Is strategic depth valid today?
Is the often cited phrase 'strategic depth' actually relevant in modern strategic thinking?
It appears to be only cited in the South Asian context. Secondly, apart from distance and consequent impact on travel time, what does Afghanistan have to offer?
From this armchair there is very little to offer, albeit with some very modern airfields added since 2001; nor would any meaningful presence be sustainable locally.
From a puzzled civilian.
davidbfpo
Probably not, but what's going on in some quarters in Pakistan may not be modern strategic thinking.Originally Posted by davidbfpo
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?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
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.
Last edited by Ray; 10-08-2011 at 05:29 PM.
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!
Last edited by Ray; 10-08-2011 at 06:04 PM.
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?
Hi 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
Last edited by Ray; 10-09-2011 at 04:30 AM.
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.
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 whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
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 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'.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.
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!!
Last edited by Ray; 10-09-2011 at 05:20 AM.
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.
Optimistic meaning that you believe it will succeed? I can't imagine why, based on current conditions.
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.
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.
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.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks