Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 69

Thread: The Indian role in Afghanistan (new title)

  1. #21
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    The same as it was in the earlier phase of the Taliban.
    So I gather... but what exactly was it then, and what exactly is it now? Vague reference to unspecific threats are unhelpful: what exactly do Indian strategists fear would happen to India if the US withdrew from Afghanistan and the Taliban took over again?

    From the article you cited:

    Although actively discouraging India from assuming a higher profile in Afghanistan, for fear of offending Pakistan, the United States has failed to persuade Pakistan into taking Indian concerns regarding terrorism from Pakistani soil more seriously. So long as Afghan territory is not being used to launch attacks onto U.S. soil, the United States may have no vital interest in
    determining who actually governs in Afghanistan, but it is important to India. If Washington were to abandon the goals of establishing a functioning Afghan state and seeing a moderate Pakistan emerge, that would put greater pressure on Indian security.
    I understand the concern over terrorism emanating from Pakistan, but what has that to do with Afghanistan? How would Pakistan-based terrorists pose a greater threat if Afghanistan were under Taliban control? Would that threat be severe and immediate enough to justify the enormous expense, and the potential for war with Pakistan, implicit in an Indian attempt to deny Afghanistan to the Taliban?

    I'm not sure "the goals of establishing a functioning Afghan state and seeing a moderate Pakistan emerge" really mean much, since neither the US nor India has the capacity to achieve those goals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    One cannot for sure state that India will succeed where the USSR and USA failed.

    But one thing is for sure, the Indian approach will not be like on the lines of the missionaries of yore which the US and the USSR adopted of trying to 'bring civilisation to the savages'!
    Can't discuss success and failure until you know what the goal is. What would be the purpose of an Indian operation in Afghanistan, other than denying Pakistani or Taliban control. We know what India doesn't want, but what would they try to install in its place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Example of Indian manner of approach.

    India is Afghanistan's fifth-largest bilateral donor and is involved in an array of projects in the country. It is constructing roads and setting up power transmission lines, sinking tube wells and building schools, hospitals and public toilets. It is constructing the Afghan parliament building and is engaged in repair and construction of the Salma dam project in Herat province. It has gifted Afghanistan with buses and is providing food assistance. It has trained civil servants and police and is extending scholarships to Afghan students to study in India.
    It is important that one gives assistance based on what the Afghans want and not what Think Tanks abroad feel what should be done for Afghanistan.
    Using aid projects and scholarships as bribes is actually a very American approach. It's not universally successful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Further, India has an advantage that the Americans and the Russians did not have. There are and were many Indians in Afghanistan and there are and were many Afghans in India. Therefore, the interactivity would be smoother.
    If y'all want to take the job over, I say go for it. Not like there's anything in it for us. I suspect you might find it less congenial and more complicated than you seem to expect!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Before entering Afghanistan, India would surely enter into agreements with other interested powers and countries since it would not make sense to be the sole knight in shining armour!
    No country will go into Afghanistan except to advance their own interests... would those interests be compatible with India's? Would their approaches be compatible with India"s? You know what they say about too many cooks spoiling the soup... and I don't think too many powers would want to be involved in Afghanistan in any event. It's not the sort of place people want to get involved, and there's not much there that anyone wants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    India can handle jihadis, but the nub is can the West take on another 9/11?

    The main target of jihadis will not be India, it will always be the US and the West more so, after the knocking of their larger than life icon, OBL.
    Of course, but that's of limited relevance to Afghanistan. The US presence in Afghanistan is a recruiting tool and a propaganda weapon for the jihadis, and really doesn't constrain them that much. Another 9/11 is as likely to be planned in Yemen or the Netherlands as on the Af/Pak frontier.

    Any discussion of potential "day after" involvement by India in Afghanistan would have to involve specific assessment of the following, all of which were markedly absent from the discussion linked to:

    1. What would be the goal? What end state would India seek to achieve in Afghanistan, and by what means and with what probability of success?

    2. What would be the costs and risks? Given that supply of forces in Afghanistan would require use of Pakistani airspace (yeah, right) or a very complex arrangement with the Iranians, whose goals may be quite different from India's, there's a lot of potential for trouble, up to and including the possibility of war with Pakistan.

    3. What would be the benefits? Exactly what would India gain, and exactly what threat would be averted?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    The IPI was about to fructify thanks to the effort of the then Petroleum Minister, Mani Shakar Aiyer, who has a very independent way of looking at issues and is also left wing.

    He was removed under US pressure (it was believed then and now confirmed by Wikileaks) and replaced by a pro very US chap, Murli Deora and so the IPI is in the doldrums, and TAPI is in the news (Apr 2010 meeting).
    Also from the article you cited:

    sections of the Indian government have suggested that India’s participation in the gas pipeline deal might not be strategically advantageous to India, given the very low quantity (30 million standard cubic meters per day) of gas involved. Moreover, it appears that the Iranian gas is not the lowest-priced option for India today.
    This also struck me, in the same piece:

    The Indian strategic community has never been in favor of the pipeline proposal anyway, as in their opinion, it gives Pakistan too much leverage over India’s energy security.
    That concern would of course also apply to TAPI... given the state of relations between India and Pakistan there would have to be significant risk to India in embracing any pipeline project that would have to pass through Pakistan, and given the instability and potential for security problems in both Iran and Afghanistan, neither would be a desirable source or conduit for energy supplies.

    The article also has a good discussion of how Indian-Iranian relations are constrained not only by American dislike for Iran, but with India's rapidly evolving ties with the GCC, which are very real (as opposed to the rather hypothetical nature of discussions of projects involving Iran and Afghanistan) and involve very large energy and investment deals. he GCC and the Iranians are of course not the best of friends.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-21-2011 at 09:56 AM. Reason: Fix quotes

  2. #22
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    So I gather... but what exactly was it then, and what exactly is it now? Vague reference to unspecific threats are unhelpful: what exactly do Indian strategists fear would happen to India if the US withdrew from Afghanistan and the Taliban took over again?
    The strategic threat, be it any form of Govt that is pro Pakistan, would affect India. You are well versed on Afghanistan and the strategy of all involved including bystanders, therefore, I will leave it to you to make your own deductions.

    Let's put it in another way. China is far away from the US shores. So, why is the US so China centric in Asia and elsewhere?

    From the article you cited:



    I understand the concern over terrorism emanating from Pakistan, but what has that to do with Afghanistan? How would Pakistan-based terrorists pose a greater threat if Afghanistan were under Taliban control? Would that threat be severe and immediate enough to justify the enormous expense, and the potential for war with Pakistan, implicit in an Indian attempt to deny Afghanistan to the Taliban?
    It is obvious.

    One of the factions of the Taliban is the Haqqani faction. It's origins are with the Hizbe Islami Gulbuddin. As all are aware, Haqani maintains a wide and diverse relationship with terrorists, to include AQ, Uzbej, Chechen and Kashmiris.

    The AQ and Taliban influence in fomenting terrorism in India is well known.

    Pakistan based Taliban terrorists would migrate to Afghanistan if the situation improved, more so, if there was a government under the Talibans. It would also open up non traditional routes for them to India.

    Expenses to fight terrorism will always be enormous. There can be no escape from it.

    The expense of the Western forces is enormous since they fight a high tech war with a low tech 'enemy'. That would not be the way India would possibly approach the issue as mentioned in my earlier post. While air attacks and artillery may be prudent for 'economy of effort', the collateral damage and killing of bystanders only adds to the terrorist figures.

    The undermentioned would indicate one aspect of the 'low tech' approach and the Kashmir model to keep the area relatively less hostile so that these type of low tech mode could be applied.

