India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Locked
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by ldev »

One very important reason for deploying Indian troops which has not been mentioned AFAIK is to deny Pakistan "strategic depth". The definition of "strategic depth" from the Pakistani standpoint is the ability to deploy some of their nukes in Afghanistan so as to make it that much more difficult for India to target them (either via counterforce or via ABM defences) in the event of a nuclear stand-off between the two countries.

Failure on the part of India to act decisively now on this issue could result in a compromise being reached between the West and the *moderate Taliban*. Note that Obama administration (via Hilary Clinton) has quit talking about a military victory in Afghanistan. The moderate Taliban who are nothing more than Pakistani proxies will ensure that Afghanistan will not be used to target the West in the future but India will be fair game. In such a situation where there is the distinct possibility of Pakistani nukes being deployed in Afghanistan, will India decide to target Afghanistan especially given the historical relationships between the Afghan people and India? So a preventive measure to deny Pakistan this opportunity via deployment of Indian troops is a much better option nothwithstanding the logistical difficulties inherent in such an operation.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5411
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by ShauryaT »

ldev wrote:One very important reason for deploying Indian troops which has not been mentioned AFAIK is to deny Pakistan "strategic depth". The definition of "strategic depth" from the Pakistani standpoint is the ability to deploy some of their nukes in Afghanistan so as to make it that much more difficult for India to target them (either via counterforce or via ABM defences) in the event of a nuclear stand-off between the two countries.

Failure on the part of India to act decisively now on this issue could result in a compromise being reached between the West and the *moderate Taliban*. Note that Obama administration (via Hilary Clinton) has quit talking about a military victory in Afghanistan. The moderate Taliban who are nothing more than Pakistani proxies will ensure that Afghanistan will not be used to target the West in the future but India will be fair game. In such a situation where there is the distinct possibility of Pakistani nukes being deployed in Afghanistan, will India decide to target Afghanistan especially given the historical relationships between the Afghan people and India? So a preventive measure to deny Pakistan this opportunity via deployment of Indian troops is a much better option nothwithstanding the logistical difficulties inherent in such an operation.
The above scenario presumes a US withdrawal, unlikely in the short-medium term. The comment is without prejudice to the deployment of Indian troops.
Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Anabhaya »

An Indian deployment in Afghanistan needs Iranian support. No two ways about it. iran-Taliban-Pakistan do not share a happy story - we all know.

Taliban entered Iranian consulate in Mazar-E-Sherif and killed a couple of Iranian diplomats. I'll leave it to the reader to guess if such an act would have been carried out without Pak. assent.

Indian presence in Afghan provinces bordering Iran insulates it from NATO/American troops on one side. Say what - Iran wouldn't hate that.
kasthuri
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 08:17
Location: Mount Doom in Mordor

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by kasthuri »

ldev wrote:One very important reason for deploying Indian troops which has not been mentioned AFAIK is to deny Pakistan "strategic depth". The definition of "strategic depth" from the Pakistani standpoint is the ability to deploy some of their nukes in Afghanistan so as to make it that much more difficult for India to target them (either via counterforce or via ABM defences) in the event of a nuclear stand-off between the two countries.

Failure on the part of India to act decisively now on this issue could result in a compromise being reached between the West and the *moderate Taliban*. Note that Obama administration (via Hilary Clinton) has quit talking about a military victory in Afghanistan. The moderate Taliban who are nothing more than Pakistani proxies will ensure that Afghanistan will not be used to target the West in the future but India will be fair game. In such a situation where there is the distinct possibility of Pakistani nukes being deployed in Afghanistan, will India decide to target Afghanistan especially given the historical relationships between the Afghan people and India? So a preventive measure to deny Pakistan this opportunity via deployment of Indian troops is a much better option nothwithstanding the logistical difficulties inherent in such an operation.
Do you think Russia would allow TSP to deploy nukes in Afghanistan, which would be a direct threat in its neighborhood ? I don't think so.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by RayC »

Yusuf wrote:For me, stationing troops in A-stan has more do with putting pressure on Pakistan on two fronts and if hostility breaks out then gives us a good strategic edge. I dont want Indian troops hunting Taliban out there. The Americans are there to do it.
It is like having your cake and eating it too! ;)

I wonder if the ISAF will be ready to hold the can, while India has a ball pushing its strategic objectives. It will upset Pakistan and the ISAF is very keen to have a 'working' relationship with the Pak Army and the Pak govt.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by ldev »

Do you think Russia would allow TSP to deploy nukes in Afghanistan, which would be a direct threat in its neighborhood ? I don't think so.
I think your question should be answered with another question:
Had the Pakistani's already deployed nukes in Afghanistan prior to Sept 11, 2001? Exactly what was airlifted out of Kunduz?
renukb
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 18 Aug 2008 12:18

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by renukb »

Geopolitical Diary: India's Afghanistan Option
http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_di ... ical_diary

Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said at a conference in New Delhi on Wednesday that Pakistan is still sponsoring international terrorism and must be disciplined. India has reiterated this message on a near daily basis ever since the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, yet the only disciplinary action it has taken has been limited to mere rhetoric.

There is no question that the Mumbai attacks outraged India’s decision-makers, the vast majority of whom maintain that there are clear and identifiable links between the perpetrators of the attack and the Pakistani military establishment. As far as New Delhi is concerned, the Islamist militant proxies that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency has long supported are still well within the military’s reach, and could be reined in if Islamabad actually had the will to do so.

With the blame cast on Pakistan, in the wake of the attacks, India prepared for military action, ranging from surgical strikes and hot-pursuit operations in Pakistani-administered Kashmir to a full-scale war. Pakistan soon grew nervous and started redeploying its troops from the Afghan border in the west to the eastern border with India. At that point, Pakistan’s best hope was to pressure the United States into holding India back, which it did by reminding Washington of the risk it would incur to its supply lines in Pakistan – which are critical to fighting the war in Afghanistan — if the Pakistanis were faced with the need to confront a military threat from India.

But it wasn’t just U.S. pressure that could restrain India. The Indians knew themselves that they lacked any good options for responding forcefully against Pakistan. Limited strikes in Pakistani-administered Kashmir would be mainly of symbolic value, given that many of the militant assets there had already had time to relocate. And any such strike likely would end up working in Pakistan’s favor; the local population, united by an Indian threat, would have good reason to rally behind the Pakistani military and government.

Any plans India might have had to go beyond a limited war in Kashmir did not have the full support of the military — particularly the army, which lacked confidence in its capabilities and felt that stalemate was a far more likely outcome than victory. Indian policymakers also had to deal with the uncomfortable possibility that the militants who carried out the Mumbai attacks likely had the intent of pulling India into a military confrontation with Pakistan. The more Pakistan destabilized, the more room jihadists in the region would have to maneuver. Any large-scale military action by India could be seen as playing into the militants’ hands –- and could intensify the jihadist focus on India for further attacks.

In short, India’s hands were tied post-Mumbai, and as New Delhi spent time debating among bad options and more bad options, the window of opportunity to strike in the wake of the attacks (when international outrage against Pakistan was highest) had soon passed.

But this is not to say that India is left without any options. On the contrary, India is keeping open the option of hot-pursuit strikes in Pakistani-administered Kashmir, and is moving forward with plans for covert operations inside Pakistan to target militant networks. The Indians also are cognizant of the fact that a follow-on attack would require them to take some level of military action. But there is another pressure tactic the Indians are throwing around, one that involves India stretching beyond Pakistan into the war-torn territory of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is essentially the extension of Pakistan’s western buffer against foreign threats. Without a foothold in Kabul, Pakistan runs the risk of being sandwiched between a hostile power to its west and its main rival, India, to the east — a position it remembers well from the Cold War days when the Soviet Union, then allied with India, invaded Afghanistan. As a result, Pakistan has to rely heavily on its Pashtun ties to Afghanistan to secure its western frontier.

