The Indian role in Afghanistan (new title)

[Ray]

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.