    In the years since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, India's presence in Afghanistan has grown dramatically. India does not have a military presence in Afghanistan, but it does play a significant role in the country's reconstruction and has won support across Afghanistan's ethnic groups. India's proximity to the Hamid Karzai government and growing India-Afghanistan cooperation has raised hackles among the Taliban and in Pakistan.
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JD24Df03.html


    It must be understood, that though the Afghans are well versed in warfare of their type, yet the are also human beings and also prefer peace and having basic amenities. One has to open up a life for them as per their desires. For instance, if some requires a water filter in his house for clean water and you give him a hi tech water filter that he does not know how to operate and more so, to maintain, it will be of no use to him! So, give him something low tech and he will be happy. You cannot make a USA out of Afghanistan. It is not Instant coffee.

    We have faced many insurgencies and some are still on going. They are not boiling over to cause a serious security concern. We do have some experience in the matter, and our actions have been in the realm of low tech and they work. It is not that countries that are not flush with funds are not capable of the 'high tech' COIN, they are. Sri Lanka is an example. However, pounding a fly with a sledge hammer does not always give the results desired. Who knows what foretells for Sri Lanka.

    Can't discuss success and failure until you know what the goal is. What would be the purpose of an Indian operation in Afghanistan, other than denying Pakistani or Taliban control. We know what India doesn't want, but what would they try to install in its place?
    Install?

    I wonder if India wants to install anything or anybody. Karzai is fine for India. In fact, it is for the Afghans to decide.

    If you had notice as to why India built the Chahbahar and the Zaranj-Delaram highway, the answer would be crystal clear.

    I'm not sure "the goals of establishing a functioning Afghan state and seeing a moderate Pakistan emerge" really mean much, since neither the US nor India has the capacity to achieve those goals.
    What is functioning Afghan state?

    Is Pakistan a functioning State? A country where everyone is a Kalifa. Where there are three different centres of power - The Govt, the Army and the ISI and a hardcore spoiler - the TTP! A country that survive on US Aid, financial and mililtary and cannot even pay the interest on the borrowing from the IMF and WB! A country which sends a Minister to Saudi Arabia requesting for monies to shore up the Pakistan Nation Budget! A country that asks the US Drone attacks and cannot face up to its population to state that it is they who want the Drones and instead blames the US!! A country that breeds and harbours terrorists so as to destabilise other countries since they themselves are in the dumps and wants others to be in the same slot!

    Therefore, the word 'functioning' and 'moderate' are merely subjective, meaningless and mere rhetoric!

    Using aid projects and scholarships as bribes is actually a very American approach. It's not universally successful.
    They are not bribes, if you ask me.

    If imaginatively applied, they swing the popular support to the country that is giving such aid.

    Patrice Lumumba University changed the students to be pro Soviet, China is funding scholarships for foreign students who are all quite pro China, likewise because now in every middle class family in India there is at least one who has had a US education or has worked there, the mindset has changed from pro USSR to pro US.

    If the US companies themselves undertook the projects and their work observed by the locals, it would give a totally different meaning as compared to giving the money to Afghans to do as they like. It leads to corruption and the projects don't have the desired end result. The blame goes to the US. Of course, some top chaps in such projects and also some unskilled workers should be Afghans so that they learn the American way of working as also it would build a correct US Afghan relationship.

    If y'all want to take the job over, I say go for it. Not like there's anything in it for us. I suspect you might find it less congenial and more complicated than you seem to expect!
    We offered. The US found it not suited to their approach.

    As I said insurgency is nothing new to India.

    Been there, done that!!


    No country will go into Afghanistan except to advance their own interests... would those interests be compatible with India's? Would their approaches be compatible with India"s? You know what they say about too many cooks spoiling the soup... and I don't think too many powers would want to be involved in Afghanistan in any event. It's not the sort of place people want to get involved, and there's not much there that anyone wants.
    The spread of Islamic fundamentalist is a core issue with all countries except the Muslim countries. Even China is worried as reported in their newspaper, The Global Times.

    Because you live in SE Asia, you would not understand it in the same way as those who live in the neighbourhood. A fundamentalist Islamic regime in Afghanistan would be worrisome to the CAR (even though they are Muslim), Russia, India and Iran.

    In case you have reservation about Iran, it requires no elaboration about the sectarian hate the Shias have for the Sunnis and vice versa. Bahrain is live example. Further, they are most concerned about a Sunni regime leaning onto its borders as also of the Jundallah threat that is aided by Pakistan.


    Of course, but that's of limited relevance to Afghanistan. The US presence in Afghanistan is a recruiting tool and a propaganda weapon for the jihadis, and really doesn't constrain them that much. Another 9/11 is as likely to be planned in Yemen or the Netherlands as on the Af/Pak frontier.
    Therefore, one should not let it fructify.

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Any discussion of potential "day after" involvement by India in Afghanistan would have to involve specific assessment of the following, all of which were markedly absent from the discussion linked to:

    1. What would be the goal? What end state would India seek to achieve in Afghanistan, and by what means and with what probability of success?

    2. What would be the costs and risks? Given that supply of forces in Afghanistan would require use of Pakistani airspace (yeah, right) or a very complex arrangement with the Iranians, whose goals may be quite different from India's, there's a lot of potential for trouble, up to and including the possibility of war with Pakistan.

    3. What would be the benefits? Exactly what would India gain, and exactly what threat would be averted?
    I think I have generally given the answer. But once again:

    The goal would be to have a non fundamentalist Afghanistan that is allowed to function on their own compulsions and not forced to adopt a foreign model.

    What one forget is how the British handled these difficult tribes not only in the NW but also the NE of India. They made them accept the British as overlords, but gave them total independence to run their areas the way they liked. In spite of the historical antecedent, people are re-inventing the wheel.

    If India has to go into Afghanistan, it would be with the concurrence and active support of those who supported the Northern Alliance. It is also obvious that if India has to go into Afghanistan, then the US reservations over Iran would not come into play and there would be no complex arrangement with Iran. In fact, Iran and India have convergence of interests in Afghanistan.

    If India was proactive, then it would cause innumerable headaches for Pakistan. The Afghans do not recognise the Durand Line. Even the pro Pakistan Taliban did not recognise the Durand Line. Thus, there is ample scope to for the Pashtunistan issue to be agitated. In will be recalled that Waziristan too is Pashtuns except the Saidgis.

    Success is a relative term.

    [quote]Also from the article you cited:



    This also struck me, in the same piece:



    That concern would of course also apply to TAPI... given the state of relations between India and Pakistan there would have to be significant risk to India in embracing any pipeline project that would have to pass through Pakistan, and given the instability and potential for security problems in both Iran and Afghanistan, neither would be a desirable source or conduit for energy supplies.
    That is one of the issue regarding the IPI. India insists that it will pay only for the "landed" goods in India through the pipeline. I presume, such a clause could be cranked in to ensure that Indian interests are protected.

    TAPI is not a life and death issue for India. If it works out, it will help. If it does not, then some of the shortages in the Indian requirement, India will have to learn to live with.

    The article also has a good discussion of how Indian-Iranian relations are constrained not only by American dislike for Iran, but with India's rapidly evolving ties with the GCC, which are very real (as opposed to the rather hypothetical nature of discussions of projects involving Iran and Afghanistan) and involve very large energy and investment deals. he GCC and the Iranians are of course not the best of friends.
    From the standpoint of development, the GCC is preferable.

    Strategically, Iran is preferable.

  4. #24
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Very interesting discussion between Ray and Dayuhan.

    What I gather from the discussion is this. India knows what it doesn't want, and that can be be a pretty strong basis for action. Rational analysis of costs, benefits and probabilities may not count for much because the emotional outlook of the Indian citizenry, for good or ill, is involved. From what I gather they will not put up with another Mumbai so India will do what it must to lessen the probability of that happening.

    If those suppositions are true, India will get heavily involved in Afghanistan if we abandon the place.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  5. #25
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    It is obvious.

    One of the factions of the Taliban is the Haqqani faction. It's origins are with the Hizbe Islami Gulbuddin. As all are aware, Haqani maintains a wide and diverse relationship with terrorists, to include AQ, Uzbej, Chechen and Kashmiris.

    The AQ and Taliban influence in fomenting terrorism in India is well known.