India knows what makes the Pakistanis jumpy, and has spent recent years steadily upping its involvement in reconstruction work in Afghanistan to make good with Kabul, which currently has a very shaky relationship with the Pakistanis over the insurgency plaguing the country. So far, India has not ventured beyond its $86 million reconstruction commitment to Afghanistan, but has been throwing around the rather contentious idea of sending troops to the country to help with fighting the insurgency.

This would be a gigantic step for India to take, and one that would make the Pakistanis jump through the roof. India is extremely wary of deploying forces beyond its border.
(It learned the pains of counterinsurgency the hard way when it got pulled into a bloody war of attrition with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the late 1980s.) New Delhi prefers to keep to itself in most foreign policy matters, particularly when it comes to fighting other nations’ wars. But sources in Indian defense circles say there are serious discussions going on among the political and military leadership over the Afghan option. Even Indian army chief Gen. Deepak Kapoor publicly raised the possibility Jan. 14 when he said in a conference, “Changing our strategic policy towards Kabul in terms of raising military stakes is one of the factors that is to be determined politically.”

Kapoor was being careful in wording his statement, essentially saying it is up to the politicians to give the military orders to deploy. But he was also deliberate in his message to Pakistan: If Islamabad continues to push India through its array of Islamist militant proxies, India could end up making a strategic decision to break through a few foreign policy barriers and shoulder some of the security burden on Pakistan’s western frontier. At a time when U.S. tolerance for Pakistan is wearing dangerously thin, and when the United States and India are exploring deeper, long-term and more strategic ties, this type of adversarial encirclement is a threat that potentially could shake Pakistan to its core.

That is, if India actually follows through. As mentioned earlier, this would require a major leap in Indian foreign policy — not to mention arrangements to coordinate and integrate Indian military efforts in Afghanistan with U.S. and NATO operations. And there is currently no indication that the discussions are anywhere near an implementation stage.

Also, the United States would probably prefer that India keep things as they are for now. An Indian military presence in Afghanistan would make a juicy target for jihadists in the region, and it would give Pakistan all the more incentive to redirect and intensify the insurgency in Afghanistan, putting both the United States and India in an even stickier situation.

However, the threat of sending Indian troops to Afghanistan does a decent job in keeping Pakistan off balance.
And, at least for the moment, that is what New Delhi and Washington want to intimidate Pakistan into giving up its militant proxy activities. Time will only tell if the Indians actually put the Afghan option into practice, but the Pakistanis are certainly keeping watch.
Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 1059
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Guddu »

Finally, Strat managed to read Orbat.com :D
kasthuri
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 08:17
Location: Mount Doom in Mordor

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by kasthuri »

ldev wrote:
Do you think Russia would allow TSP to deploy nukes in Afghanistan, which would be a direct threat in its neighborhood ? I don't think so.
I think your question should be answered with another question:
Had the Pakistani's already deployed nukes in Afghanistan prior to Sept 11, 2001? Exactly what was airlifted out of Kunduz?
Hi ldev:

I don't know what happened in Kunduz. I tried looking in Wiki but couldn't find a reference to nukes. Can you please send me some links regarding this so that I can learn something? Thanks.
kasthuri
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 08:17
Location: Mount Doom in Mordor

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by kasthuri »

Guddu wrote:Finally, Strat managed to read Orbat.com :D
Seriously, how good is Strat? Any statistics other than the self-advertised ones?
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by ldev »

kasthuri wrote:
ldev wrote: I think your question should be answered with another question:
Hi ldev:

I don't know what happened in Kunduz. I tried looking in Wiki but couldn't find a reference to nukes. Can you please send me some links regarding this so that I can learn something? Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airlift_of_Evil
One senior (U.S.) intelligence analyst told me, "The request was made by Musharraf to Bush, but Cheney took charge--- a token of who was handling Musharraf at the time. The approval was not shared with anyone at State, including Colin Powell, until well after the event. Musharraf said Pakistan needed to save its dignity and its valued people. [Two planes were involved, which made several sorties a night over several nights. They took off from air bases in Chitral and Gilgit in Pakistan's northern areas, and landed in Kunduz, where the evacuees were waiting on the tarmac. Certainly hundreds and perhaps as many as one thousand people escaped. Hundreds of ISI officers, Taliban commanders, and foot soldiers belonging to the IMU and al Qaeda personnel boarded the planes. What was sold as a minor extraction turned into a major air bridge. The frustrated U.S. SOF who watched it from the surrounding high ground dubbed it "Operation Evil Airlift." Another senior U.S. diplomat told me afterward, "Musharraf fooled us because after we gave approval, the ISI may have run a much bigger operation and got out more people. We just don't know. At the time nobody wanted to hurt Musharraf, and his prestige with the army was at stake. The real question is why Musharraf did not get his men out before. Clearly the ISI was running its own war against the Americans and did not want to leave Afghanistan until the last moment."
So the question remains, what exactly was airlifted out of Kunduz. An airlift involving 2 planes with several sorties a night for several nights? Was it just men or were part of Pakistan's *crown jewels* stored in Kunduz?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60288
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by ramana »

ldev, the other airlift to inquire about was the one on 9/13/2001 when the airspace over Islamabad was closed and there were many flights reported from Kabul to Chaklala.

I think the maal was airlifted back on that day along with a lot of TSPA staff stationed in Afghanistan.

Kunduz was to save their troops cornered at Kunduz and surrounded by NA troops.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Philip »

We can make a two pronged support for the Karzai govt. through Iran (logistic support,doing the work of the "contractors" as in Iraq) and through Takjikistan,air support,with training,arms,etc.,etc.,for the Afghan forces.Let the US/NATO troops fight the war against the Taliban on the Paki/tribal "Terroristan" frontline,while we work out a strategy with the northern states and Russia to keep that route also open.The US needs to undertand that it has to take eevryone aboard if it wants to be bailed out and defeat Pak/the Taliban..
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4654
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by hnair »

renukb wrote:Geopolitical Diary: India's Afghanistan Option
http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_di ... ical_diary

Also, the United States would probably prefer that India keep things as they are for now. An Indian military presence in Afghanistan would make a juicy target for jihadists in the region, and it would give Pakistan all the more incentive to redirect and intensify the insurgency in Afghanistan, putting both the United States and India in an even stickier situation.

:evil: Aren't we already treated as a juicy target? What would be different in Afghanistan that is different from right now? Us sitting inside our borders and dealing with them does not seem to deter any in the Pak Army establishment. We need to have formal boots on the ground.

Per our publicized policy, if we are ready to use nukes against anyone using WMD on our troops(be it on Indian or Paki soil), why should we believe that 120,000 troops will be allowed to be stranded because Pakis decided to cut our logistics train? Why should that not be a major act of war in which 120k Indian lives are at risk? If anything, 120,000 pissed off troops will make the GoI of the day to develop cojones and smash across the wastelands of pak. We should wade in and smack shyte around. For a large number of reasons.

IPKF episode is used all the time for inaction beyond borders. Situation cannot be more dissimilar. Karzai is our friend, unlike the slime balls, Jayawardane or Premadasa. Taliban does not have a DMK like Indian party with influence at a state or central level and most IMs are wary of their version of harsh social structures. So why are we even thinking of IPKF

This has nothing to do with Unkil - unkil will leave that place to the dogs, when unkil achieves his objectives. So Unkil will not hesitate to make a deal with the "Good Taliban" (those who dont hate west that bad enough to fight them, but hate India, whom we know as Taliban) to stem the tide of "bad taliban" (those who hate the entire world including quote a chunk of their own ummah). We will be left with a vastly enlarged pakistan, for all practical purposes. Not at all good for us.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Rudradev »

This bogus scenario of the US running away from Afghanistan after handing over power to a "Moderate Taliban" is being bandied about way too much on here.

There is *zero* possibility of the US doing anything like this, at any time in the foreseeable future.

Say what you like about the Americans, they're not stupid enough to repeat the same mistake twice. In the '90s, they outsourced their Afghan policy to the ISI (with the Taliban as its agents of implementation). They were rewarded with Khobar Towers, the African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack and finally 9-11.

