

Dragging India into his bombastic rhetoric was in extremely poor taste.

As a matter of fact it was not Karzai himself, but the paki journalist who dragged India into this. Karzai had no choice but to answer that "engineered" hypothetical question, involving India. He however, did manage to spin off the argument to "ANYONE" attacking pakistan, instead of "INDIA" attacking pakistan. I say he must be given full credit for smelling the porkis testicle brilliance and avoiding clear reference to India.

[Pranay]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15421928

A taste of "Philadelphia" (Brotherly Love)...

Afghanistan's interior minister escaped an assassination attempt after a would-be suicide bomber targeted his convoy north of the capital Kabul.

Bismullah Khan had decided at the last minute not to travel in the convoy, an interior ministry spokesman said.

The bomber approached the convoy which had parked up in Parwan province, but was shot dead before he could detonate his explosives, reports say.

There have been several high-profile assassinations in the past year.

They include President Hamid Karzai's powerful half-brother, his peace envoy, the police commander for northern Afghanistan and the governor of Kunduz province.

Earlier reports suggested Bismullah Khan had been in the convoy which had stopped on the road between Sayed Khail and Gulbahar districts to pray.

The Governor of Parwan province, Abdul Basir Salangi, told the AFP news agency that the suicide attacker emerged from his hiding place under a nearby bridge and approached the convoy.

"The bodyguards saw him and shot him. He had a suicide vest on, but the explosives didn't explode," he said.

Interior Ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqqi told Reuters news agency that the minister had been planning to travel in the convoy, but changed his plans at the last minute for unknown reasons and sent a deputy in his usual vehicle.

[rajrang]

Either this rhetoric is meant strictly for internal consumption in Afghanistan/Pakistan or the Mayor of Kabul - Mr. Hamid Karzai has seriously lost it...
Still perhaps I wonder if the Indian foreign ministry should ask Mr. Karzai for clarifications.

Sirji,
Mr Karzai has not lost anything, and no need for clarification. He comes from a special country and has to take precautions. Just look up the castration and death of President Najibullah and it will be clear to you.
Gautam

I have been misquoted above - I did not say that "Mr. Hamid Karzai has seriously lost it."

[Narad]

[url=http://www.(dwan).com/2011/10/24/karzai-backtracks-on-controversial-pakistan-remarks.html]Karzai backtracks on controversial Pakistan remarks[/url]

KABUL: President Hamid Karzai sought to distance himself Monday from controversial remarks made in an interview in which he said Afghanistan would back Pakistan against the US if the two ever came to blows.

The presidential palace said Karzai’s comments, made in an interview with A private Pakistani television station at the weekend, were “misinterpreted”.

Karzai has said that his country would support Pakistan if it was attacked by either the United States or India.

“God forbid, If any time war erupts between Pakistan and America, Afghanistan will side with Pakistan,” Karzai said in an interview aired late Saturday.

The prospect of all-out conflict between the US and Pakistan remains remote, despite strained relations in recent months, following the killing of Osama bin Laden by US commandos in a secret raid in a Pakistani garrison town.

Nevertheless the comments raised eyebrows among Western officials in Kabul allied to the 10-year campaign to keep the Taliban from returning to power.

Christopher Chambers, a Nato spokesman, told reporters in Kabul that “we all need to focus on much wider dialogue that’s required for peace… and which the people of both countries mostly certainly want and certainly deserve.”The palace insisted the remarks were broadcast out of context.

“Pakistani media has misinterpreted it,” said the president’s deputy spokesman Seyamak Herawi.

“They only showed the first part when the president says Afghanistan will back Pakistan if there is a war.” {Chootiyas @ paki media exaggerated and deliberately misrepresented as I pointed out in my last post}

“Instead, the reference was to Afghanistan’s willingness to house refugees from Pakistan in case of any conflict, in the way that millions of Afghans are given refuge across the border in Pakistan’s northwestern frontier region.

[SwamyG]

I don't think Indians expect Afghans to show the middle finger to Pakistan. India has contributed $2 billion for Afghan recovery. Is it peanuts? What has Tibet or Burma go to do with Afghan? Oh btw, Karzai studied in N.Delhi.

sorry for the nitpick

This eminent lamp post seeker..........

" He studied political science at Himachal Pradesh University in Simla, India. He received an honorary doctorate in literature from Himachal University in 2003".

You are right, I was wrong. He went to Delhi to study; but found the heat very oppressive. His cousin had earlier gone to Delhi to study medicine. For some reason Delhi stuck in my head.

[ramana]

Rangudu, Can you find the best estimates of Taliban numbers in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

A few estimates:
Link

2009 reports

....
The Taliban rebels are estimated to number no more than 25,000. Ljubomir Stojadinovic, a military analyst and guerrilla warfare expert from Serbia, said that although McChrystal's reinforcements would lift the ratio to 20-1 or more, they would prove counterproductive.

From a study of Indian experience the force ratios have to be even higher in order to smother the insurgency and make it ineffective. If mountian warfare needs 10:1, then insurgency in mountains needs 40:1. So ANA and other forces have to be built up a lot beofre the things get under control.

A TSP whine that this is exactly whats happening:

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=121632

Bloating Afghan army
Eschmall Sardar


There has always been a debate in Pakistan and at international forums about the bigger size of keeping and financing an army in Pakistan, which the time has proved is in real terms a strategic asset of the country vis a vis nuclear deterrence. Way back the Musharraf administration cut its size and since then, despite the need of adding more troops up to corps level, no extra recruitments have been made. The deployments were made only after thinning out troops from the crucially volatile eastern border where the threat of Indian assault has always remained. Every country tactically keeps its reserve troops at the striking positions, but Pakistan, keeping the financial constraints in mind, has not filled the gaps created by huge deployment of over one hundred thousand troops along its western borders.

But look at the size and number of troops Kabul has resorted to induct in the Afghan National Army, Afghan National Police and Afghan intelligence agency RAAM. The number of all three has now reached 300,000 with only 2% Afghan Pushtun representation. In addition to that Afghanistan is reportedly raising another 350,000 army, besides four lashkars of locals (50,000 each) and the process of their recruitment, induction and training has already been started, mostly in collaboration with their Indian counterparts. It is startling to know that a separate corps containing 80,000 troops had been raised in India during the last five years, which has reportedly been imparted training by the British and Israeli instructors near the Nepal borders and deployed in four phases in Afghanistan.

So once ANA and its other organizations reach critical mass the Taliban will all become good.

[RamaY]

So ANA will be the new mercenary army for unkil/west?

I would love that...

[devesh]

ok, if Afghanistan amasses 700,000 soldiers, how does that effect India? we are a far richer and demographically and geographically far bigger and yet, our military doesn't the proportionate stength of numbers. if ANA and TSPA together have around 1.5-1.75 million soldiers and PRC has 2.5 million, India needs at least 3 million, not the present 1.2 million. we are seriously lacking in numbers.

Army needs to go on major recruitment drive over long term. GoI should make this a priority.

[ramana]

So ANA will be the new mercenary army for unkil/west?

I would love that...

Not quite. The ANA as I wrote in Nov 2009 will be mainly a non-Pashtun army to ensure there is balance of power between Pashtun rulers and non-Pashtun population.

The levies or scouts are to regualarise the Pashtuns. IOW to put them in uniform and give them some pay instead of shooting up govt troops or get hired by TSP to make trouble. The large numbers are needed to smother insurgency ~40-50:1. They have to be reduced in numbers once the insurgencey dies out with sufficient numbers being kept to dissuade the TSP from reviving the issues on tap. This large ANA is needed for stability of Afghanistan. Think of the large US Army needed in Frontier West after the Civil War. It took twenty years from 1865 to 1885 for all the frointier to be quietened. And then paise hi paisa to challenge Europe.

ANA arent available for other areas or masters.

Cutting to the chase this is what I see as viable. I can go on and on about the factors that influence Afghanistan but it will be like a RAND report or worse IDSA article.

