The Indian role in Afghanistan (new title)

[Dayuhan]

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...