In the years since Enduring Freedom began, the US has acquired progressively less and less... not more and more... reason to have faith in the ISI's good intentions. There is simply no way they're going to trust Pakistan and its proxies to take care of Afghanistan for them again.

Sure enough, despite all of America's economic difficulties, Obama has reiterated his decision to *double* the size of the US troop commitment to Afghanistan. Do people think he is preparing to send 30,000 soldiers there on vacation?

Another thing to be noted is that it was the British, in conjunction with the Saudis, who came up with the notion to accommodate "Moderate Taliban" in the Afghan power structure so that they could go home. That plan may have had some marginal adherents in Washington, but its prime mover was the Gordon Brown regime in London. Brown is a very different creature from Tony Blair, who emphasized the prerogative of the trans-Atlantic relationship to the extent of following GWB into Iraq. Note that Brown's foreign secretary is the Islamist-loving David Millipede, as different from Jack Straw as one could possibly imagine.

All told, the present UK government believes that it can find safety in Dhimmitude... all it has to do is withdraw its commitments to American-led expeditions in the Islamic world, and attacks against it will cease. It may even be correct in that assumption... "Al Qaeda" terrorism against Washington's European allies, after all, selectively targeted only those nations who had troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

It is quite possible that many other NATO countries also feel the same way.

The Americans, however, have no such option. The Islamists' hatred for the US and Israel is of a different order of magnitude than their antipathy towards the Europeans or British, who can buy safety with Dhimmitude. America cannot buy security from Islamist attacks merely by withdrawing from Iraq or Afghanistan... nor can it hope to earn respite by allowing Pakistan and its proxies to ramp up terrorism against India. After all, in the years leading up to 9-11, international Islamist terrorism against India was in full spate, but that did not somehow "channelize" the energy of Islamist aggression away from America or Israel.

The Americans know that they cannot save themselves and the Israelis simply by throwing India to the Islamist wolves. If it had been so easy, they would have done so long ago. That was, in fact, what they were hoping to achieve by turning a blind eye to Pakistani terrorism against India throughout the 1990s... a diversion of Islamist terrorism against themselves and their allies, towards India instead. But it didn't work then, and it's not going to work now.

And finally, the Americans know that having their own military presence in Afghanistan is their only insurance against Pakistani nukes falling into the hands of pan-Ummah Islamists. With the Pakistani Taliban in control of NWFP/FATA and Swat, and the ISI under an unpredictable degree of pan-Ummah Islamist influence, they are far from willing to entrust the safety of American cities to Khalid Kidwai and his brownpants brigade.

Even if every other NATO member packs up and goes home, the Americans will have to remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, because they have no alternative.

It's important that India not rush into Afghanistan with troops to save the Americans' bacon immediately, for fear of this completely bogus notion that America will also pull out. If we send troops, or help of any kind, it's critical that we make America pay through the nose for it... and driving a suitably hard bargain will take time.

Which is fine. Time, as never before, is on our side with this... because Unkil ain't going nowhere.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Philip »

Crossposting this excerpt from Mr.Bhadrakumar,former diplomat after Pres.Medvedev's visit to Delhi.Worth reading the whole piece.If this is true,then we are coordinating our Afghan strategy more with Russia and taking the US's views with a pinch of salt.If 26/11 has taught us anything it is that the US will never punish Pak no matter what Obama says.Had he said that Pak would be denied military aid instead of economic (which the Saudis and Chinese can easily send),you would've seen the entire Paki general staff jump up ,drop their pants and bend !

"The punch line in the joint declaration comes almost innocuously. Sharing their concern over the "deteriorating security situation" in Afghanistan, India and Russia called for a "coherent and a united international commitment" to dealing with the threats emanating from that country. The implied criticism of the US-led war is obvious as also the rejection of the US strategy to keep the war strategy as its exclusive prerogative. The Joint Declaration then goes on to say, "Both sides welcome Russia's initiative to organize an international conference in the framework of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, involving its Member states and Observers."

New Delhi has come out into open support of a regional initiative on Afghanistan, which Washington would have loved to stifle in its cradle. The Indian stance is significant for various reasons. India has decided that there is no need to mark time until the Obama administration finalizes its own new Afghan strategy. It is asserting its own stakes independent of the US strategy. Two, India is identifying with Russia, China and Iran, which is an immensely significant happening in regional politics. Three, India is siding with a Russia-led regional initiative on Afghanistan at a time when various influential American opinion-makers have been floating the idea of a US-led "regional approach" to an Afghan settlement that virtually allows the US to be on the driving seat.

Most certainly, India is implicitly recognizing the SCO's relevance to South Asian security. Afghanistan is a member of the SAARC and could act as a bridge between South Asia and Central Asia. In essence, therefore, India is spurning the US's much-touted "Great Central Asia" strategy that aims at diluting the SCO's role in Central Asia and instead pins hopes on India as a counterweight to the Russian and Chinese regional influence. "
kasthuri
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 08:17
Location: Mount Doom in Mordor

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by kasthuri »

Philip wrote:We can make a two pronged support for the Karzai govt. through Iran (logistic support,doing the work of the "contractors" as in Iraq) and through Takjikistan,air support,with training,arms,etc.,etc.,for the Afghan forces.Let the US/NATO troops fight the war against the Taliban on the Paki/tribal "Terroristan" frontline,while we work out a strategy with the northern states and Russia to keep that route also open.The US needs to undertand that it has to take eevryone aboard if it wants to be bailed out and defeat Pak/the Taliban..
The big question would be: What after Karzai? Already, he is going into bad records with the US. Plus, there might be an election this year and he is not as popular as he was. Do gurus here have an idea what might be the possible scenario in case Karzai gets away?
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Sanjay M »

If Karzai leaves, or becomes a completely impotent potentate, then India should return to forging closer ties with Northern Alliance and also Iran. Since Obama has made rhetorical promises during his election campaign about talking to Iran, then I don't see how they'd be in a political position to have us keep Iran at arm's length.
As a matter of fact, if the US harasses us too much over Pak/Kashmir/etc, then we should increase our cooperation with Iran on the Afghanistan front, since this would put Obama's admin in a bind on how to criticize us over it.
Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Anabhaya »

Indian trooop presence will force ISAF to stay behind between IA and PA along Pako-Af border. Which in turn will ensure some sort of a 'democratic' set-up survives in Afghanistan. Indian troops in Afghan will ensure Obama can't over-do his Kashmir act anymore than that will be necessary. Our troops in West.Afghan will also help cement ties with Iran. More diplomatic/military interaction onlee. Iran and India on either side. What will TSP do?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Philip »

Karzai is the devil that the west has,despite the corruption of the regime,similar to that in Iraq.Without the under-table US baksheesh for the two govts. they would collapse within days.This money buys alliances (temporary) as long as the money lasts,or the leader stays alive.The Taliban has been regularly bumping off his local governors in the provinces,while the US through their UCAVs have been doing likewise with the Taliban/AlQ chieftains.For the regime to survive,firstly the basic civic neccesities are needed,like water,electricty,fuel ,etc.,the rehabilitation of the infrastructure.Then comes schools,education and especially training of of local police and paramiliatry forces who hopefully will be able to restore law and order with Afghans and not infidels.Protection of the trade routes and caravans is essential for the local economy to thrive and the protection of these routes and supply trains is of the highest priority.This is where the Taliban/Pak is hitting hardest by closing the Khyber Pass,putting the screws upon the US/NATO forces....and this is where India's opportunity lies in assisting in the firangs and the Afghans by supplying them through Indian built roads and infrastructure from the Iranian border and the north.