    Pakistan based Taliban terrorists would migrate to Afghanistan if the situation improved, more so, if there was a government under the Talibans. It would also open up non traditional routes for them to India.
    I'm sorry, but that's less than obvious to me. The Taliban and the other jihadis already have bases and protection in Pakistan, right on India's border. How would they become more dangerous to India by moving to Afghanistan? They'd still have to go through Pakistan to get to India. What "non-traditional routes to India" exist from Afghanistan, a landlocked nation not bordering India and possessing very limited links to other countries?

    I'm sure one could come up with a scenario, but again the question is one of scale. Is that threat severe and imminent enough to justify the enormous risks and costs of going to war in Afghanistan? Isn't there a real possibility that Pakistan-based jihadis would step up attacks on India to try and break India's will to persist in Afghanistan?

    Again, such a proposition would, one hopes, be accompanied by a clear assessment of costs and benefits. What, exactly and specifically, is the threat to be averted? How sever is it? Is it severe enough to justify the costs and risks of war, which is an expensive and risky enterprise?

    Is that calculation being discussed in public, anywhere? I figure if anyone would have a link, it would be you

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    We have faced many insurgencies and some are still on going. They are not boiling over to cause a serious security concern. We do have some experience in the matter, and our actions have been in the realm of low tech and they work.
    Managing your own insurgencies and managing someone else's are very different kettles of fisdh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    I wonder if India wants to install anything or anybody. Karzai is fine for India. In fact, it is for the Afghans to decide.
    Karzai may be fine for India, but what if he isn't so fine for Afghanistan? And what if the Afghans decide something that isn't so fine for India, as is quite likely to be the case?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    What is functioning Afghan state?

    Is Pakistan a functioning State? A country where everyone is a Kalifa. Where there are three different centres of power - The Govt, the Army and the ISI and a hardcore spoiler - the TTP! A country that survive on US Aid, financial and mililtary and cannot even pay the interest on the borrowing from the IMF and WB! A country which sends a Minister to Saudi Arabia requesting for monies to shore up the Pakistan Nation Budget! A country that asks the US Drone attacks and cannot face up to its population to state that it is they who want the Drones and instead blames the US!! A country that breeds and harbours terrorists so as to destabilise other countries since they themselves are in the dumps and wants others to be in the same slot!

    Therefore, the word 'functioning' and 'moderate' are merely subjective, meaningless and mere rhetoric!
    Absolutely. From the US perspective a "functioning state" in Afghanistan would be a state that does not require US occupation and does not pose any threat to the US. The rest of it doesn't matter. It sounds like India's perspective is much the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    They are not bribes, if you ask me.

    If imaginatively applied, they swing the popular support to the country that is giving such aid.
    Do they really? Have they ever, except among a few individuals? If so, where?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    If the US companies themselves undertook the projects and their work observed by the locals, it would give a totally different meaning as compared to giving the money to Afghans to do as they like. It leads to corruption and the projects don't have the desired end result. The blame goes to the US. Of course, some top chaps in such projects and also some unskilled workers should be Afghans so that they learn the American way of working as also it would build a correct US Afghan relationship.
    US companies undertaking the projects themselves is an excellent way for the US government to give US tax money to US companies. It was done that way for a long time, but it didn't work very well. The point of the exercise, remember, is not to get Afghans to like the US, it's to try to get them to like a government that the US can live with.

    Aid is a two-edged sword, it can help and harm. It is no panacea, and its use as a counterinsurgency tool, despite a long history of effort, is spotty at best. Has India discovered some magic bullet that will change all that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    The spread of Islamic fundamentalist is a core issue with all countries except the Muslim countries. Even China is worried as reported in their newspaper, The Global Times.

    Because you live in SE Asia, you would not understand it in the same way as those who live in the neighbourhood. A fundamentalist Islamic regime in Afghanistan would be worrisome to the CAR (even though they are Muslim), Russia, India and Iran.
    .Southeast Asia has Muslims too, remember?

    Yes, lots of people would be worried. Again, though, these powers would be assessing costs and benefits themselves. Is a Taliban Afghanistan a great enough threat to them to make them want to stick their faces into the graveyard of empires? I suspect you'd get much encouragement and little help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Therefore, one should not let it fructify.
    Certainly not. The question is whether fructification can be prevented by engagement in Afghanistan, which is arguably as likely to encourage another 9/11 as to avert one. Let's not forget that the whole point of 9/11 was to force the US to invade and occupy Muslim lands, a situation that AQ is ready and able to exploit.

  6. #26
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    The goal would be to have a non fundamentalist Afghanistan that is allowed to function on their own compulsions and not forced to adopt a foreign model.
    And if their own compulsions are fundamentalist?

    It sounds like the goal is an "independent" Afghanistan that will do what you want, much the same trap that the US has fallen into.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    If India has to go into Afghanistan, it would be with the concurrence and active support of those who supported the Northern Alliance.
    And with the opposition of those who support the Taliban, and those who simply object to foreign interference. Is this not also the case with the US effort?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    It is also obvious that if India has to go into Afghanistan, then the US reservations over Iran would not come into play and there would be no complex arrangement with Iran. In fact, Iran and India have convergence of interests in Afghanistan.
    If India was solely dependent on Iran for access to supply its forces in Afghanistan, there would be a complex relationship, with or without the US involved. What do you figure the quid pro quo on that would be? Don't you think it would subject India to all kind of manipulation down the line... and isn't it much the same nasty situation that the US has gotten into with Pakistan?

    Iranian and Indian interests in Afghanistan may converge in some ways, but they are likely to diverge in others. Iran is not the most reliable of partners, and going into a venture as risky and complex as an occupation of Afghanistan in the position of complete dependence on Iran... well, I ain't India but I'd think two or three times first. I'd rather stick needles in my eyes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    That is one of the issue regarding the IPI. India insists that it will pay only for the "landed" goods in India through the pipeline. I presume, such a clause could be cranked in to ensure that Indian interests are protected.
    You overlook the fundamental liability of pipelines. They are not flexible; they only run from one place to another. Typically power stations and processing facilities are built at the head end of a pipeline; it's easier to transport electricity and processed product than raw product. If the pipeline is shut down, those facilities become useless, If the pipeline shuts, you have to scramble for quick buys on the spot market, which is expensive. All in all, if a pipeline is going to be inherently unreliable, why invest in it, and in the associated infrastructure? India is buying its gas from Qatar now, and getting good deals from a supplier that knows how to do business without letting politics get in the way. Why would they want to have to deal with Pakistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    TAPI is not a life and death issue for India. If it works out, it will help. If it does not, then some of the shortages in the Indian requirement, India will have to learn to live with.
    No, of course not... not a life and death issue, and not worth fighting over, not for India and still less for America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    From the standpoint of development, the GCC is preferable.

    Strategically, Iran is preferable.
    What is the goal of strategy, if not development? What strategic goal does a connection to Iran serve that is not served by connection to the GCC?

    Strategy is the servant of policy. What's the policy?

  7. #27
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    I'm sorry, but that's less than obvious to me. The Taliban and the other jihadis already have bases and protection in Pakistan, right on India's border. How would they become more dangerous to India by moving to Afghanistan? They'd still have to go through Pakistan to get to India. What "non-traditional routes to India" exist from Afghanistan, a landlocked nation not bordering India and possessing very limited links to other countries?

    I'm sure one could come up with a scenario, but again the question is one of scale. Is that threat severe and imminent enough to justify the enormous risks and costs of going to war in Afghanistan? Isn't there a real possibility that Pakistan-based jihadis would step up attacks on India to try and break India's will to persist in Afghanistan?

    Again, such a proposition would, one hopes, be accompanied by a clear assessment of costs and benefits. What, exactly and specifically, is the threat to be averted? How sever is it? Is it severe enough to justify the costs and risks of war, which is an expensive and risky enterprise?

    Is that calculation being discussed in public, anywhere? I figure if anyone would have a link, it would be you
    Let’s go down the way step by step.

    Maybe you would refresh your mind as to why Russia, India, Iran and the US supported the Northern Alliance.

    If they did so then, there would have surely been good reasons.

    Taliban was dangerous then to them.

    Have those reasons changed?

    If so, you could elucidate.

    I fail to understand what is this ‘enormous risk and cost’ that you keep mentioning. Do expand so that I can understand the ‘enormous risk and cost’.

    I have tried to explain that much of this ‘enormous cost’ that the ISAF is accruing is because it is fighting a low cost operation with high cost technology and because they are attempting to superimpose a foreign construct of democracy and governance, through costly schemes that have no immediate value to be observed.

    To explain it in simple terms, a hungry stomach cannot wait for a lavish meal being prepared at the Moulin Rogue by the world’s finest chef. It reminds me of Marie Antoinette’s misquoted phrase, “if they have no bread, give them cake’!!

    The people want to ‘see’ and ‘experience’ ‘progress’. They want the basic needs and not wait for Taj Mahals and other wonders of the world to come their way when they are old, and some gone! To understand, though only superficially, the Afghan plight, one could read ‘Kite Runner’ by Khaled Husseini.

    Did the Mumbai carnage terrorist come by the ‘traditional route’? Because they did the unexpected, the results were catastrophic. It is but a tenet of war – surprise!!

    Why should India go to war with Pakistan, just because India makes a mark in Afghanistan? It would be foolish to do so. Let Pakistan attack first. Let her be in the international doghouse. Hold her to the borders and strike elsewhere where it matters to India.

    It is not that Pakistan planners are sleeping. They are handing over large swathes of Kashmir to the Chinese!!

    Once again, if indeed, and it is a big ‘if’, India goes into Afghanistan, it would not be a solo.

    The cost is not in the public domain, if indeed, it has been calculated.



    Managing your own insurgencies and managing someone else's are very different kettles of fisdh.
    Not quite right, actually.

    We are facing the same Pakistanis, Uzbeks, Afghans and others in Kashmir! Do you really think that the terrorists in Kashmir are Kashmiris? Some are, but they are mostly used as ‘guides’. The actual work is done by those who operated in Afghanistan including the foreign fundamentalists.
    Therefore, we are versed in their ways.

    Unlike westerners, the Afghans are not very ‘far out’ from the Indian ways. They have their singular traits, but then since so many of them are around in India, they are not quite an enigma.




    Karzai may be fine for India, but what if he isn't so fine for Afghanistan? And what if the Afghans decide something that isn't so fine for India, as is quite likely to be the case?
    Karzai, Abdullah Abdullah and those in the run, are quite acceptable to India.

    What is not acceptable, to not only India but to many others, is a Taliban terrorist.

    Do you really think that these leaders are not without the huge financial backing of their mentors – the very same people who encourage corruption and then complain!

    You must visit the ‘other Asia’ and see the ‘fun and games’!

    Absolutely. From the US perspective a "functioning state" in Afghanistan would be a state that does not require US occupation and does not pose any threat to the US. The rest of it doesn't matter. It sounds like India's perspective is much the same.
    I take it that means that you and the US are quite comfortable with Pakistan, which does not require US occupation (though their forces are embedded with the Pakistan Army operating in KP), but continue to be a womb of terrorism and can launch another 9/11?

    India sure would be most comfortable with a ‘functioning’ (I would say relatively stable) Afghanistan, though that prospect appears very bleak.

    Do they really? Have they ever, except among a few individuals? If so, where?
    Guess?

    India!!!!!!

    Sympathetic to the USSR and its successor Russia, is totally pro US. Wikileaks confirm the same as to how India has become pro US.

    A few years ago, India would not have bothered about US warning over not going through with the IPI or voting with the US over Iran and its nuclear ambitions. Or stop short twice – attack on the Parliament and Mumbai! Not only the Govt, but a vast majority of Indians are ready to accept the US point of view.

    Why?

    Because every middle class family has someone who has been educated or has worked in the US. Even our good Prime Minister’s daughter is ensconced in the US.

    Now, just for debate's sake you don’t want to see the reality, what can one do?


    US companies undertaking the projects themselves is an excellent way for the US government to give US tax money to US companies. It was done that way for a long time, but it didn't work very well. The point of the exercise, remember, is not to get Afghans to like the US, it's to try to get them to like a government that the US can live with.

    Aid is a two-edged sword, it can help and harm. It is no panacea, and its use as a counterinsurgency tool, despite a long history of effort, is spotty at best. Has India discovered some magic bullet that will change all that?
    Now, why did it not work out that US companies failed to deliver? I thought that they are the ones on which modern management and industrial practices the world over is replicated!

    The point of the exercise precisely to get the Afghans to LIKE the US, or at least, APPRECIATE what the US is doing for them and disabuse them from believing the canard that the US is the ‘Great White Satan’!

    If that was not so, then the US is pouring money and having their soldiers killed for merely ‘fun and games’?

    What was the aim during the Cold War – bringing civilisation to natives running naked in the bush?

    I daresay, you sincerely believe that I am that naďve!

    Aid is not a double edged sword. Aid given with condescension with an air of saving mankind is what is detested. Further, aid that only benefits the elite is hardly going to warms the cockles of the heart of those who are actually deprived!
    Last edited by Ray; 05-22-2011 at 06:04 AM.

  8. #28
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    .Southeast Asia has Muslims too, remember?

    Yes, lots of people would be worried. Again, though, these powers would be assessing costs and benefits themselves. Is a Taliban Afghanistan a great enough threat to them to make them want to stick their faces into the graveyard of empires? I suspect you'd get much encouragement and little help.
    So does China.

    I am not aware which part of the Orient you are in, because if you informed, I could explain the issue of Muslims in your parts, better.

    The Islam upto Pakistan is different as one goes further East. Compare even Bangladesh and Pakistan, if you will. There is a vast difference!

    Since you are in the SE, you feel that India would get ‘much encouragement and little help’. Be in the midst of a few bombings and see the corpse littered all over and you will realise what it is all about.

    Experiencing is worth volumes of theoretical knowledge and armchair postulations.

    History does indicate that Afghanistan was a graveyard for Imperialists! They came to conquer and subjugate – that is the subtle difference.

    Observe the anger in Pakistan over US Drones and the OBL episode. The US did not come to conquer, and yet they are furious. Why? Because the Pakistanis feel that their Govt, Army and the ISI has sold their souls.

    Right now, Karzai is seen as a puppet and rightly so since at every step he is being manipulated. Therefore, his credibility is zero. Give him his space and he will appear as a different man.

    Even in the Liberation of Bangladesh, India did not hang around. They gave the reins to Mujibur instantly. However, power went to his head.


    Certainly not. The question is whether fructification can be prevented by engagement in Afghanistan, which is arguably as likely to encourage another 9/11 as to avert one. Let's not forget that the whole point of 9/11 was to force the US to invade and occupy Muslim lands, a situation that AQ is ready and able to exploit.
    Success cannot happen if the Afghan Govt appears to be a handmaiden of the US, nor can it happen by use of airpower and artillery. These are area weapons and they are devastating and there will be innocents killed.

    What I find most interesting is that I have to mention how to fight insurgency to Americans! It is like carrying coals to Newcastle! Our insurgency doctrines are all based on the US doctrines of yore, with modifications along the way. And these US doctrines has held us in good stead and surprisingly, the US has forgotten what they taught themselves!!

    No matter how much you may say whole point of 9/11 was to force the US to invade and occupy Muslim lands, no one will believe that. Those who have observed the US in various foreign forays are well aware that while the US may appear impetuous, they have a method in the madness. It is not a question that they get up from their bed and sniff the air and say - Hey, lets go and attack just because I don't like OBL and his antics! Even many US commentators don't buy such a simplistic explanation.

    OK for discussion's sake we accept your explanation about why the US went to war in Afghanistan. Could you explain, why the US suddenly forgot about the mission in Afghanistan and went whole hog in Iraq instead?

    And guess what? The Islamic world goes one step beyond - they believe that the US themselves did it to themselves!! Crazy an idea, but it is quite popular amongst them. You could even read this book by a Bangladeshi Muslim, enjoying the fruits of the West and going hammer and tongs at the hand that feeds him - The Great Deception (Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed).

  9. #29
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default US support for the Northern Alliance

    I'm reduxing the thread, Defending Hamdan, because it lays out the constitutional and diplomatic history of Astan from the US viewpoiint - which equals what the US Executive branch says it is.

    from Ray
    Maybe you would refresh your mind as to why Russia, India, Iran and the US supported the Northern Alliance.
    My mind is refreshed.

    Pick up my boring slog from here, Constitutional History of Afghanistan, and trot forward (please read all of my posts and the sources) to here, US & Afghan Positions 1996-2001 - part 1. And, then please read my posts and sources to the end.

    The point is that the US recognized NO government in Astan from 1997-2001 (9/11/2001 was the tipping point, but the Northern Alliance was not recognized as the goverment by the US - it was a co-belligerent pursuant to the 2001 AUMF). If I'm wrong on material facts or law, please advise.

    Russia, India and Iran pursued a separate path from the US - and, today, are entitled to do the same. That would not bother me in the least.

    Regards

    Mike

  10. #30
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    I am not aware which part of the Orient you are in, because if you informed, I could explain the issue of Muslims in your parts, better.
    I am in the Philippines. Your offer is kind, but unnecessary. I am aware of the issues of Muslims in my parts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Since you are in the SE, you feel that India would get "much encouragement and little help". Be in the midst of a few bombings and see the corpse littered all over and you will realise what it is all about.

    Experiencing is worth volumes of theoretical knowledge and armchair postulations.
    I am aware of the value of experience. I've not been up close to a bombing. I have observed both insurgency and counterinsurgency at close range... of the sloppy sort, devoid of such polite constructs as rules of engagement and consideration of human rights.

    It is rarely wise to make assumptions about what others need explained, or what they have or have not experienced. I've noticed that this is particularly the case on SWJ, where the range of experience and knowledge is at times surprising.

    I still believe that an Indian effort in Afghanistan would get "much encouragement and little help", in large part because involvement in places like Afghanistan increases, rather than reduces, risk of terror attack. Exactly what sort of help do you think India would have, and from whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    History does indicate that Afghanistan was a graveyard for Imperialists! They came to conquer and subjugate – that is the subtle difference.
    And what would India mean to do there that is any different from the US purpose?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Observe the anger in Pakistan over US Drones and the OBL episode. The US did not come to conquer, and yet they are furious. Why? Because the Pakistanis feel that their Govt, Army and the ISI has sold their souls.
    I don't suppose Pakistanis would be terribly delighted at an Indian presence in Afghanistan. I do expect, though, that the Pak Army/ISI crowd would be absolutely delighted to see India try to take over from the US. What could be better for them than to have their great enemy positioned for the slow bleed, a strategy at which they have long practice? On what other battlefield could Pakistan have reasonable hope of defeating India?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Right now, Karzai is seen as a puppet and rightly so since at every step he is being manipulated. Therefore, his credibility is zero. Give him his space and he will appear as a different man.
    That sounds a fairly ambitious assumption. Have you any evidence to suggest that it would be so, other than wishing it so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Success cannot happen if the Afghan Govt appears to be a handmaiden of the US, nor can it happen by use of airpower and artillery. These are area weapons and they are devastating and there will be innocents killed.

    What I find most interesting is that I have to mention how to fight insurgency to Americans! It is like carrying coals to Newcastle! Our insurgency doctrines are all based on the US doctrines of yore, with modifications along the way. And these US doctrines has held us in good stead and surprisingly, the US has forgotten what they taught themselves!!
    You seem very confident that you could do it better. An easy thing to believe, from the sidelines. I hope for India's sake that you don't decide to try it out, as I suspect you'd find the reality less congenial than the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    No matter how much you may say whole point of 9/11 was to force the US to invade and occupy Muslim lands, no one will believe that. Those who have observed the US in various foreign forays are well aware that while the US may appear impetuous, they have a method in the madness. It is not a question that they get up from their bed and sniff the air and say - Hey, lets go and attack just because I don't like OBL and his antics! Even many US commentators don't buy such a simplistic explanation.
    You can hear as much nonsense as you choose to listen to from US commentators.

    No US President can allow an attack on US soil to pass without a direct attempt to attack those responsible. It is politically unacceptable. Bush had to attack Afghanistan. Not much point in it beyond revenge, no economic or strategic advantage to be gained, enormous risk and expense... but domestic politics forced it. Sticking around, was, IMO, a huge mistake, as it exposed us to all the cost and risk for no real gain, but it was done, also largely for domestic political reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    OK for discussion's sake we accept your explanation about why the US went to war in Afghanistan. Could you explain, why the US suddenly forgot about the mission in Afghanistan and went whole hog in Iraq instead?
    A very different set of reasons, and IMO a very bad set of reasons, though still closely linked to domestic politics. It is very difficult to explain American political decision-making to non-Americans, and truthful explanations often seem quite illogical to those not steeped in the oddities of US domestic politics. The West's misunderstanding of the East is often equaled or exceeded by the East's misunderstanding of the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    And guess what? The Islamic world goes one step beyond - they believe that the US themselves did it to themselves!! Crazy an idea, but it is quite popular amongst them. You could even read this book by a Bangladeshi Muslim, enjoying the fruits of the West and going hammer and tongs at the hand that feeds him - The Great Deception (Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed).
    People believe all sorts of silly things about the hands that feed them. Are you familiar with the political writings Noam Chomsky? There are many other examples...

  11. #31
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    I am in the Philippines. Your offer is kind, but unnecessary. I am aware of the issues of Muslims in my parts.
    I am sure you are aware, but then it is different when you live amongst them - not the handful representation, but as a community almost equal in numbers.

    Mindanao, Palawan and the Sulu Archipelago are where the Moros are active. How frequent are their bombings/ suicide attacks elsewhere?

    I am aware of the value of experience. I've not been up close to a bombing. I have observed both insurgency and counterinsurgency at close range... of the sloppy sort, devoid of such polite constructs as rules of engagement and consideration of human rights.

    It is rarely wise to make assumptions about what others need explained, or what they have or have not experienced. I've noticed that this is particularly the case on SWJ, where the range of experience and knowledge is at times surprising.
    The vast experience and knowledge that one experiences here is what attracts me to the SWJ.

    However, that in no way should inhibit anyone of stating what he has to say including trying to explain one's point of view, in case one feels that the other has not quite got the point one is trying to make.

    I, for one, would read posts of those who have been in Iraq and in combat. Their experience would be of immense value to me. Yet, I will ask them many a pointed questions, so that I could compare the same with the experience we are having out here. I would not dismiss their views perfunctorily.

    That the Afghan insurgency would not be a totally new experience for Indians is what I was stating. It sure will be a new experience for any Westerner. The psyche and ethos is totally different. It is not so for the Indian, even the insurgency modes, since we have seen it applied in Kashmir for many years.

    I still believe that an Indian effort in Afghanistan would get "much encouragement and little help", in large part because involvement in places like Afghanistan increases, rather than reduces, risk of terror attack. Exactly what sort of help do you think India would have, and from whom?
    You are entitled to your opinion. I merely gave mine.

    Terror attacks is the staple of insurgency and terrorism. If one has to fight them, then one has to take the risk. I think because the Indian soldier has gone through years of insurgency from the NE to Kashmir, he has become impervious to the risks involved. He is aware of the risk, but he has become a fatalist.

    I, myself, am off to Kashmir to an insurgency active area, if the permission comes through. Many think it is foolish, since I am not longer active. But then, the thrill to be back where the action is, is what makes one go for it!

