China’s View of South Asia and the Indian Ocean

[Dayuhan]

Is the often cited phrase 'strategic depth' actually relevant in modern strategic thinking?

Probably not, but what's going on in some quarters in Pakistan may not be modern strategic thinking.

I can see how the Pakistanis would be upset at the idea of an Indian foothold in Afghanistan. I can also see how they might relish the prospect of baiting India into a substantial military commitment there. India would find it extremely difficult to supply and maintain a substantial force in Afghanistan, and a guerrilla war in Afghanistan is one of the few strategic scenarios in which Pakistan and its unconventional allies have an odds-on chance of defeating the Indians.

Of course Pakistan will protest any Indian move into Afghanistan. Behind the protests, though, would they really object to having India in a position where they can do unto them as they've done to the Russians and the US?

[Ray]

Afghanistan is not ‘strategic depth’ as is understood in pure military terms means the depth from the front line to the core area consisting of economic centres to including industrial complexes and complexes for military production and major cities.

When addressing what is strategic depth one has to take into account the vulnerability of these assets to an enemy offensive and the ability of this depth to absorb the offensive and yet not be unbalanced.

Afghanistan being a foreign country, thus, cannot be taken to be a ‘strategic depth’ for Pakistan.

The interpretation has been adopted only to muddy the issue. It has gained credence amongst certain vested interests so as to obfuscate and promote their strategic interests. The appeal has been given ‘credibility’ incorrectly because Pakistan has been in the frontline, promoted by the US and with active assistance of China (Bear Trap by Brig Yousaf of the ISI) against the Soviet Union in the form of jihad.

It must be understood that any war in the name of jihad does not automatically mean that the areas where there is this so called jihad automatically becomes a part of the country sponsoring this so called jihad. If it were so then a large part of the world where terrorists have attacked including 9/11 would be a part of the country that sponsored the same! Obviously, that is a ridiculous assumption!

Therefore, by no stretch of imagination is Afghanistan (an independent and sovereign country) the ‘strategic depth’ of Pakistan. I will concede that distance and vested interests blurs comprehending the reality!

That apart, Afghanistan is a ‘strategic interest’ to Pakistan since keeping it under its control, keeps India and Russia at bay.

To keep my post short, both India and even Russia has interest in Afghanistan. It keeps the fundamentalist footprint at bay. For India, it is very important strategically to have Pakistan at bay in Afghanistan as it will stop the conduit of ‘unemployed’ pan Islamic terrorists from Kashmir as also will allow India access to the resources of CAR, which is being impeded by having Pakistan in between.

This brings in the issue of Chahbahar port in Iran. I read that China is building the same. As far as my knowledge goes, it is India which has built this port and has connected it with the Highway constructed by India in Afghanistan and onto the North toward CAR!

I have given the railways being constructed and the Chinese interest in the railways including construction.

I wonder if China is that altruist as to spread happiness around the world without self-interest, be it economic or strategic.

[Ray]

As far as guerilla warfare against Indians in Afghanistan, it would be worth noting that a200km (124-mile) highway, costing about $85m, links Zaranj on the Iranian border with the main road between the cities of Herat, Kandahar and Kabul has been completed and handed over to Afghanistan.

And how many causalities should have been there if the Afghans were hostile to Indians, even though there must have been Pakistani encouragement?

In another thread there was some interesting comment to my statement of doing things the 'Indian way'.

Justified if post were doubting my contention.

Here is the proof of the pudding!

The officer who was the in-charge of this road project spoke to me.

He said much, but we will leave it at that!

[Ray]

Am I to understand that Gwadar was built by China just to pander to Pakistan's desire?

It has no impact on Chinese economy or strategic interests?

[jmm99]

Give your OIC road builder my regards and congrats. Is he an engineer ?

I'm guessing that the new road from Zaranj to Hwy 1 more or less follows the river and old road:

2011 Zaranj Road.jpg

At the edge but still within Pashtun-dominated territory. Good show.

What the Afghanis will do with it is another question.

Regards

Mike

[Ray]

Give your OIC road builder my regards and congrats. Is he an engineer ?

I'm guessing that the new road from Zaranj to Hwy 1 more or less follows the river and old road:

2011 Zaranj Road.jpg

At the edge but still within Pashtun-dominated territory. Good show.

What the Afghanis will do with it is another question.

Regards

Mike

Yes, he was a Col then and an Engineer. He was heading the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) out there building the road.

I believe the BRO is something like the Army Engineers in the US who do infrastructure constructions.

I will pass your congrats to him the next time. I am sure he will be delighted.

Regards

Ray

[Dayuhan]

As far as guerilla warfare against Indians in Afghanistan, it would be worth noting that a200km (124-mile) highway, costing about $85m, links Zaranj on the Iranian border with the main road between the cities of Herat, Kandahar and Kabul has been completed and handed over to Afghanistan.

And how many causalities should have been there if the Afghans were hostile to Indians, even though there must have been Pakistani encouragement?

In another thread there was some interesting comment to my statement of doing things the 'Indian way'.

Justified if post were doubting my contention.

Here is the proof of the pudding!

The officer who was the in-charge of this road project spoke to me.

He said much, but we will leave it at that!

The Taliban don't seem to be targeting infrastructure projects no matter who undertakes them.

If you really believe that India could take over the US role in Afghanistan, apply some magical "Indian way", and avoid the mess that seems to overtake everyone else in Afghanistan... well, be my guest. The rest of us will observe with much interest and little optimism.

Am I to understand that Gwadar was built by China just to pander to Pakistan's desire?

It has no impact on Chinese economy or strategic interests?

The question is not whether there are interests, but whether those interests are sufficient to justify prolonged, risky, and expensive military involvements. The simple answer is that they aren't, at least not on China's part. What China stands to gain from these projects wouldn't begin to cover even a tiny fraction of the financial and ploitical cost of an effort to pacify Afghanistan.

Of course they may calculate costs and benefits as poorly as the Americans dd, but that seems unlikely. They don't have to play to a domestic political audience or pretend to be champions of democracy or anything else.

Not unlike the eternally proposed TAPI pipeline... potentially viable projects that some may find interesting enough to pursue, but not even close to being strategic game-changers that a nation would go to war to accomplish.

[Ray]

The Taliban don't seem to be targeting infrastructure projects no matter who undertakes them.

If you really believe that India could take over the US role in Afghanistan, apply some magical "Indian way", and avoid the mess that seems to overtake everyone else in Afghanistan... well, be my guest. The rest of us will observe with much interest and little optimism.

Apparently, if India succeeds it does not appeal to you.

We are keen that the US and ISAF effort succeeds and do anything that helps that effort. While you are not optimistic about the India's effort, we are quite optimistic about the US and ISAF effort. We also understand that the US and ISAF are shouldering a greater effort than any other country.

The 'Indian way' is not really that bad as you imagine. The effort of the Indian UN contingent deployed in Aideed country and also to some extent in Afghanistan apparently worked/ is working.

The question is not whether there are interests, but whether those interests are sufficient to justify prolonged, risky, and expensive military involvements. The simple answer is that they aren't, at least not on China's part. What China stands to gain from these projects wouldn't begin to cover even a tiny fraction of the financial and ploitical cost of an effort to pacify Afghanistan.

Of course they may calculate costs and benefits as poorly as the Americans dd, but that seems unlikely. They don't have to play to a domestic political audience or pretend to be champions of democracy or anything else.

Not unlike the eternally proposed TAPI pipeline... potentially viable projects that some may find interesting enough to pursue, but not even close to being strategic game-changers that a nation would go to war to accomplish.

The question is Interests and it would be naive to believe that a country's interests, in a contested land, will be without, as you put it, 'justify prolonged, risky, and expensive military involvements'.

I have a contrary view to your over China's interest in the region since one has to see the manner in which the Chinese footprint is spreading around the world; yes, the world. China's presence is practically covering all the continents. It has not been a bed of roses for China everywhere and yet they continue to pursue their aims.

If you have read the post giving the links of Chinese interest to include the railway construction and why, you would have realised that it does not raise hackles and instead is looked upon favourably since all nations in the region are looking forward to improving their economies and hence the lives their people. Alongside, subtle political effort is also inbuilt.

Talking about the Chinese way of doing things, can you indicate any country that willing gives away its territory? The Pashtuns including the Taliban find the Durand Line non negotiable, and Pakistan is not ready to give up the Durand Line either. Yet, Pakistan willingly handed over Shaksgam to China.

and Tajikistan agreed to cede part of its territory to China, days after neighboring Kyrgyzstan made a similar handover of land to China inspite of protests!
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...eek-tajikistan

China's ways cannot be equated with the manner how others operate or think!

I think you wondered why I brought in Han Culturism along with link into a post. I brought it in to explain that a People who starting with being just people North of Yellow River, could 'convert' peoples of such a huge land mass to believe that they are Hans and not what they were, does indicate how persuasive the Hans can be and how they can slowly assimilate all so much so they are led to believe that they are actually Hans!!

The manner they are extending their footprint is worth noticing and how they can disarm those who are being subjected to this extension!!

[Dayuhan]

Apparently, if India succeeds it does not appeal to you.

It appeals to me a lot. The idea of having sex with Halle Berry appeals to me too. That doesn't mean I anticipate success in the pursuit of such fantasies. The probability of these things happening seems to me rather low.

While you are not optimistic about the India's effort, we are quite optimistic about the US and ISAF effort.

Optimistic meaning that you believe it will succeed? I can't imagine why, based on current conditions.

The 'Indian way' is not really that bad as you imagine. The effort of the Indian UN contingent deployed in Aideed country and also to some extent in Afghanistan apparently worked/ is working.

Applying it to an attempt to install or maintain a functioning government in Afghanistan, or to achiever stability and security in Afghanistan in any way, would be a quite different matter.

The question is Interests and it would be naive to believe that a country's interests, in a contested land, will be without, as you put it, 'justify prolonged, risky, and expensive military involvements'.

Of course. The question is what level of involvement is justified by the level of interest in any given place. There are areas deemed major strategic interests; these would justify a quite extensive involvement. There are also areas of more marginal interest, which would not justify significant involvement. That doesn't mean no interests exist in these areas, just that the degree of interest is insufficient to justify expensive and risky moves. The perceived probability of success and the potential for adverse outcome also figure into the calculation. I can't see that China has anything to gain in Afghanistan that would justify anything beyond a quite minimal commitment, especially given the high cost and low probability of successful outcome. I just can't imagine why they'd want to bother.

I have a contrary view to your over China's interest in the region since one has to see the manner in which the Chinese footprint is spreading around the world; yes, the world. China's presence is practically covering all the continents. It has not been a bed of roses for China everywhere and yet they continue to pursue their aims.

China has a presence in many places (as does the US), but it's an exaggeration to say that they are "covering all the continents". Unlike the US, the Chinese have been able to avoid making large military commitments part of that presence. That may largely be a matter of necessity - China has limited capacity to sustain large forces overseas - but it has also worked to China's advantage, just as American military adventurism has in many ways had a negative impact on American influence.

[Ray]

It appeals to me a lot. The idea of having sex with Halle Berry appeals to me too. That doesn't mean I anticipate success in the pursuit of such fantasies. The probability of these things happening seems to me rather low.

I do find a whiff of sarcasm in your post. But then each to his own style.

I am delighted that India's success appeals to you a lot.

There is also suggestions of defeatism in your posts concerning the US and China. It appear you feel that the US will lose everywhere and it is better to let the remainder of the world rush past it to the finishing tape!!

I maybe wrong, but then that is what I find every time China is mentioned.

I believe there is a saying that a pessimist is never disappointed.

On pessimism, I remind of what Sir Winston Churchill had said:

and there are many people in England, and perhaps elsewhere, who seem to be unable to contemplate military operations for clear political objects, unless they can cajole themselves into the belief that their enemy are utterly and hopelessly vile. and I will take the licence to add 'weak'.

And the Allies won World War II! Felt a fantasy at one time!

Winning Iraq was also felt by some to be a fantasy!

Rabindranath Tagore, the first Indian Nobel Laureate, had said:
you can be friends to your enemy through a lack of character or words to that effect.

I daresay Afghanistan was ventured into and brave lives lost without character.

I have not understood your comment on your sex desire. However, Robert H. Schuller, the Reformed Church Minister had said:
“High achievers spot rich opportunities swiftly, make big decisions quickly and move into action immediately. Follow these principles and you can make your dreams come true.”

One has to be learn how to turn fantasies into reality, though I will concede that it is not feasible for the weak hearted. One has to have the gumption to stay the course rather than throw in the towel.

You may like to read the Indian experience of LIC/ COIN from an article posted SWJ

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art...ree-approaches

In short, nothing is lost till the last bullet is fired or one turns tail.

I do not find that feeling with the US or ISAF.

Optimistic meaning that you believe it will succeed? I can't imagine why, based on current conditions.

What were the conditions at Dunkirk? The 'current situation' then at Dunkirk, reeked with demoralisation, despondency, and DEFEAT!!

Allies lost World War II?

Applying it to an attempt to install or maintain a functioning government in Afghanistan, or to achiever stability and security in Afghanistan in any way, would be a quite different matter.

Rome was not built in one day nor is establishing a Govt Instant Coffee. You may like to read
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art...ree-approaches

Patience is the watchword. Since you like sexual examples, may I say that modern wars (which are not the conventional types) are not "Wham, Bang, Thank you, Ma'am" type of interactions!!

Of course. The question is what level of involvement is justified by the level of interest in any given place. There are areas deemed major strategic interests; these would justify a quite extensive involvement. There are also areas of more marginal interest, which would not justify significant involvement. That doesn't mean no interests exist in these areas, just that the degree of interest is insufficient to justify expensive and risky moves. The perceived probability of success and the potential for adverse outcome also figure into the calculation. I can't see that China has anything to gain in Afghanistan that would justify anything beyond a quite minimal commitment, especially given the high cost and low probability of successful outcome. I just can't imagine why they'd want to bother.

I would not like to guess or act as the 'last word' since that would be presumptuous.

However, one could glean aspirations of people from published works and statement of those who matter.

Here is one:

Does China Want to Be Top Superpower?

"China's grand goal in the 21st century is to become the world's No. 1 power."

These words were written by Liu Mingfu, a senior colonel in the People's Liberation Army, in a new book titled "China's Dream." .....

"To become the world's No. 1 has been China's century-old dream. It was this dream that inspired three generations of great Chinese leaders, from Sun Yat Sen to Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping," Liu wrote in a passage reflecting a growing nationalist sentiment shared by many Chinese. ......

"The competition between China and the United States will not take the form of a world war or a cold war. It will not be like a 'shooting duel' or a 'boxing match' but more like a 'track and field' competition. It will be like a protracted 'marathon.'"......
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=9986355

Again, it does prove my contention of Han Culturalism, which you dismissed perfunctorily as irrelevant.

You may try to read the undermentioned link too to understand Liu's comment To become the world's No. 1 has been China's century-old dream. It was this dream that inspired three generations of great Chinese leaders, from Sun Yat Sen to Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping," and correlate to the larger picture:

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A18h...sources/98.htm

China has a presence in many places (as does the US), but it's an exaggeration to say that they are "covering all the continents". Unlike the US, the Chinese have been able to avoid making large military commitments part of that presence. That may largely be a matter of necessity - China has limited capacity to sustain large forces overseas - but it has also worked to China's advantage, just as American military adventurism has in many ways had a negative impact on American influence.

Apparently you do not read posts in detail, for if you did you would realise I spoke of the Chinese way of doing things i.e. Yongxiabianyi, which means rather than using military might, use other persuasive means. I also mentioned that without a war or show of military might, China ensured that Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan cede part of their territory to China and Pakistan cede Shaksgam!(and I gave links too!)

If one can have his cake and eat it too, where is the necessity to use military might? Or peppering the world with military bases?

One must also understand the Chinese game of 'Go' to understand the Chinese strategy and policies. The object of the game is to use one's stones to surround a larger portion of the board than the opponent. Once placed on the board, stones cannot be moved, though they can be removed if they are captured. When a game concludes, the controlled points (territory) are counted along with captured stones to determine who has more points. Games may also be won by resignation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28game%29

One cannot superimpose an Occidental mindset to understand how the Oriental mindset would react. Fortunately, there are many westerners who understand, to a great extent, how the Oriental mind works.

China's footprint is on all continents including Antarctica! And it does not mean military footprints when economic and social footprints do most satisfactorily!

I confess that I do pepper my posts with links and quotations, but then since I do not make policies or a knowall, I rather understand and use published material and quotes of those who make policies and who are close to the powers that be.