Here is an excerpt from a paper on "Indo-Iranian Ties: Thicker Than Oil" by
C. Christine Fair
Middle East Review of International Affairs, 14 June 2007

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9298

"India and Iran continue to make progress on their commitment to build a North-South Corridor with Russia. Russia, Iran, and India signed this agreement (called the Inter-Governmental Agreement on International "North-South Transport Corridor") in September 2000 in St. Petersburg. Since this corridor is a part of an Indo-Iranian initiative to facilitate the movement of goods across Central Asia as well as Russia, both India and Iran entered into an earlier trilateral agreement with Turkmenistan in 1997. This North-South Corridor permits the transit of goods from Indian ports to Iran's port of Bandar Abbas, or hopefully Chahbahar. Goods transit Iran via rail to Iran's Caspian Sea ports of Bandar Anzali and Bandar Amirabad. They are then transferred to ports in Russia's sector in the Caspian. From there, the route extends along the Volga River via Moscow and onward to northern Europe. This is intended to serve as an alternative cargo route, linking Indian products with Russia through the Baltic ports of St. Petersburg and Kotka in Rotterdam or through the Ukrainian Black Sea ports of Illychevsk and Odessa to connect to the Mediterranean. With a length of only 6,245 km, it is an enormous improvement over the 16,129 km route through the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean. Indian officials are very enthusiastic about this route, because it will reduce the logistics of moving goods and diminish travel time and transport costs. Trial runs began in early 2001, with some 1,800 freight containers moving through it; officials expected those figures to rise by the end of 2002. According to early reports in 2002, officials expected the corridor to handle 15 to 20 million tons of freight at $10 billion per year.[29] "

...and here is a report on the Afghan road opened after the Kabul embassy bombing from the enemy's own website.

India complete Afghan-Iran Road: Strategic Advantage against pak

India accomplishes Afghan road mission
- Strategic highway survives Pakistan scare and Kabul embassy blast
NISHIT DHOLABHAI

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with Malathi Rao, the wife of IFS officer VV Rao who was killed in the Kabul blast, last week

New Delhi, July 15: India has braved the 7/7 Kabul embassy blast and held on to complete the strategic Afghanistan road linking Zaranj on the Iran border to Delaram in its north-east.

The 218-km road, which will loosen Pakistan’s stranglehold on its land-locked neighbour by allowing Afghanistan access to the sea from the Iran side, is likely to be declared completed on Thursday, sources said.

Security agencies see the success of this project, funded and executed by Delhi, as a reason for the car-bomb attack on the Kabul embassy that killed four Indians. They allege Pakistan set off the blast as it is uneasy about the edge India will now have in the central Asian power game.

The blast victims were today nominated for the Kirti Chakra, India’s second-highest peacetime military award, according to a PTI report. The names of the four — IFS officer V.V. Rao, defence attache R.D. Mehta and ITBP jawans Roop Singh and Ajai Pathania — have been forwarded by the defence ministry to the department concerned. If approved, it will be the first time an IFS officer will be given the military award for bravery.

The completion of the road by the Border Roads Organisation will also be an enduring tribute to the four, described as “martyrs” by Indian officials.

Sources said the road, which required the services of four companies of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police to guard the construction workers, will be dedicated to the Afghan people. The 400-odd ITBP officers are likely to return home.

The road is a godsend for Afghanistan as it will now be able to access the Iranian port of Chabahar. The time taken to reach the sea will be much less than that taken via the Pakistan route as Delaram is on the Kandahar-Herat road.

This will not only increase the volume of Afghan trade, it will facilitate the transit of Indian goods to that country. Pakistan can no longer play difficult and refuse permission to ferry goods through their territory.

In 2003, India, Iran and Afghanistan had signed an MoU to improve Kabul’s access to the coast. While Iran was to build a transit route to link Milak in its south-east to Zaranj in Afghanistan, India was to construct the Zaranj-Delaram road.

Proposals are being worked out on additional manpower requirements at consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar where security will be beefed up. India also has consulates in Mazar-e-sharif and Herat.

PS:It is worth quoting Bismarck here,"that Afghanistan (the Balkans) is not worth the life of one Indian jawan (Prussian grenadier)".
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

New Delhi has come out into open support of a regional initiative on Afghanistan, which Washington would have loved to stifle in its cradle. The Indian stance is significant for various reasons. India has decided that there is no need to mark time until the Obama administration finalizes its own new Afghan strategy. It is asserting its own stakes independent of the US strategy. Two, India is identifying with Russia, China and Iran, which is an immensely significant happening in regional politics. Three, India is siding with a Russia-led regional initiative on Afghanistan at a time when various influential American opinion-makers have been floating the idea of a US-led "regional approach" to an Afghan settlement that virtually allows the US to be on the driving seat.

Most certainly, India is implicitly recognizing the SCO's relevance to South Asian security. Afghanistan is a member of the SAARC and could act as a bridge between South Asia and Central Asia. In essence, therefore, India is spurning the US's much-touted "Great Central Asia" strategy that aims at diluting the SCO's role in Central Asia and instead pins hopes on India as a counterweight to the Russian and Chinese regional influence. "
Another side to this argument.

1) Bankruptcy of US' strategic ideas in A'stan
2) Even with Obama's popularity at a high in Europe, Obama has no support within Europe on the A'stan issue

The void created by these are being filled by nations that have a greater urgency and impact in the region.

In addition:
3) Failure on the part of the US to bring order within pakistan (even after spending Billions of USD), and, with none in sight

India is fed up of the US doing a balancing act to get pakistan just right and then hope to lump India and Pakistan together - essentially to promote US interests. The idea that India needs to be patient and that pakistan needs understanding is what is being openly contested without saying so bluntly.
kasthuri
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 08:17
Location: Mount Doom in Mordor

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by kasthuri »

Two contradictory reports...Perhaps, this report just says it might be a problem when the formal request comes.

Russia not permit US, NATO military transit to Afghanistan
Russia not permit US, NATO military transit to Afghanistan

MOSCOW, January 22 (Itar-Tass) - Russia did not permit the United States and NATO to transit military supplies across the country to Afghanistan, Russian Military Representative to NATO General of the Army Alexei Maslov told Itar-Tass on Thursday.

“No official documents were submitted to Russia’s permanent mission in NATO certifying that Russia had authorized U.S. and NATO military supplies transit across the country,” he said in comments on some media reports about a statement which Commander of the U.S. Central Command General David Petraeus has recently made in Islamabad concerning alleged agreements with Russia and other countries bordering Russia on alternative transit routes for U.S. and NATO military supplies to Afghanistan.

Russia has concluded with NATO and two NATO states the agreements on transit of non-military supplies in Afghanistan. Specifically in April 2008 Russia has concluded an agreement with the North Atlantic Alliance on simplified railway transit of non-military supplies to Afghanistan and with France and Germany the bilateral agreements on air transit.

According to Russian expert Lieutenant-General Leonid Sazhin in order to provide logistic supplies for its military contingent in Afghanistan the U.S. will have to ask Russia to provide the ground transit of U.S. military supplies across the country or withdraw its troops from Afghanistan.

Commenting on some reports about temporarily suspended supplies of medicines, food and fuel for the NATO contingent in Afghanistan across the Khyber Pass in north-western Pakistan because of a recent attack of Taliban militants on a military checkpoint in North Waziristan Sazhin said, “The U.S. already has quite big problems with logistic supplies for its 32,000-strong contingent in Afghanistan and will have more problems after the U.S. contingent is increased to 60,000 servicemen this year.”

“The Americans have spoiled relations with Islamabad after lobbying President Pervez Musharraf’s resignation despite the fact that the latter could keep the situation in Pakistan under control somehow. Currently Asif Ali Zardari who is the husband of killed Benazir Bhutto rules the country. He has a weak character and cannot be an assistant to the Americans in the struggle against Taliban militants despite all his statements about firm intentions to wage the struggle against terrorists,” the Russian general added.

In his opinion currently the U.S. “is trying in some way to take advantage of a quite difficult situation in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in order to transit its military supplies for the country’s troops in Afghanistan bypassing Pakistan.”

“If the Talibs block the Khyber Pass in western Pakistan and the highway to the Afghan city of Kandahar from the direction of the Pakistani city of Chaman in the southwest NATO will have other alternative transit routes but only through Central Asia. Meanwhile quite few military supplies can be airlifted. Ground transport corridors are needed and the Americans cannot do without Russia in this issue. Whether or not Barack Obama’s administration wants it the U.S. cannot do without Russia. The new U.S. administration has two options: withdraw the U.S. troops from Afghanistan and recognize its next defeat after Iraq or ask Russia to provide the ground transit of non-military and military supplies across its territory,” the Russian expert said.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by NRao »

kasthuri wrote:Two contradictory reports...Perhaps, this report just says it might be a problem when the formal request comes.

Russia not permit US, NATO military transit to Afghanistan
Russia not permit US, NATO military transit to Afghanistan


I am not sure if there is any contradiction. All reports seem to state that they have some agreement on allowing transit of "non-military" items (from my post on previous page):
"We have sought additional logistical routes into Afghanistan from the north. There have been agreements reached, and there are transit lines now and transit agreements for commercial goods and services in particular that include several of the countries in the Central Asian states and also Russia."

Gen. Petraeus said he had reached transit deals with Russia and several other Central Asian states on a recent tour of the region. He gave few details, but NATO and U.S. officials have often said they were close to inking agreements with those countries to open up supply lines.

Afghan-based U.S. and NATO forces get up to 75% of their "non-lethal" supplies such as food, fuel and building materials via routes that traverse Pakistan
Even the title you have provided states the same. No supply of "military" items is allowed.
kasthuri
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 08:17
Location: Mount Doom in Mordor

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by kasthuri »

[edited. You can say the same without quoting in toto or loss of generality!]

Yep...you are right. Sorry, my bad.
saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4392
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by saip »

Pranab makes secret visit to Afghanistan

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1224099

Secrecy just for security reasons or something cooking?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60288
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by ramana »

i dont know whats secret about it. It was very clearly announced that he is going to hand over the highway built by BRO to the afghans. I think DNA is conjuring Conspiracy theories.
Suggest looking at ownership of that outfit.
Anurag
BRFite
Posts: 403
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Anurag »

These media folks are simply uninformed at times! His "secret" is out....

Image
kasthuri
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 08:17
Location: Mount Doom in Mordor

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by kasthuri »

Anurag wrote:These media folks are simply uninformed at times! His "secret" is out....
It simply puzzles me how these people can be so ill-informed when there are zillions of links in Google news reporting his visit.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4654
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by hnair »

Rudradev wrote:This bogus scenario of the US running away from Afghanistan after handing over power to a "Moderate Taliban" is being bandied about way too much on here.
All scenarios are just that: bogus. if it is real, we would call them events. none of us are talking about events in this context. Moving past flowery phrases.....
There is *zero* possibility of the US doing anything like this, at any time in the foreseeable future.

Say what you like about the Americans, they're not stupid enough to repeat the same mistake twice. In the '90s, they outsourced their Afghan policy to the ISI (with the Taliban as its agents of implementation). They were rewarded with Khobar Towers, the African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack and finally 9-11.
1) Americans love making mistakes in international arena. And more importantly they love correcting those mistakes. They do that to keep their economy humming. There is nothing stupid about them.
2) American govt of the day does try to move away from previous administration's legacies and in the process does end up making the same mistakes.
3) Already you have listed more than two incidents where, in a positive version of your words "they were stupid enough to repeat the same mistake twice".
Which is fine. Time, as never before, is on our side with this... because Unkil ain't going nowhere.
What you are saying is an optimistic scenario. When it comes to Pak, uncle establishment never had any optimistic scenario for India/ns. From what we have seen, Obama is as astute a politician as any. Obama will start moving away from what he used as electoral cards, when he listens more and more to people in the govt's arms. He has to, if he has to take all sides forward.

Selecting Joe Biden itself is a message to us on what he is going to do: listen to the existing establishment

A few more points about Unkil and Obama:

Unkil acts with force only when the following happens in descending order
1. Unkilland itself gets hit
2. another plunderer comes by
3. Near neighbourhood goes towards hostile powers
4. ideological reasons
5. Trade gets hit

#1 is of immense importance to Unkil's public psyche and constitutes the single biggest reason. Pearl harbour and 911 are such key events. Unkil will unhesitatingly attack back and wont let go till there is some visible damage to show back home (eg: a-bomb or bin Laden's jannat). The option is only military and the entire country will be signed on with minimal debates

2,3,4,5 trail far behind reason#1. Unkil will have furious internal debates and will take multiple paths to approach these issues. Iraq is a case of #2, I feel. China (and to an extent, India) was shown the firelines that unkil drew on the sand. #3 and #4 seems to have died off since Vietnam, or else Chavez would have been toast. WWI needed a lot of #5 to happen before Unkil stepped into the war.

Back to Obama. Obama seem to have sensed the anxiety of the electorate over lack of visible damage to al Qaeda. He realized Iraq venture is not working out at all and the new plunderer (China) seems to wimp out of any fights. He is going to have his surge in Afghanistan. But once visible damage happens (bin Laden and Zawahiri resting with the fishes), his reason for staying in Afghanistan will start dropping real fast. He has a far more volatile voter base than Bush's ideological allies. Once the damage is done to the attacker, voters will start re-questioning the body count.

He will have a big surge allright. And try his best to put the attackers of unkilland out of business. But once the jannat happens, that is it. He is done, as far is the electorate is concerned. A decisive ending to a long drawn affair. For the near term, there will be a big improvement in Afghanistan. But then it will start going down again. No nation building like Japan is possible in Obama's current economic situation and Afghanistan was never known to have a sensible establishment to aid him in that process. The best he will do is a gradual pull back to the current situation: fortress areas in a sea of lawlessnes. And he would have enough advice from Biden and the current jokers of Whitehall that it is ok to pick one class of psycho over the other. That is the optimistic picture. The worst he will be advised to do is to ease Karzai out in an election in which Pak favorites will be the winners.

If we are there at that time, we can atleast develop some good allies (read "our own a-holes") and help stem the expansion of Pakistan. One thing we need to factor in is that the Durand line's erasure can go either way - it can be immensely beneficial to the Pakis, if they can declare an emirate/confed of these two countries with Taliban. Taliban, who got a painful post-911 lesson, will like the idea of having a formal nuclear umbrella, so they are reasonably immune to future attacks by a big power. If the pakis can convince the US that their PALs are still managed by the "professional army", they will get away with this. Hell, they already are getting away with this.

Hoping for side benefits from any Obama action is not cool. We need to act decisively and force the hands of *all* the players, rather than other way. I am sure we will not have an easy time in landing boots and Kipling-afficianados like Biden/Zinni/Holbrooke/Zbignew/xyz will step in for their favorite service providers, the high spending jernails.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by ldev »

hnair,

Thanks for spelling it out. I just did not have the patience to detail it out the way you have. But what you have outlined is the exact scenario that I am afraid off. Here is hoping that the babus are for once proactive in denying Pakistan the strategic depth it enjoyed in Afghanistan prior to Sept 11, 2001 and the best way of doing it is having boots on the ground invited in via a government in Kabul which is friendly to India.
kasthuri
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 08:17
Location: Mount Doom in Mordor

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by kasthuri »

hnair wrote:
1) Americans love making mistakes in international arena...
Rudradev's analysis looks from the perspective of the seriousness of the Al-Qaeda threat to the US while yours seems to view things from the internal political compulsions in the US. So far, it looks to me that US has had aggressive external policies than looking into domestic issues. For instance, both Afghanistan and Iraq war was started during the Bush's first tenure and although the war was unpopular, he still managed to win during the second term. From several threat statements issued from Al-Qaeda of late, it seems danger lurks at large. Moreover, the recent Israel conflict would have only kindled the anti-US sentiments and Al-Qaeda would not be limited in recruiting terror squads. Therefore, I think US would not want to disengage from Afghanistan at least until there is a resolution on the middle east and Al-Qaeda threat subsides.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60288
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by ramana »

RD and HN I think you guys can polish it up as opposing viewpoints essays for SRR. Can you do that for us?
kasthuri
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 08:17
Location: Mount Doom in Mordor

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by kasthuri »

The best deal in sending our troops would be to give India a free hand in targeting LeT in TSP territory for fighting along with them to get rid of Al-Qaeda menace.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by RayC »

An interesting commentary

A BLANK SCREEN AS YET
- Not a resurrected US but a defeatist one cheered Obama
Swapan Dasgupta

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090123/j ... 428943.jsp
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Satya_anveshi »

There is this fantacy entertained by a lot among Obama's campaigners, some of whom I got acquianted with and at least one of them will be a dog of dog of dog in the SD.

So, the reason I ended up in this group is a friend of mine (super rich elite) wanted me :eek: to interview these campaigners and provide perspectives on some of the foriegn policy issues relating to SA :roll: {so, SA was already a point on the agenda of Obama FP/manifesto). During my interactions with these said folks at the local Irish pub, I was surprised at the Afghanistan-Pakistan "solution" being spouted by these gents. Their idea of solution was that soon after Obama get's to power, US would push Pakistan from North and India from South and "solve" the problem.

I questioned them as to why would India participate in it (and bring you guys closer to our doors) and suggested a better idea would be to support India from outside and let it solve the regional problems by itself. I emphasised that being mature democracies and have increasingly closer strategic objectives, this level of trust needs to be shown and exercised by US.

At this time, this guy brings in Indian Nuke explosions, and how they were not a sign of "trust" for which then again I get to tell him the existential threats that India is facing and how Nuke for India becomes a strategic imperative. No other nation - not even Isreal faces inimical nations having nukes on two fronts.

I suspect that a lot of these attend a common seminar or something from where they pick up these stuff. All this was at least 6 months ago. I will be meeting these folks again, now that Obama has won will have a reason to celebrate.
Last edited by Satya_anveshi on 23 Jan 2009 11:12, edited 1 time in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60288
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by ramana »

good keep engaged and meet them regularly
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Raja Ram »

As promised earlier, in this ramble I present here my take on what should be the military objectives, the likely force composition and possible areas where the force needs to be deployed.

But first, gentle readers, a short recap is in order. Let me reiterate here the likely overall objectives in relation to Afghanistan and Pakistan for the GOI as I had indicated in page 12 of this thread.

With regard to Afghanistan:

1. A strong, united, non-radicalized and independent Afghanistan that is not enimically disposed towards India and not in any way controlled or influenced by Pakistan.

2. An Afghanistan that does not provide Pakistan with any strategic depth or a logistics base for its terror machine directed at India.

3. An Afghanistan that will cooperate with India in its efforts to minimise the impact of the impending implosion of Pakistan so that it causes minimum damage to Afghanistan and India.

With regard to Pakistan

1. Destroy Pakistan's ability to wage any kind of overt or covert war including terror war with India. No matter who calls the shots in that country. This has to be achieved as quicky as possible.

2. In order to assure long term peace and well being of all concerned, make sure that the implosion of Pakistan happens and happens with minimum impact to us.

The nuances related to the above have been discussed in the earlier post. You can refer to it there.

Flowing from the strategic objectives above the following are the possible military objectives for the Indian Military Command in Afghanistan. For convenience sake, let me classify the objectives into two categories:

1. Secure, Stabilize, Expand and Defend Objectives
2. Offensive, Interdictory, Punitive and Destroy Objectives

Secure, Stabilize, Expand and Defend Objectives

(i) Secure areas in which India has invested, is investing and those areas that are of vital importance in terms of the above mentioned objectives. Security is to be achieved by a combination of local Afghan National Army and RR type units. Create contagious corridors that are secure between zones

(ii) Stabilize areas of influence along with Afghan government and by introducing India trained civil personnel. Ensure that areas are free from violence, schools and markets operate in a secure manner, basic amenities and civilian services are provided under the auspicies of the Indian Military. IA is good at this viz. Operation Sadhbhavana , Operation Rhino (in NE) and a zillion other UN missions

(iii) Expand the areas of influence in concentric circles and through the corridors.

(iv) Defend these zones against insurgent attacks through a three tier security structure. First is an intelligence ring that operates in areas adjacent to the zones, collects MI and other intelligence, Second is an internal and police security ring manned by Afghan Police and the third is a ring of Afghan National Army that is coordinated with IA units that can provide QR capability

Possible Areas of Operation for the above objectives :

1. Kabul- Ghazm - Gareshk - Lashkar gah - Zaranj - Farah Axis (Energy Line)

2. Ghurian - Herat -Memaneh - axis (Base Line)

3. Pol-e-Khomm -Shulgareh - Mazar-e-Sharif axis (Strike Line 1)

Now gentle readers, you may ask why these areas for the Secure and stabilization? Take a look at the map of Afghanistan that is there in this thread posted by Snowji. The areas mentioned above are key to India and Indian interests. These are the entry points for energy from Central Asia and Iran and are traditionally areas associated with the Northern Alliance.

Security, progress and relative peace of these areas seen to be a result of Indian Armed presence and an integrated re-building of civic institutions and enabling of Afghans will be a powerful demonstrative effect on the Pashtun areas. Traditonal Pashtuns are not necessarily anti-Indian but over the years have been radicalized by Pakistan and Taliban. If more and more influential chiefs are able to see money and power by aligning themselves with India then they will slowly isolate radical Islam supporting Talibani Pashtuns.

Force Composition Required
RR type Units and Special Forces units,
Army Aviation Corps Units – UAVs, Observation
Rapid Deployment integrated mechanized Brigades
Engineering Units
Signals Units
Medical Units
Specialised surgical strike capable Air Force squadrons (op. Safedsagar expertise)

I am not getting into details of operational objectives, structures, deployment areas etc here. Don’t want to do that on an open forum and neither do I possess that level of military knowledge.

Offensive, Interdictory, Punitive and Destroy Objectives

(i) Seek and destroy proactively logistic spurs, ammunition stores, terror training camps, leadership modules inside Afghanistan as well as across the Durand line.

(ii) Interdict supply chains to terror networks operating against India in areas adjacent to Afghanistan (Northern Areas and POK)

(iii) Quick reaction disproportionate punitive strikes across the board in safe areas inside Pakistan and border areas of Afghanistan

(iv) Provide training, logistical support to groups fighting and resisting Pakistani state and Taliban in their regions ( Baluchistan and Baltistan more than Pashtunistan)

Possible Areas of Operation for the above objectives:

1. Kabul- Jalalabad- Mehtarlam-Pol-e-khomn- Kunduz-Feyzabad axis (Northern Strike Line 2 – covering Baltistan POK area )

2. Wakhan Corridor ( Northern Strike Line 3 – Covering Gilgit and Karokoram Highway)

3. Kabul- Ghazm- Gardez - Kalat- Kandahar- Bahram Chah axis (Southern Strike Line – covering Baluchistan, Pashtunistan area)

Force Composition Required
DPSA Squadrons
Cruise Missile Regiments
QRT Special Forces
Interdiction capable and missile launch capable surface ships based in Oman would be a good idea too.

What I have attempted to the best of my limited abilities is to provide a basis and rationale for the proposed Indian Force in Afghanistan given the possible set of strategic objectives. The twin pillars which any military commander will always seek in such missions are :

1. Clarity of Vision
2. Unity of Purpose

What do these things mean? The first entails what is exactly sought to be achieved by the armed forces. It has to be a set of clear objectives to which they can benchmark some results/targets. The objectives that I have tried to put together here is to try and answer that requirement.

Second is crucial in terms of the execution of operations. The armed forces need to have a clear backing and independence to execute their operations and all other activities that are taken in the political, diplomatic and psychological warfare must be in consonance with their operations. The second part to this is to provide for the adequate and requisite mix of force composition to achieve the objectives of their operations.

This is what I have tried to come up with in terms of the Areas of operation and the Force Compositions.

So now that this rambling armchair general has come up with all the cerebral stuff can we get down to Afghanistan and start our grand plans? Not yet my gentle friends of BR. Not yet.

In fact, all this has to make us/me think a lot deeper. John Snow ji raised an important point, How ready is our Armed Forces to put together such a force?

How ready are the people of India willing to support such a mission? Will there not be claims that this will be India’s Iraq? "The enemy is in Pakistan and we are going to Afghanistan" will be the cry. "We will make more terrorists attack us" will be another cry. It is not going to be easy to dismiss these claims. Politically how feasible is it?

Ramana is right when he says that we have to break eggs to make an omellete. But are the people and the “leaders” of India ready for this?

Even more importantly is if we do go ahead with this kind of engagement, what will be the Pakistani and Chinese reactions? Will we be stretched thin to counter them? Even the US is getting stretched and we all know how our government has provided resources to the armed forces to fight over the years don't we?

I think the ramble is now long enough and confusing enough, so let me stop here. As usual, gentle readers, take it for what it is worth. It is only a ramble. No think tank stuff here.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by Rudradev »

hnair wrote:
All scenarios are just that: bogus. if it is real, we would call them events. none of us are talking about events in this context. Moving past flowery phrases.....
Incorrect. All scenarios are hypothetical. Not “bogus”.

"Bogus" additionally implies that a particular scenario is not just imaginary but fraudulent, and being peddled with intent to deceive. For example, certain parties would like us to believe that America will retreat from Afghanistan after handing over the reins to a "moderate Taliban". They are projecting this fable to scare us and influence our future course of action in the service of their agenda, when in reality such a thing will not happen.

Just to clarify: I don’t believe that you, personally are putting forth the idea fraudulently. However, I wonder about some other members of the forum who consistently seem to subordinate India’s interests before those of the United States.



1) Americans love making mistakes in international arena. And more importantly they love correcting those mistakes. They do that to keep their economy humming. There is nothing stupid about them.
The American economy keeps humming because of America's mistakes? This is a little too Chanakyan for me to follow, would you care to elaborate?

2) American govt of the day does try to move away from previous administration's legacies and in the process does end up making the same mistakes.
I'm sure you have some instances to cite with regard to this assertion? Sometimes a new US government will reverse the ideological approach of the previous one, and sometimes it will prioritize different issues compared to previous one, but I've never known any American government to deliberately repeat a course of action which was previously shown to cause serious damage to their vital interests. That is what outsourcing Afghanistan to the ISI would amount to.
3) Already you have listed more than two incidents where, in a positive version of your words "they were stupid enough to repeat the same mistake twice".
Not at all. The incidents I listed (Khobar, Cole, Embassies, 9-11) were a progressive validation of the fact that one particular policy mistake had been made in the first place. As individual incidents, they were only perceived as signs of a growing Islamic fundamentalist threat to American security interests. It is only today, with 20-20 hindsight that we can say that they all resulted from a single mistake in US foreign policy, which was trusting the ISI and Taliban to act in concert with American interests.

Once policy is instituted, I'm sure you realize, there is a certain amount of inertia that comes with it. It takes a hell of a lot... something like 9-11... for the government to actually make a change in that policy. Until such a drastic eventuality, a government will tend to see smaller attacks as aberrations, and treat them as exceptions rather than the rule. Seeing them that way is a lot easier than rebuilding policy from the ground up, after all. Shiv has often explained the phenomenon of Cognitive Dissonance, which applies here.

What you are saying is an optimistic scenario. When it comes to Pak, uncle establishment never had any optimistic scenario for India/ns. From what we have seen, Obama is as astute a politician as any. Obama will start moving away from what he used as electoral cards, when he listens more and more to people in the govt's arms. He has to, if he has to take all sides forward.

Selecting Joe Biden itself is a message to us on what he is going to do: listen to the existing establishment
No doubt the existing foreign policy establishment will exert an influence over Obama's actions with respect to Afghanistan.

However, has Joe Biden said that America should withdraw troops from Afghanistan and share power with the "Moderate Taliban"?

On the contrary, a constant refrain heard in the US media these days is that when it comes to the likelihood of a terrorist WMD attack on an American city, all roads intersect in Pakistan.

http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=39308

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magaz ... tan-t.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... terrorism/


I don't think there is anything "optimistic" about my pointing out that the US has committed to doubling its military presence in Afghanistan... which is not the action of a nation that is on the verge of leaving the theatre. That isn’t any kind of scenario, optimistic or otherwise. It’s simply an observation based in reality.

A few more points about Unkil and Obama:

Unkil acts with force only when the following happens in descending order
1. Unkilland itself gets hit
2. another plunderer comes by
3. Near neighbourhood goes towards hostile powers
4. ideological reasons
5. Trade gets hit

#1 is of immense importance to Unkil's public psyche and constitutes the single biggest reason. Pearl harbour and 911 are such key events. Unkil will unhesitatingly attack back and wont let go till there is some visible damage to show back home (eg: a-bomb or bin Laden's jannat). The option is only military and the entire country will be signed on with minimal debates

2,3,4,5 trail far behind reason#1. Unkil will have furious internal debates and will take multiple paths to approach these issues. Iraq is a case of #2, I feel. China (and to an extent, India) was shown the firelines that unkil drew on the sand. #3 and #4 seems to have died off since Vietnam, or else Chavez would have been toast. WWI needed a lot of #5 to happen before Unkil stepped into the war.

I agree that category #1 far outstrips the others as a motivation.

If it wasn't for the fact that the ISI-Taliban rulership of Afghanistan was directly responsible for an event of #1 category (i.e. 9-11), America would never have invaded Afghanistan.

As long as there is any possibility of another #1 category event taking place... such as the nuclear attack on a US city that we have seen being contemplated in many circles these days... there is no way the Americans are going to leave Afghanistan. All the other categories and compulsions are moot by comparison, just as you say.
Back to Obama. Obama seem to have sensed the anxiety of the electorate over lack of visible damage to al Qaeda. He realized Iraq venture is not working out at all and the new plunderer (China) seems to wimp out of any fights. He is going to have his surge in Afghanistan. But once visible damage happens (bin Laden and Zawahiri resting with the fishes), his reason for staying in Afghanistan will start dropping real fast. He has a far more volatile voter base than Bush's ideological allies. Once the damage is done to the attacker, voters will start re-questioning the body count.

Even if Bin Laden/Zawahiri are killed or captured (do you really think this will happen without an invasion of Pakistan?) and even if there is definite tangible proof of their being taken out which can be publicly presented to the American electorate (a very big IF)... these eventualities will not change the American threat perception of WMD terrorism from Pakistan.

Such a perception, which is being reinforced publicly in the US media even today, will not simply go away as a result of “Al Qaeda” decapitation.

On the other hand, a tangible victory such as taking out “Al Qaeda” leaders is likely to give Obama more—and not less room for maneouvre in Afghanistan. It will buy him time and public support for his war effort just as Saddam’s capture did for Bush… not an indefinite amount but certainly more than he would have received otherwise.

Let’s remember that this is not a conscript war like Vietnam, and casualties are several orders of magnitude lower. “Body count” will never be that much of an issue as long as the American people believe that the national interest is served by their troops staying in Afghanistan, and as long as they do not feel like they are being lied to.

The opposition that began to build up against the Iraq war post 2006 was because the Bush administration completely failed to “sell” the American people on a strategy for shaping a viable post-Saddam dispensation that served American interests. It was made worse because the Bush administration shot their own credibility in the foot by promulgating outright lies (“Iraqi WMD”) and useless stunts (“Mission Accomplished” etc.)

Obama carries none of that baggage, and the case for staying in Afghanistan indefinitely (Islamist threat with Paki WMD) is already being articulated to the American people.
No nation building like Japan is possible in Obama's current economic situation and Afghanistan was never known to have a sensible establishment to aid him in that process.
If you’re talking about the Marshall plan and post WW2 Japanese reconstruction, please do consider how much of an economic boost the rebuilding of Europe and Japan provided to the US… in terms of domestic job creation, growth in industrial output, and increased investment in non-military R&D. A massive nation-building effort for Afghanistan could actually benefit a recessive US economy if handled right.

Also consider that a lot can be done for very little money in Afghanistan. India connected Kabul to Iran’s Arabian Sea coastline as only one part of an aid package that totals just $86 million… peanuts in this day and age! If the Americans had concentrated their efforts and resources on Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq, they could have easily laid the foundations for a stable infrastructure by now.

You are also incorrect in declaring that Afghanistan was never known to have a sensible establishment interested in nation building. From 1936 to 1980, it was a progressive developing country that was comparable to any other in the neighbourhood. The heirs of that political class still exist today, but they have no control at all over the apparatus of state authority, which was destroyed by the Soviet invasion and subsequent Pakistani depradations. It’s not as if the Afghans have been howling Islamist barbarians for all (or even most) of their country’s history.

Restoring control of state authority from the tribal warlords to the political classes, is exactly what nation building is all about.

You may say that I’m being optimistic when I state that Obama is more likely to try and achieve that control, than to run away and leave Afghanistan to the Talibs. However, I only say this because he has no choice. If he leaves Afghanistan to degenerate into what it was between 1990-2001, then sooner or later he will lose an American city to a WMD attack. It is not a risk he can afford to take.
The best he will do is a gradual pull back to the current situation: fortress areas in a sea of lawlessnes. And he would have enough advice from Biden and the current jokers of Whitehall that it is ok to pick one class of psycho over the other. That is the optimistic picture. The worst he will be advised to do is to ease Karzai out in an election in which Pak favorites will be the winners.
First of all, this vision of “fortress areas in a sea of lawlessness” does not apply in Northern, Western or Central Afghanistan. Those areas are still undeveloped from lack of infrastructure, and still unruly because a strong state authority hasn’t asserted itself over the warlords and generals of the former Northern Alliance. Yet, they have the rudiments of a functioning economy, and a functional if corrupt system of civilian government is developing there.

The situation in these areas is a very far cry from Southern/Eastern Afghanistan where the NATO forces are literally under siege. However, the whole reason why the US is planning to surge its troops in Afghanistan is to relieve that siege-like situation.

So on what basis are you saying that retreating to “fortress areas” is “the best Obama will do”? The American experience in Baghdad and Anbar province shows it is far more likely that those regions will be pacified, and considerably normalized by a troop surge. On what basis are you surmising that an American surge in Afghanistan will not have such an effect?

People will advise Obama any number of things, but ultimately the situation on the ground will dictate what he ends up doing. That situation, to reiterate once again, includes the possibility of Islamists getting hold of Pakistani nuclear weapons if they manage to defeat America in the struggle to control Afghanistan.

If we are there at that time, we can atleast develop some good allies (read "our own a-holes") and help stem the expansion of Pakistan.
We very much have our own a-holes in Afghanistan without any need of being there as a foreign military presence. In fact, those Fahims and Dostums are the very guys in charge of Northern and Western Afghanistan now. So was Ahmed Shah Massoud who proved the biggest thorn in the side of Pakistani attempts to expand into Afghanistan. Why is having our boots on the ground a necessary condition with respect to cultivating allies?

In fact, it might actually prove to be a liability. Right now we’re seen as a benevolent presence rendering mostly humanitarian and infrastructural aid, and many Afghans all over the country have cause to love us.

I am all for beefing up our presence in terms of covert operatives, military advisors to the ANA and special forces, but a large-scale troop deployment would be sheer folly. If we are seen as part of the helmeted, jack-booted foreign occupying force responsible for regular airstrikes against wedding parties… we may very well lose even the good allies we currently have.

One thing we need to factor in is that the Durand line's erasure can go either way - it can be immensely beneficial to the Pakis, if they can declare an emirate/confed of these two countries with Taliban. Taliban, who got a painful post-911 lesson, will like the idea of having a formal nuclear umbrella, so they are reasonably immune to future attacks by a big power.
The Pakis can hardly declare an emirate of Rawalpindi today. There are too many factions working at cross-purposes in pursuit of divergent ideological aims in Pakistan today. It’s not like the days of Zia or even the ‘90s when the ISI and TSPA formed the unified core of an Islamic Sultanate that commanded the subservience of all their proxies.

The Taliban probably expected Musharraf to extend a nuclear umbrella over their heads on 9-12-2001. Didn’t they get a surprise! Do you think that the Taliban are still going to trust the TSPA to be their overlords and protectors, as they did before Musharraf’s 180-degree GUBO betrayal? Are they going to rely on the nuclear umbrella offered by a TSPA which comes after them with Cobra gunships and 155 mm artillery whenever it is time to beg for American baksheesh?

Far more likely, the Taliban are going to want their own damn nuclear umbrella this time. Having captured Swat, they are within a hundred miles of taking it. And once again, that is the situation which makes the indefinite deployment of US troops in Afghanistan a certainty.
If the pakis can convince the US that their PALs are still managed by the "professional army", they will get away with this. Hell, they already are getting away with this.
I don’t know what sources you’ve been reading to suggest this, but I for one have never seen the Pakis’ credibility sink to such an all-time low with the US, as it has right now.

Forget Osama Bin Laden. Forget Jalaluddin Haqqani. The Americans do not even trust the Pakis to pick up althoo-falthoo Al Qaeda dregs from the border provinces. That’s why they have forced the Pakis to submit to American Predator strikes within their own borders whenever the CIA feels the need to carry one out.

Doesn’t sound like they’re getting away with anything to me (except terrorism against India, which is frankly not America’s problem to guarantee against).
Hoping for side benefits from any Obama action is not cool. We need to act decisively and force the hands of *all* the players, rather than other way. I am sure we will not have an easy time in landing boots and Kipling-afficianados like Biden/Zinni/Holbrooke/Zbignew/xyz will step in for their favorite service providers, the high spending jernails.
There will be no Indian troop deployment in Afghanistan. If such a thing is being suggested by our MEA, that’s because the suggestion itself is a posture geared towards the achievement of political goals, just as Parakram was. Forget the Afghan hostility that such a move will garner… there is no way in hell that any Indian government will dare take on the sort of Indian Muslim electoral backlash that such a deployment would bring on. Ain’t gonna happen. Kaam khatam.

Besides all of this, I’ve gone into some detail earlier on this thread about how absurd the notion of supplying Indian troops in Afghanistan would be… when the Americans are having a hell of a time finding non-Pakistani routes to supply their own forces there.

I’m tired of pointing out the more obvious reasons why this is an unworkable idea, though, so I’ll stop here.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5411
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by ShauryaT »

Rudradev wrote:There will be no Indian troop deployment in Afghanistan. If such a thing is being suggested by our MEA, that’s because the suggestion itself is a posture geared towards the achievement of political goals, just as Parakram was. Forget the Afghan hostility that such a move will garner… there is no way in hell that any Indian government will dare take on the sort of Indian Muslim electoral backlash that such a deployment would bring on. Ain’t gonna happen. Kaam khatam.

Besides all of this, I’ve gone into some detail earlier on this thread about how absurd the notion of supplying Indian troops in Afghanistan would be… when the Americans are having a hell of a time finding non-Pakistani routes to supply their own forces there.

I’m tired of pointing out the more obvious reasons why this is an unworkable idea, though, so I’ll stop here.
Rudradev: I agree it is a difficult issue for any GoI but let us not forget, the top leadership of the BJP government did toy with the idea of supplying troops to Iraq, especially if certain conditions are met. The lack of support from other parties, especially the INC, due to the muslim vote banks, made sure that the idea, did not get any serious hearing.

However, some things have changed. There are very few political parties today, who are not allied with, now or in the past with one of the two major political groupings in the country. The INC itself, may not venture into such a move, before the elections, but once the elections are over, they might be open to a change in stance. A lot of water has flown down the Ganga and Mumbai may have sent another type of a message to the INC leadership. The message being, the further alienation of the urban middle class and DIE, from the INC.

Although, I do not have any hopes that if an INC government comes to power, they would act on this on their own. But if they are not in power, then they may do a "no opposition" stance and let the BJP go ahead with such a plan.

On supplies et al, Iran is the best play. Unkil is the best option to ensure TSP remains quiet to such a deployment. But, all of this is possible, only if there is strong Indian leadership to pursue such a course, which will throw many obstacles. I have a lot of respect for what you say, but still hope that a leadership that pursues national and security interests in India, exists.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60288
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan

Post by ramana »

India wanted independent command and one area and that was not acceptable to US.
Locked