    As for the type of help, it will depend on the situation prevailing prior to any change of responsibility. From whom? Those that supported the Northern Alliance and it cannot be that it will be an Indian show alone.

    And what would India mean to do there that is any different from the US purpose?
    I thought I was explaining that all along.

    In short. approach the issue in a low tech way, allow them to govern themselves the way they have been doing through centuries and have projects that have small gestation time. Once, the confidence has been built, then go in for high end projects.

    I don't suppose Pakistanis would be terribly delighted at an Indian presence in Afghanistan. I do expect, though, that the Pak Army/ISI crowd would be absolutely delighted to see India try to take over from the US. What could be better for them than to have their great enemy positioned for the slow bleed, a strategy at which they have long practice? On what other battlefield could Pakistan have reasonable hope of defeating India?
    That Pakistan will not be delighted is obvious.

    India is already being bled by their policy of a 1000 cuts.

    If Pakistan were to be delighted to have India in Afghanistan and do another 1000 cuts, then why are they hell bent that India does not even undertake non military tasks such as re-construction?

    I don't think Pakistan has any chance of defeating India or India defeating Pakistan. I have explained the rationale earlier.

    That sounds a fairly ambitious assumption. Have you any evidence to suggest that it would be so, other than wishing it so?
    Have you any evidence to suggest it otherwise?

    You seem very confident that you could do it better. An easy thing to believe, from the sidelines. I hope for India's sake that you don't decide to try it out, as I suspect you'd find the reality less congenial than the theory.
    Confidence is the first step to success. Approaching any problem with a half hearted resolve can never help.

    I am no one to decide what should be tried. It is for the Govt of India to take the call.

    No insurgency is congenial. It is not through theory I speak but having been for about 37 years in various forms of insurgency and in various states of intensity.

    The fact that has to be understood is that the common soldier anywhere, be he an American or an Indian, is a brave man and he is ready to rough it out for his Country and his Flag. Success is dependant, not only on the soldier, but more so on the Planners be they in or not in uniform.

    You can hear as much nonsense as you choose to listen to from US commentators.

    No US President can allow an attack on US soil to pass without a direct attempt to attack those responsible. It is politically unacceptable. Bush had to attack Afghanistan. Not much point in it beyond revenge, no economic or strategic advantage to be gained, enormous risk and expense... but domestic politics forced it. Sticking around, was, IMO, a huge mistake, as it exposed us to all the cost and risk for no real gain, but it was done, also largely for domestic political reasons.

    A very different set of reasons, and IMO a very bad set of reasons, though still closely linked to domestic politics. It is very difficult to explain American political decision-making to non-Americans, and truthful explanations often seem quite illogical to those not steeped in the oddities of US domestic politics. The West's misunderstanding of the East is often equaled or exceeded by the East's misunderstanding of the US.
    I am aware that Bush had to attack Afghanistan. I do not dispute that.

    However, do explain that if Afghanistan was for revenge, did the US achieve it? If they did not, then why did they swing to Iraq without feeding their revenge? This issue you have failed to answer.

    I am not aware that Saddam also was a kingpin in the 9/11 carnage.

    People believe all sorts of silly things about the hands that feed them. Are you familiar with the political writings Noam Chomsky? There are many other examples...
    Yes I am familiar with Chomsky, but I am not totally impressed by his views, even though he is taken to be an intellectual by some.

    Have you read The Great Deception by NM Ahmed. I assure you that you, if you are an American, you would not be able to go through the first few pages itself. It took me immense patience to go through the book.
    Last edited by Ray; 05-22-2011 at 03:34 PM.

  12. #32
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    India left standing in Afghan musical chairs
    By Peter Lee

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME21Df01.html
    Uncertainty is the only certainty there is, and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security.
    John Allen Paulos

    As I said it is the GoI's call.

    And on another thread I spoke of Indian timidity, which was hotly contested!

    Compare the Indian mindset with that of Pakistan, which has overcome all odds against them including international scorn and ridicule.

    And you will realise that I was not totally incorrect when I gave the rationale for Indian timidity.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-23-2011 at 09:05 AM. Reason: Cited text in quotes

  13. #33
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Missing or overlooked facts or factors

    I'd missed the fact that the Indian Prime Minister visited Kabul days after the OBL raid, yes a scheduled visit.

    This column is perhaps a shade optimistic on how to get better Indo-Pak relations via the civil sector, but worth a read:http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analy...-ties-with-pak

    Something we may miss, unless watching closely is:
    We should also study India's "South Asia Terrorism Portal" on comparative terrorism data. Pakistan experienced 10,268 civilian deaths between 2003 and 2011 because of religious bigotry or terrorism. During the same period, India suffered 7,744 civilian deaths that included 1,829 fatalities caused by Maoist violence.
    davidbfpo

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    On the Indian PM's visit to Afghanistan.

    Comments from the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (an Indian think tank)

    Unlike in Pakistan, Osama’s killing has been welcomed in Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai described the killing of Osama as “punishment for his deeds” and, without directly mentioning Pakistan, he reiterated that “the fight against terrorism is not in Afghanistan’s villages” or “in the houses of poor and oppressed Afghans,” but rather it “is in its sanctuaries, in its training camps and its finance centres.” However, other Afghan leaders were more explicit in their criticism of Pakistan’s role in hiding Osama for almost a decade......

    President Karzai has initiated moves to reconcile with the Taliban, but these have not made much headway. India remains concerned at reconciliation with the Taliban and their possible return to power in Kabul. Interestingly, there are deep concerns within Afghanistan as well on the possibility of a deal with the Taliban.....


    or the moment there is not much scope for a regional initiative in Afghanistan, although India remains in favour of it. Pakistan, on the contrary, is looking to enhance its influence in Afghanistan as the Western troop withdrawal begins. In April, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Army Chief General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani visited Kabul for discussions with President Karzai and his government. The two sides agreed to establish a two-tier joint commission to cooperate with each other on reconciliation-related issues.......

    Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Kabul is meant to reassure President Karzai of India’s sustained support. However, the underlying message of the visit is to convey to Pakistan, the US and the others that India has strategic interests in Afghanistan. Prime Minister Singh will buttress this message by assuring sustained engagement and further enhancement of Indian aid to Afghanistan. India has taken a bold step to enhance its relevance in Afghanistan.
    Very muted.

    What is the bold step that Indian has to take to stay relevant in Afghanistan?

    Is the present Indian Govt up to it?

    http://www.idsa.in/node/7462/3043

    Maybe if Omarali could link B Raman's (an analyst) article from where he came to the conclusion that the right wing in India has lost its narratives and that the Indian GHQ was not in this world, maybe a better analysis of the options could be done.
    Last edited by Ray; 05-23-2011 at 01:54 PM.

  15. #35
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    What is the bold step that Indian has to take to stay relevant in Afghanistan?

    Is the present Indian Govt up to it?
    Possibly the Indian Government believes that the risks and costs of "staying relevant in Afghanistan" exceed the benefits? Is that timidity or common sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Mindanao, Palawan and the Sulu Archipelago are where the Moros are active. How frequent are their bombings/ suicide attacks elsewhere?
    Actually there's very little activity on Palawan, and bombings/suicide attacks aren't the tactics of choice for the primary insurgent groups.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    That the Afghan insurgency would not be a totally new experience for Indians is what I was stating. It sure will be a new experience for any Westerner. The psyche and ethos is totally different. It is not so for the Indian, even the insurgency modes, since we have seen it applied in Kashmir for many years.
    Does India's logistic support for its forces in Kashmir have to pass through Iran? Just one difference among many. You may of course do as you will, but I would hesitate to assume that the two cases will be similar.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    As for the type of help, it will depend on the situation prevailing prior to any change of responsibility. From whom? Those that supported the Northern Alliance and it cannot be that it will be an Indian show alone.
    What you expect and what you get can be very different. Unwise to assume that you will have substantial assistance from others. If it comes, wonderful, but if you're going to take on that role the basis of planning should be that you will act alone. The world being what it is, the contributions of others are likely to be token and ephemeral.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    I thought I was explaining that all along.