PLAN:

- US increase troop presence and crushes bad Taliban. Otherwise it will lose and the malaise kicks in.
- US manages TSP while doing this. Not at cost of any other nation.
- The good Taliban get regularized into para-military scouts etc. Crucial to get them under a uniform and get rid of their tribal dress. The Afghan National Army still gets its share of Tajiks and Uzbegs and Hazaras as top layer to guarantee the ethnic rights.
- The Ghilzais and Durranis have to make up and work out a compromise certified by the loya jirga to ensure Pashtun solidarity.
- An all powers conference to declare Afghan neutrality is crucial to return Afghanistan to buffer status like in the 19th century. This is to neutralize any wet dreams of wannabe jihadis. Same time all the ethnic areas will have millat/autonomy status: Pashtuns, Tajiks and Hazaras and Uzbegs. The rights of sub-minorities in these areas are guaranteed by Afghan National Govt eg. Pashtuns in Tajik areas und so weiter.

A G-8/OECD/INDIA and PRC economic program has to be worked out to stabilize the country. US will have the TSP economic stabilization program.

A strong advice is to seek Pashtun autonomy in TSP as a self determination right same as the Kurds in Iraq to satisfy the self determination rights. As this is related to the Afghan issue.

[shyamd]

^^ To add to the above, they need sound economic projects that generate good income for the Afghan govt. The mines etc are a good start. But it needs to be sustainable and something that generates real income to sustain the ANA/P

[devesh]

^^^
yup, one of the side goals is to let new information, knowledge, and a general enlightenment flow into Afghanistan and border Paki badlands. these areas need exposure to outside forces and reforge ancient linkages between Iran and India, and not be blind puppets to tribal ethnicism or useless fodder for local warring power factions.

[Altair]

Can Indian software companies start a small (say 400 square meter) office in Kabul. They can start operations by training interested people in basic IT skills. Real operations can start in 3 to 5 year timeline.A 5 to 7 member staff can do the job. Is it even possible?

[Pratyush]

NIIT, could be the perfect choice for the job.

[shyamd]

Look whatever takes place in afghanistan - it has to be sustainable. There is no point training people up if there are no jobs available. So for the mines, the indian companies have to recruit locally using as much afghan resources, give them management training etc. But India alone can't make it happen, it needs help from US, EU etc to pump funds in etc

[Pratyush]

^^^

Since, you put it that way, the road to peace in Kabul runs through Islamabad. Every thing else is just intellectual masturbation. The real question is whether India has enough National strength to drive through Islamabad.

[Altair]

Look whatever takes place in afghanistan - it has to be sustainable. There is no point training people up if there are no jobs available. So for the mines, the indian companies have to recruit locally using as much afghan resources, give them management training etc. But India alone can't make it happen, it needs help from US, EU etc to pump funds in etc

IT infra can be easily shifted. We can pack and leave any day if it comes to that.That is the whole idea. An annual IT budget of (1 Crore Indian Rupees OR 200,000 USD) can sustain a small presence in Afghanistan,Kabul provided we can be assured of security. A single branch unit can train 500 students in a year. They can be provided jobs in India after undergoing training. I am sure there will be talented folks and I am sure 500 per year is a decent figure.
Comments?

[shyamd]

Altair, I'm all for it. We are and will doi everythIng to keep the Karzai govt alive.

I just want something that earns afghanistan a lot of money and that's sustainable. Let's face it, US and EU are in deep trouble economically. I can't see them indefinitely bail out Afghan govt.
So, we need to make as much investments there as possible. Perhaps dvert TAPI and instead diivert it through iran to Chabahar. At least afghan govt can get some money.

India's engagement n Afghanistan is about J&K and our security.

[ramana]

^^^
yup, one of the side goals is to let new information, knowledge, and a general enlightenment flow into Afghanistan and border Paki badlands. these areas need exposure to outside forces and reforge ancient linkages between Iran and India, and not be blind puppets to tribal ethnicism or useless fodder for local warring power factions.

Devesh, Look at pics of Afghans in the Daoud era. Afghanistan was on iis way to modernity when the TSP stoked the tribal antediluvian minds and started the downward spiral in mid 70s.

One has to understand that the tribes have to be the agents of change and facilitators of the change. For that they have to see a benefit from the change.

The last 30 years have destroyed traditional tribal structures. They are re-forming. Maybe they need to be reformed.

[ramana]

Look whatever takes place in afghanistan - it has to be sustainable. There is no point training people up if there are no jobs available. So for the mines, the indian companies have to recruit locally using as much afghan resources, give them management training etc. But India alone can't make it happen, it needs help from US, EU etc to pump funds in etc

IT infra can be easily shifted. We can pack and leave any day if it comes to that.That is the whole idea. An annual IT budget of (1 Crore Indian Rupees OR 200,000 USD) can sustain a small presence in Afghanistan,Kabul provided we can be assured of security. A single branch unit can train 500 students in a year. They can be provided jobs in India after undergoing training. I am sure there will be talented folks and I am sure 500 per year is a decent figure.
Comments?

Altair, There was a project to increase the Internet connectivity of Afghanistan. I think that has to be done before all this. I dont like cable for it needs gateways and those are blocked.

[RajeshA]

I think Indians ought to start looking at activities outside IT. IT is not a panacea for everything. Mining in Afghanistan can be sustained for a long time. We need to generate employment in mining. Also we set up some Oil refinery in Afghanistan itself using Oil and Gas imports from Turkmenistan. One should be looking at Tourism as a revenue source. Afghanistan has a lot to offer there. Dry fruits farming can be expanded on!

[Agnimitra]

^^ Also, saffron production and processing facilities in Afg were expanded a year or two ago. We consume a lot of it, so we can integrate that initiative into our supply chain management infrastructure.

But it is important that India gets a foothold in education, and information systems in general (not just the Tecnology aspect of it).

[RajeshA]

Yes and dance studios also!

[Agnimitra]

Seriously, were you being sarcastic?

[ramana]

RajeshA, IT is a taekoff industry of the 21st century just as cotton was in 18th, steel in 19th and cehmicals in 20th. By being aprt of the global IT mvoement the Afghans will benefit.

Altair should be commended for that idea.

Will see how local US congress rep can enable it.


Ombaba can try to persuade US cos to use Afghan for some of the basic IT work and take them away from TSP sponsored IT work.

[shyamd]

Whatever it is, it has to be a money spinner. Mines is one. Oil & gas transit fees are another.
Anythiing small is just for PR.

This is in the interest of both the India and the US..

[RajeshA]

I am just not happy that Indians go around the world, in China, and every other place teaching IT skills. That is cutting off the branch on which we sit!

Secondly India should be moving more in the direction of manufacturing anyway and become somewhat less enthralled with IT. An Indian student in abroad studies IT and a Chinese studies Mechanical Engineering. Generalizing it a bit, but that has been my experience. Perhaps I am too subjective on this issue!

[Altair]

-deleted-

[Altair]

I am just not happy that Indians go around the world, in China, and every other place teaching IT skills. That is cutting off the branch on which we sit!

Secondly India should be moving more in the direction of manufacturing anyway and become somewhat less enthralled with IT. An Indian student in abroad studies IT and a Chinese studies Mechanical Engineering. Generalizing it a bit, but that has been my experience. Perhaps I am too subjective on this issue!

Sirji
Teaching increases our expertise. India has more than enough supply of IT engineers that we can actually offer consulting to Klingons and Romulans and our exchange rate makes sure that we are the most cost effective to hire .We have no competition in this sector. I attended numerous presentations and seminars about Indian IT sustainability for the next 50 years and we are in no immediate danger. Trust me on this.

ramana garu
Power and cabling are problems in India too. we have ways to deal with them. Besides, the initial couple of years is purely training. We do not need lot of bandwidth for that.The IT training center will be located very near to "secure areas" where there will be a VSAT links. Also, It will take at least 3 years to get peoples attention to IT sector. 1500 people means 1500 families and 15,000 friends and relatives atleast. This is for just one center. We can train "nurses" as well. India has considerable nurse training experience.
These are areas where there is quick turnaround time for RoI. Employment is almost guaranteed in these sectors worldwide.
Mining is a sector where "mafias" and "corporates" will eventually loot the people. It would provide wealth for only a "few".
IT and Nursing will bring money to average household in Afghanistan. It will eventually get remittances to the country and these people pay taxes. They spend well which will move the economic wheel.
JMT
Altair

[Pratyush]

As it scoots from Af-Pak, US ‘bargain’ may sell India short

[ramana]

Wish there were more like this author and not the lifafa chatterati who think giving more to West is what will allow India to thrive.

Indo-Afghan Strategic Partnership from the ground

On October 4, 2011, the day that India and Afghanistan signed an agreement on strategic partnership, I traveled from Kabul to Kandahar, getting what was for me a rare glimpse of the average Afghan's perception of Indian developmental activity in his country. What was striking was the widespread support I saw in the Pashtun heartland for an even greater Indian role in rebuilding the Afghan economy and society. There is demand in Kandahar for India to add to the lone refrigeration facility it built, as Afghan goods are otherwise sold to the Pakistanis, who keep them in their own refrigeration facilities and then sell them back to the Afghans at much higher prices.

In the Arghandab Valley, traditionally known for its pomegranates, locals seek help in establishing storage, processing and transit facilities. The airport manager at the Kandahar International airport, Ahmedullah Faizi, highlighted the need for more cargo flights to export pomegranates and dry fruits. On direct flights from Kandahar to Delhi, there has been a notable increase in the number of visitors to India for health care, tourism and education. Women who had been queuing up with their young children since 5 o'clock in the morning at an Indian medical facility in Kandahar expressed appreciation for India's assistance. In discussions with Shah Wali Karzai, Qayoom Karzai and Mehmood Karzai in Kandaharthe day after the agreement was signed, the Karzai brothers were clear on their desire for India to invest in cement factories, irrigation and power projects, road and canal building, and an increase the number of scholarships for Afghan students to study professional courses like management and public administration in India.

The agreement came on the heels of the killing of former President Burhanuddin Rabbani and the subsequent suspension of reconciliation talks with the Taliban, leading many to conclude that it was signed in order to isolate Pakistan. What these critics have missed is that the agreement was more than five months in the making, designed to address the long-standing demands of the Afghan people. A series of official visits and private deliberations since January of this year culminated in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's announcement in May of the two countries' plans for a strategic partnership. During an interview in Kabul in the days following the establishment of the pact, former Interior Minister Ali Jalali said he "recognizes the agreement as a document officializing [sic] the close ties that already exist between the two countries." Shah Mahmood Miakhel, former Deputy Minister of Interior, strongly supported the agreement as "useful for reconstruction and stability of Afghanistan to prevent civil war or proxy war."

This development should silence the critics of India's aid-only policy. Some senior Indian officials and former diplomats I have spoken to warned that India could get caught in a "reputation trap," where it is overstretched economically in a country of "negative security interests." The agreement is an affirmation of India's maturing foreign policy in the region. It is also a natural corollary of the constructive role India has played in Afghan development efforts thus far. In the last ten years, India has contributed close to $2 billion in aid, making it Afghanistan's fifth largest bilateral donor, and garnering much appreciation from the local population. The success of development efforts in Afghanistan is clearly a key aspect of achieving stability there. Thus, the Afghan-Indian strategic agreement may be seen as the consolidation of gains made by India's soft power approach, as well as an expansion of India's plans to secure its national security interests. A strong, stable and democratic Afghanistan would reduce the dangers of the return of extremist forces to the seats of power, and the potential spillover of radicalism and violence that would destabilize the entire region.

The agreement is important in that it touches on a wide range of issues that are critical to sustaining progress in Afghanistan. India's decision to expand the training of Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), particularly the Afghan National Police (ANP), is a significant step toward building local capacity for providing security. The trade and economic agreements in the pact are a reiteration of India's commitment to Afghanistan's economic growth, and its role as a "bridge" between South Asia and Central Asia. The emphasis on "regional economic cooperation" in the ASP indicates India's vision of binding the countries in the region through a mutually beneficial cooperative framework. Finally, the agreement's capacity building and educational initiatives are a pledge from India to invest in the future leadership of Afghanistan.

India is indeed looking beyond merely engaging the Karzai government, or indulging one ethnic or political faction. The strategic agreement ensures the continuity of India's initiatives by making them free from the politics, whims and personal fancies of future leaders.* Assertions that India's foreign policy does not usually have a long-term vision no longer apply in the case of Afghanistan. An institutional mechanism for continued engagement in Afghanistan in the form of this agreement is bound to cultivate a broad range of stakeholders in that country, preventing a complete reversal later of the gains it makes in the short term.
*{Contrast this with continued policy of US to play one faction against the other as shown by Bloton tirade. Makes you wonder does US have national interests or partisan short term goals?}

New Delhi and Kabul have insisted on multiple occasions that they are willing to accommodate Pakistani interests in Afghanistan. President Karzai said after the signing of the agreement that the new partnership with India was not meant as a form of aggression toward Pakistan. One hopes that in spite of the criticisms the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued of the strategic pact, the country will see reason in adopting a mature and rational Afghan policy. As one Afghan political leader in Kandahar said to me, "if Pakistan has to compete with India in gaining good will among the Afghans, it has to be on the plank of reconstruction and development, and not acts of subversion and selective assassinations or providing sanctuaries [to militants]."

No commentary on Indian-Afghan relations would be complete without addressing the most pressing question: Can India sustain or even expand its activities in Afghanistan beyond the NATO withdrawal date in 2014? The strategic agreement has provided a much-needed mechanism for a continued relationship beyond this deadline, without being subjected to the vagaries of future governments in Kabul or New Delhi, or to the prevailing regional security environment. For Afghans it is surely a sign that India is a reliable partner who has stepped in firmly when the West seems to be in a hurry to quit.

Dr. Shanthie Mariet D'Souza is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), an autonomous institute at the National University of Singapore (NUS). She can be reached at [email protected]. The views reflected in the paper are those of the author and not of the Institute.

I submit this is revival of the Indo-Gangetic subsidy to Gandhar since the epic age. The advent of colonial age stopped that. Its now back on track.

[ramana]

X-posted.

Bolton: Karzai Caught Double-Dealing, Needs His Hat Handed to Him
By On the Record
Published October 25, 2011 | FoxNews.com

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," October 24, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS GUEST HOST: We are back. And "On the Record" tonight, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai making some explosive remarks about the United States this weekend. Karzai said in an interview with a Pakistani reporter, quote, "God forbid if a war breaks between Pakistan and America, we will side with Pakistan. Afghanistan would stand with you. Afghanistan is your brother," he said. But now the Afghan president's office is saying that the media, quote, "misinterpreted" Karzai's remarks.

I'm joined now by former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, joins us. And he's already laughing! Why the chuckles, Ambassador Bolton?

JOHN BOLTON, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR/FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Well, this statement is obviously outrageous, and a whole lot of U.S. officials, from the secretary of state on down, ought to be having conversations with President Karzai to express that.

But you know, back in the day, an American politician could say one thing in the Northeast, another thing in the South, another thing in the West and get away with it. That obviously doesn't happen today. Within 24 hours, an inconsistency is being pointed out.

But in other cultures, they're just not used to that. You're speaking in, I don't know, Urdu or Pashtu, whatever President Karzai was speaking in to some Pakistani radio station, and if you get found out, you say, Well, I was quoted out of context or you've got the interpretation wrong. Unfortunately, he got caught in duplicity and double dealing. And he needs to be called out for it very severely in private.

MACCALLUM: You know, sort of aside from the fundamental discussions that you and I are going to have in a moment about our relationship with Pakistan and Afghanistan, I mean, what about Karzai as an individual? Because this isn't the first time, you know, that we've heard these kind of -- I'll call them gaffes, I guess, from him, and that he's had to sort of be, you know, brought into line in some ways in terms of our diplomacy in lines of how he's thinking about things. And whether he's stable is really the underlying question, is it not?

BOLTON: Well, I think he's very stable. I think this is part of the culture that he can say one thing to another person and the precise opposite to another and believe that he can get away with it. It's one reason why we, the United States, are not going to reform Afghanistan, its culture or its government in our lifetime, and that shouldn't be our objective. We shouldn't think we're going to fundamentally change the country.

But even more importantly, to understand we're not there to benefit Hamid Karzai. A lot of people say, "Oh, how can he be so ungrateful after all the help we've given him?" It's true we've benefited him and the Afghan people, but this is a fundamental political point. We're there to protect American interests. As an incident of that, we may benefit the Afghans, but we're not there to make them a better people, a happier place to live. We're there to advance our own interests, and that's why President Karzai really needs to have his hat handed to him.

MACCALLUM: And you know, to that point, in terms of U.S. interests and being in Afghanistan, the mission is to eradicate the Taliban, to make them, you know, unable to operate out of that area. And one of the main problems that we've had with that, of course, is the Haqqani network, which is just over the border into Pakistan. And the whole idea with Hillary Clinton's trip or one of the central ideas of the secretary of state was to sort of, you know, have this really -- have a tough talk, basically, with Pakistan and show an alliance between Afghanistan and the United States that says, Look, you know, you're going to have to crack down on this Haqqani network because we're never going to get anywhere in Afghanistan if we can't solve this problem.

BOLTON: Well, and the reason that there are American attacks inside the territory of Pakistan is against the Haqqani network, against Taliban, against Gulbuddin Hekmatyar -- that is to say, against the people who are trying to overthrow Hamid Karzai.

So the duplicity here is really quite breathtaking, and equally so when you realize that just a couple weeks ago, Karzai was in New Delhi making an agreement with India to have a major Indian aid program inside Afghanistan, which drives the Pakistanis crazy.

So this culture of saying one thing to one side, another thing to another side, a third thing to the third side and thinking you can get away with it is really revealed here in its full splendor.

But it brings -- should bring us back to the fundamental. We're there to destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda, to make sure they don't take over Afghanistan again. The kind of government Afghanistan has obviously is a factor in that, but our making a nice, sweet, pretty, representative government in Afghanistan with Hamid Karzai as president is not our objective. Our objective is to destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda.

MACCALLUM: What did you think of the -- the state -- our State Department basically came out and said, Look, you know, let's take the temperature down on this a bit. This is a hypothetical. We are not about to go to war with Pakistan and -- no, against Pakistan, rather. So there's no question of whose side Afghanistan would be on in this issue. Did you like the way that they handled that? Was that the right way to go?

BOLTON: Well, I think it's right to cool the rhetoric down in public. I think that's probably correct, although I must say, you have to great your teeth when you say that. And I do think there should be some hard conversations in private because this kind of comment by Karzai undercuts support for the war in Afghanistan.

We've already got enough problems because President Obama doesn't explain it to the American people, doesn't relate it to our own security, is really more eager to withdraw than he says publicly. He's delighted he's now going to be able to withdraw from Iraq by the end of the year. He'd be even more delighted if he could do the same in Afghanistan.

So Karzai sort of sticking his thumb in our eye does not help what is already a difficult political situation here in the United States.

MACCALLUM: It's certainly difficult for the families of our military who have shed blood in his country...

BOLTON: Absolutely.

MACCALLUM: ... and that is another very important element to all of this. Ambassador, thank you. Always good to talk to you. Thanks. Thanks, John Bolton...

BOLTON: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: ... for joining us tonight.

BOLTON: Good night.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-re ... z1bowtsYh4

On further thinking about the Bolton outburst on fauxnews?
Who is his audience?
What ticked him off?
Who and what was he reassuring?

This guy might be a high SD official if the Repubs win.

[Varoon Shekhar]

"I submit this is revival of the Indo-Gangetic subsidy to Gandhar since the epic age. The advent of colonial age stopped that. Its now back on track."

It is an excellent article, but once again, shied away from mentioning India's ancient links with Afghanistan. It can't be stressed enough, if you are raising the topic of India-Afghanistan, that India is not alien, unfamiliar, undesirable or interloping. Don't even dream of that idea.