    In short. approach the issue in a low tech way, allow them to govern themselves the way they have been doing through centuries and have projects that have small gestation time. Once, the confidence has been built, then go in for high end projects.
    You are describing method; my statement referred to purpose. The purpose of the intervention you describe is identical to the American purpose: install or maintain a government that suits the interests of the intervening power. Many of the subsequent issues derive not from method, but from that purpose.

    If we'll discuss method, I suspect that you place far too much faith in the capacity of aid projects to resolve insurgency, but I've said that before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    If Pakistan were to be delighted to have India in Afghanistan and do another 1000 cuts, then why are they hell bent that India does not even undertake non military tasks such as re-construction?
    Of course the Pakistanis will vocally and vehemently object to any Indian presence in Afghanistan. That's part of the charade, and it doesn't mean that Pak GHQ wouldn't be quite happy to have the ability to target Indian forces by proxy, in a position where the Indians are out on a limb with a shaky supply route and occupying a largely hostile territory. It's the sort of place one like to see one's antagonist. The US objected strenuously to the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, but in the long run they were able to use that situation to weaken their adversary fatally. Why wouldn't Pakistan secretly welcome the opportunity to do the same to India?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    I don't think Pakistan has any chance of defeating India or India defeating Pakistan. I have explained the rationale earlier.
    Certainly there is a possibility that Pakistan could force India to withdraw from Afghanistan without achieving their objectives, if India were to take over the effort to "stabilize" Afghanistan. That would constitute a defeat, not defeat on an absolute scale, but a defeat nonetheless.

    The question is whether the benefit to India of trying to stabilize Afghanistan justifies taking that risk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Have you any evidence to suggest it otherwise?
    The evidence would lie in the experience of everyone who has ever tried to occupy and pacify Afghanistan. Sure, maybe they were all just doing it wrong, and if you do it right it will be a cakewalk... but are you prepared to go in with that assumption?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Confidence is the first step to success. Approaching any problem with a half hearted resolve can never help.
    A blunt and realistic assessment of the challenge is also critical to success. It is easy for will to evaporate when a task proves harder than expected. Better to assume the worst... political will never becomes a problem when a task proves easier than expected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    No insurgency is congenial. It is not through theory I speak but having been for about 37 years in various forms of insurgency and in various states of intensity.
    That is why you shouldn't fight insurgencies unless you have to. Do you have to? Why repeat the US mistake and enter a war of choice against a notoriously intractable insurgency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    However, do explain that if Afghanistan was for revenge, did the US achieve it? If they did not, then why did they swing to Iraq without feeding their revenge? This issue you have failed to answer.

    I am not aware that Saddam also was a kingpin in the 9/11 carnage.
    Iraq, as I said, involved a whole different set of reasons and decisions, one with no direct relevance to this thread... and if anything this discussion needs more focus, not less.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 05-24-2011 at 12:21 AM.

  16. #36
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Possibly the Indian Government believes that the risks and costs of "staying relevant in Afghanistan" exceed the benefits? Is that timidity or common sense?
    I believe Einstein had said 'Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen'.

    The Indian Government has had no Minister (except one Major of post independence vintage and one Prince who was a TA officer) with military service and hence find petrified at the thought of armed conflicts.

    The economist in the PM can only calculate the Rupees and Paisas and yet he still comes a cropper!

    Therefore, is it common sense or sheer timidity?

    The manner in which India is being bled by Pakistan and Indian Govt remains a docile spectator spewing pious platitudes is a sign of common sense or sheer timidity and paralysis to face the reality?

    It requires the US courts and enforcement agencies to ferret out the ISI connection to the Mumbai blast instead of getting its act together on its own, is that common sense or timidity?

    Given the way this Govt is performing, maybe they will follow your line of thought of staying out of 'harm's way' and tomtom it as 'common sense' and let Indian strategic and economic interests be sold out!!

    Take the occupation of Tibet. In 1950s, China was preoccupied with the US in Korea and yet our pacifist Prime Minister, the world acclaimed leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, sold out the Tibetans to the Chinese and a part of India too!!

    Some may call it 'common sense' and some would contest that it is not timidity as was stated in another thread.

    I, for one, would construe this pacifism that yields no result but sells off Indian interests as timidity (I could have used stronger terms, but for the sake of decency, am giving it the go by).

    It is time to take stock and not merely go by the Biblical injunction - And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not [to take thy] coat also. (Luke 6:29 )

    Actually there's very little activity on Palawan, and bombings/suicide attacks aren't the tactics of choice for the primary insurgent groups.
    From open sources, it appear that the United States has provided the Philippines with military "advisers" to support its campaign against al Qaeda linked Abu Sayyaf.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ilippines.html

    I take it that AQ tactics depends heavily on suicide bombers and their like.

    However, you would be the best judge.

    Does India's logistic support for its forces in Kashmir have to pass through Iran? Just one difference among many. You may of course do as you will, but I would hesitate to assume that the two cases will be similar.
    The issue to which you have answered was the psyche and ethos, where I had stated that Indians were conversant with the Afghan psyche and ethos, unlike the Westerner.

    Therefore, the logistic support issue is not understood.

    Notwithstanding, it is obvious that the logistic support to Kashmir does not cross Iran.

    However, to assume that going through Iran is something insurmountable and dangerous would not be a correct analysis.

    What exactly would be the problems of the Iran logistic route that would deter the use?

    The logistic support was not safe in the formative days, but now that there is no disturbance to the logistic support, does speaks volumes as to the success of the Indian Army and the Govt in controlling foreign supported insurgency to a real low intensity.

    In fact, it is only today, the Hurriyat (the Pak supported pressure group and pro terrorist organisation) has called for the Hurriyat themselves to parley with the Govt of India rather than the Govt always asking them to come for talks!!

    Hurriyat leader prod for talks

    Srinagar, May 23: A senior leader of the moderate Hurriyat faction has asked the group to offer talks to New Delhi and not wait for an invite, a proposal that amounts to an about-turn from the separatists’ traditional stand.
    http://www.telegraphindia.com/111052...y_14022345.jsp
    What you expect and what you get can be very different. Unwise to assume that you will have substantial assistance from others. If it comes, wonderful, but if you're going to take on that role the basis of planning should be that you will act alone. The world being what it is, the contributions of others are likely to be token and ephemeral.
    One makes assumptions.

    Then closer to time, the assumptions are tested for its credibility based on the interaction and the environment.

    Plans are based on assumptions since one cannot predict the outcome in minute details. Therefore, one has contingencies also cranked in

    For instance, in a battle one may have a brilliant plan, but once it is launched, there has to be flexibility to cater for the situations arising. The one who has the contingency catered for, wins.

    While it is correct that contributions are likely to be token and ephemeral, one would not embark on a dangerous mission merely on promises.

  17. #37
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    You are describing method; my statement referred to purpose. The purpose of the intervention you describe is identical to the American purpose: install or maintain a government that suits the interests of the intervening power. Many of the subsequent issues derive not from method, but from that purpose.
    Out of the Purpose evolves the Method.

    I believe the United States’ “goal in Afghanistan is to deny safe haven to al Qaeda and to deny the Taliban the ability to overthrow the Afghan government.”
    http://www.lanaturnerjournal.com/onl...973caebf11ebe2

    I think that would be the purpose of anyone operating in Afghanistan.

    My comments were in reply to your contention of it being cost prohibitive for India.

    Afghanistan is costly because the win ability is based on a high tech and so high cost method. Terrorists are like protoplasm. They recreate themselves out of the debris of collateral damage caused by air attacks and artillery and other area weapons (all of which is costly in terms of finance). They also believe in Revenge.

    Afghans have the warrior instinct. But it would be wrong to assume that they are dolts and blood thirsty beyond reason. Limit their justification for 'Revenge' and the it becomes a better win-able situation.

    A low cost approach along with the projection of 'soft power' will not be that expensive, except maybe in terms of casualties.

    Merely to state a purpose and not have a compatible method that suits the environment would possibly not give the correct and desirable result.

    If we'll discuss method, I suspect that you place far too much faith in the capacity of aid projects to resolve insurgency, but I've said that before.
    Maybe I do place faith in aid projects. If one has aid projects that are visible (in a short span of time) in giving results to the common man, I presume it will have its affect. It has worked in our insurgencies. It will not resolve the insurgencies as such, but would work to wean away the recruiting base to a great degree.

    For instance, if I may give an example. In Kashmir, the Indian Army would build projects for local use. They would use them but not really care for them since they knew that if the item fell apart from disuse or terrorist action, because of their 'blackmail' power, it would be rebuilt by the army. When we told them that we would give the material but they would have to build it themselves, there was immense dissatisfaction from not only their ranks, but also from our superior HQs.

    Notwithstanding, we made them build their own (it was a mosque). They ensured that it stood, come hail or high water or terrorist. Possibly because it was their labour of love and possibly because if it was destroyed, they themselves would have to build it again!! Bottom line learnt from the Americans - there is no such thing as a Free Lunch!!

    It worked.

    Of course the Pakistanis will vocally and vehemently object to any Indian presence in Afghanistan. That's part of the charade, and it doesn't mean that Pak GHQ wouldn't be quite happy to have the ability to target Indian forces by proxy, in a position where the Indians are out on a limb with a shaky supply route and occupying a largely hostile territory. It's the sort of place one like to see one's antagonist. The US objected strenuously to the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, but in the long run they were able to use that situation to weaken their adversary fatally. Why wouldn't Pakistan secretly welcome the opportunity to do the same to India?
    You base your assumptions on (a) a shaky supply route and (b) largely hostile territory.

    Now, what makes one conclude the supply route to be shaky? I see that it is fraught with the same dangers as it would be in any insurgency and not something extraordinarily different. However, if you could point out the dangers that I have not seen, it would help.

    It is wrong to assume that Indians face a hostile Afghan environment. It does not. In fact, Indians are not taken as interlopers.

    The casualties Indians have faced in their various projects should be an indicator. The casualties that have occurred are based on Pakistan guided activities since the Indian presence to make a positive contribution, while Pakistan embarked on destruction, has Pakistan worried.

    A very marginal ITBF (paramilitary) presence protect the workers from attacks.

    It is worth noting if Pakistan has made any effort to reconstruct the war torn Afghanistan.

    Afghans can be labelled to be anything, but they are not blind!

    Certainly there is a possibility that Pakistan could force India to withdraw from Afghanistan without achieving their objectives, if India were to take over the effort to "stabilize" Afghanistan. That would constitute a defeat, not defeat on an absolute scale, but a defeat nonetheless.

    The question is whether the benefit to India of trying to stabilize Afghanistan justifies taking that risk.
    If India is in Afghanistan,(Big IF) then I wonder if Pakistan can make India withdraw.

    Let us look at it another way on the issue of 'stabilisation'.

    How many Western troops are involved in UN military missions? Where are the troops coming from?

    Would the UN military missions be successful without the backing (moral and financial) of those powers who are interested in bringing peace through these UN Mission?

    Who finally benefits when peace (or quasi peace) is brought through these UN Missions? Obviously those nations which can invest in the nations where peace or quasi peace is obtained.

    There lies the 'usefulness' of India!

    As they say, there is no Free Lunches. It is a Quid Pro Quo and there is enough interest to hand over the body bags problem to those who take it as a matter of course in a day's work.

    The evidence would lie in the experience of everyone who has ever tried to occupy and pacify Afghanistan. Sure, maybe they were all just doing it wrong, and if you do it right it will be a cakewalk... but are you prepared to go in with that assumption?
    Nothing in life is a cakewalk. To assume so, is the first step to disaster.

    Nobody is doing it wrong. Everybody in Afghanistan is doing it as suggested by their psyche and approach to issues.

    None should even attempt to 'occupy' or 'pacify'. That would be imposing one's own interpretation to solving an issue. It is where those who have the 'missionary's zeal' of bringing 'civilisation to the savages' go wrong. It is better to do it the British way - let the savages be savages, so long it works in our favour! Never forget, a handful of British ruled a whole Empire of 'savages'!!

    It is my experience that one should give the broad outline and the tools (that they desire and not what one think they should have) and let the people involved solve it their way. My experience shows that if one allows those involved in a task the liberty to do it their way, most of the times they will pleasantly surprise you with their solutions.

    A blunt and realistic assessment of the challenge is also critical to success. It is easy for will to evaporate when a task proves harder than expected. Better to assume the worst... political will never becomes a problem when a task proves easier than expected.
    Indeed a blunt and realistic assessment is the answer. And, believe it or not, one prepares for the worst case scenario.

    No task in an insurgency will ever be easy. A war is easier to conclude, but not an insurgency. Insurgency follows no rules or mode of tactics. It is mostly personality driven.

    The first casualty to any success in an insurgency is the political will.

    If there was not the issue of a second election for the US President, maybe things would have been different. Notwithstanding, the US has so far held its own; inspite of domestic compulsions and a fluid insurgency that is operating from safe havens which for good reasons cannot be addressed in the classical manner.

    That is why you shouldn't fight insurgencies unless you have to. Do you have to? Why repeat the US mistake and enter a war of choice against a notoriously intractable insurgency?
    No country goes willingly to fight an insurgency. They do so to protect their national interests.

    India obviously has interests or else they would not be squandering money for reconstruction work in Afghanistan. Indian interest in Afghanistan is known and maybe I have mentioned it too.

  18. #38
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Iraq, as I said, involved a whole different set of reasons and decisions, one with no direct relevance to this thread... and if anything this discussion needs more focus, not less.
    Of course, Iraq has relevance to the thread.

    By stating that nd if anything this discussion needs more focus, not less won't wish away the issue.

    It was said that the Oriental people do not understand the psyche of the Americans and hence do not understand that Revenge is a reason to go to war. I concede that.

    If Revenge was the raison d'etre for going into Afghanistan, then the rational to leave it simmering and take on Iraq is indeed confounding.

    Let us even concede that Revenge was the reason to go into Iraq, but militarily, one does not spilt the Selection and Maintenance of Aim or squander on the Principle of Concentration of Force or fail to adhere to the principle of Economy of Effort. I daresay that the US Army is one of the finest led Armies of the World. Much of the contemporary military thinking is from US Doctrines!! Therefore, would it be too much to believe that the US Army knows what they do? While the political head honchos have their own compulsions that are not so easily understood?

    The thread is on Afghanistan and the ending of the insurgency and bringing stability to Afghanistan.

    Therefore, it is very much relevant to wonder if it was the aim to take Revenge and in the process smash the AQ and bring stability to Afghanistan, then what prompted in the wavering of the Aim and moving the bulk from the US to Iraq?

  19. #39
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Revenge is a reason to go to war. It's not the only reason. Different wars, different reasons.

  20. #40
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Dayuhan:

    If the Indians, or maybe when the Indians, take over in Afghanistan, they are likely to have a very great advantage over us. They will recognize from the beginning who their primary enemy is, the Pak Army/ISI. They won't feed the cat that is clawing at their leg.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    The evidence would lie in the experience of everyone who has ever tried to occupy and pacify Afghanistan. Sure, maybe they were all just doing it wrong, and if you do it right it will be a cakewalk... but are you prepared to go in with that assumption?
    I never understand this contention. Lots of people have beaten up an occupied Afghanistan. The famously truculent Nuristanis were forcebly (sic) converted to Islam. The Brits never really wanted the place as more than a buffer that they could manipulate and they mostly achieved that. The Russkis got kicked out by American and Saudi money. The Afghans never could have done it on their own. Where does this idea that the Afghans are ten feet tall come from.
    Last edited by carl; 05-24-2011 at 05:29 PM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •