The Indian role in Afghanistan (new title)

[ganulv]

The Afghans never could have done it on their own. Where does this idea that the Afghans are ten feet tall come from.

I think you answer your own question. Afghanistan sits astride historic trade routes and borders contemporary nations who are mistrustful of one another so the chances of finding an outside investor, as it were, have been and continue to be pretty good.

[Dayuhan]

I think you answer your own question. Afghanistan sits astride historic trade routes and borders contemporary nations who are mistrustful of one another so the chances of finding an outside investor, as it were, have been and continue to be pretty good.

I tend to doubt it. Worth noting that between the Soviet withdrawal and 9/11 nobody wanted anything to do with Afghanistan. There may have been trade routes of significance there once upon a time, but there aren't now. Economically, the significance of Afghanistan is close to nil. I doubt that intervention in Afghanistan if the US withdraws would rank very well on anyone's cost-benefit analysis.

It's not about the Afghans being ten feet tall, more about the place being a royal pain in the posterior that requires more effort and cost to pacify than any prospective gain from pacification justifies. The brave and the bold may be willing to risk great pain to seek great gain, but Afghanistan doesn't rank very well on anyone's scale of prospective gain. Why would anyone bother?

[carl]

I guess you can appear to be 10 feet tall if you are standing on somebody else's shoulders.

Nobody cared about about Afghanistan from the time the Russkis left until 2001 and that not caring resulted in some bad things happening. Various countries may not care again but I doubt it. The world has changed a lot in 10 years and a lot of countries seem to care now. If we lose interest I suspect they will keep on caring.

[Dayuhan]

The world has changed a lot in 10 years and a lot of countries seem to care now. If we lose interest I suspect they will keep on caring.

I can't see that it's about caring or not caring. It's more about costs and benefits. Who has enough at stake to want to take on the costs and risks of an attempt to pacify Afghanistan?

[ganulv]

Worth noting that between the Soviet withdrawal and 9/11 nobody wanted anything to do with Afghanistan.

Except al-Qaeda, of course.

Who has enough at stake to want to take on the costs and risks of an attempt to pacify Afghanistan?

Pakistan does. I won’t defend the Pakistani government but their nation faces a real security threat from India.

I don’t know why any nation needs to pacify Afghanistan rather than just pay out enough to keep the right people happy (it’s not like the United States hasn’t done that before). When the British cut off the money Elphinstone’s army met its end and when the Americans cut off the money al-Qaeda found a safe haven. I’m guessing both would like to take that one back.

[JMA]

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.

Good observation. As the operation is being conducted currently by the time the ISAF forces start to scale down in a year or so they will have risen to twelve feet tall. The incompetence of your enemy (strategy and/or troops) increases your stature.

[Ken White]

The incompetence of your enemy (strategy and/or troops) increases your stature.

That's true.

[davidbfpo]

The main focus is on India, but there's always a Pakistani angle too:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...n-afghanistan/

Three items I noted:

...it is not clear that India would wholeheartedly support all attempts at political reconciliation. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signalled a significant shift in US policy in February when she said that the 'red lines' for talks with the Taliban – the renunciation of violence, abandonment of an alliance with al-Qaeda and abidance by the Afghan Constitution – were 'necessary outcomes' rather than preconditions. India may not support this move towards negotiations with the Taliban without preconditions.

Yet despite being the largest regional donor in Afghanistan,and the fifth largest internationally, India finds it increasingly difficult to operate in Afghanistan.... Since 2001, 20 Indian nationals have been killed....Crucially, no new major construction project has started in the past two to three years.

The possibility of a Pakistan-brokered endgame between hardline elements of the Taliban and the Afghan government, along with the potential destabilisation of existing Afghan governance structures, remains of concern to India. India enjoys broad public support in Afghanistan, because its reconstruction efforts have been spread throughout the country and benefited all ethnic and tribal groups.

[Ray]

India commits to help Afghan security forces


Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony "conveyed the government of India's willingness to work with the Afghan government in building the capabilities of Afghan security forces," a statement said.

His Afghan counterpart Abdul Rahim Wardak is on a three-day visit to India accompanied by a seven-member team.

Afghan-Indian ties have raised hackles in Islamabad, where the Pakistani government and military establishment has long considered Afghanistan its own strategic asset to offset the perceived threat from India in the east.

India last month pledged $500 million in fresh aid to Afghanistan, raising New Delhi's contribution to $2 billion, to be spent mainly on development projects.

India's military assistance has so far been limited to training Afghanistan's security personnel and investing in small infrastructure projects.

Any greater involvement of Indian forces in Afghanistan would likely face objections from Pakistan, India's regional adversary.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...64a7553e16.af1

[davidbfpo]

Not surprisingly some Indian commentators oppose the much-talked about "talks" with the Afghan Taliban:http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analy...-with-brigands

A reported negotiator actually being in Pakistani custody and Germany / Qatar 'good offices' being used.

[Bob's World]

http://www.realclearworld.com/articl...tan_99541.html

This is a nicely balanced discussion of the implications of a growing Indian influence in Afghanistan. I think the author does a fair job of describing the perspectives, interests and motivations of the various parties, as well as potential consequences.

Personally I see no good that can come from a US enabled growth of Indian Influence in Kabul. The Indian position that "they have no exit strategy" should be chillingly telling as to how they see the opportunities of the current situation.

Bob

[carl]

The Indians will do as they think they must in Afghanistan. We can influence them hardly or not at all.

[Dayuhan]

Personally I see no good that can come from a US enabled growth of Indian Influence in Kabul. The Indian position that "they have no exit strategy" should be chillingly telling as to how they see the opportunities of the current situation.

Like Carl, I don't see how the US is "enabling" Indian influence. The Indians will do what they want, and look after their perceived interests, without any help or enabling from us.

Their lack of an exit strategy does seem a bit of trouble... for them. If their desire to increase their influence gives the US an exit strategy, that may not altogether be a bad thing... for us. I personally think the Pakistanis would love to see the Indians mired down and draining themselves in Afghanistan, and that the Indians would be foolish to put themselves in that position, especially given the logistic complications... but what I think doesn't matter at all.

[Bob's World]

What Indians do of their own accord is of no concern of mine.

What a US desperate for allies to support us in a misconceived mission does to overcome past obstacles to a major Indian presence in Afghanistan, creating long term major problems in an effort to help cure our short-term minor problems is.

We have already disrupted the natural balance in the region in ways we will not fully appreciate for generations, if ever. To add sins to address sins is no solution.

[carl]

Oh I don't know. Lining up with a functioning though flawed democracy that will soon be the most populous country in the world and has a growing, dynamic economy and doesn't kill our people; rather than a collapsing police state with a lousy economy that takes our money and uses it to kill us, may be strategically advantageous to us in the long run.

Whatever obstacles there are to a major Indian presence in Afghanistan, the Indians will overcome on their own. They don't need us.

[Dayuhan]

Lining up with a functioning though flawed democracy that will soon be the most populous country in the world and has a growing, dynamic economy and doesn't kill our people; rather than a collapsing police state with a lousy economy that takes our money and uses it to kill us, may be strategically advantageous to us in the long run.

I don't see that we need to line up with anybody in that particular mess. We can resolve our problems with Pakistan by scaling back or removing our presence in their neighborhood: not like there's any great gain to be had for us there in the first place. If we don't like the way they spend the money we send, we should stop sending it.

Whatever obstacles there are to a major Indian presence in Afghanistan, the Indians will overcome on their own. They don't need us.

True. The Indians will do what they will do, and reap the consequences on their own. No need for us to be taking sides or trying to manipulate that situation. It will be easier (and more likely) for us to make it worse than better.

[carl]

Dayuhan:

I tend to agree with you in the short term. If we were to "line up" it would be because the cabal of genius that is the Pak Army/ISI has forced us into an either/or situation.

In the long run I don't see how we can't get closer and closer to India. We need each other and are similar in some important ways.

[Dayuhan]

I tend to agree with you in the short term. If we were to "line up" it would be because the cabal of genius that is the Pak Army/ISI has forced us into an either/or situation.

The only thing that's forced us into anything is the cabal of not quite genius in DC that decided we have to transform Afghanistan. Not that the Pak army/ISI haven't exploited that particular piece of stupidity, but people will do that, if we insist on making bad decisions.

In the long run I don't see how we can't get closer and closer to India. We need each other and are similar in some important ways.

Closer to India is fine. Taking sides in their regional conflicts is less fine. I don't see much percentage in that for us.

[Ray]

Mod's Note

Due to the amount of details on India's role contained here, this was copied here from another thread 'Winning in Afghanistan'.

Road building isn't state building. If you try to install, cultivate, or protect a government in another country, especially one where control of patronage is a major source of individual prosperity and power, you are going to upset people and generate opposition, no matter what you do.

I mentioned the Road building project since anyone conversant with Counter Insurgency operations would know that while it is comparatively easy to defend point targets, it is not easy to defend a widely dispersed area target like constructing a highway where the engineering assets and manpower is widely spread without fortifications. Further the construction had to be done against a timed target and so were constructed in various segments and then linked up.

That the Indian construction team did not have the protection of any Army or air assets since it was not permitted by the US, lest it upset Pakistan and yet could construct with minimal initial casualties because of Pakistani based terrorists, I think would elicit praise being remarkable.

That the attacks by the terrorist were not mounted thereafter does indicate the goodwill and rapport that the Indian team had built up with the locals.

In passing the road is not the only thing done by the Indians. And it must be remembered that India had no stake in the invasion of Afghanistan wherein they would be burdened with some obligations to set right things.

Since it appears that you are not aware India's contribution, if one goes by your posts, I take this opportunity to inform you that India has played a significant role in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan.

The annual assistance is over US$ 100 million and, in addition, has pledged recently an additional assistance of US$ 100 million, thus, making the total amount of our assistance over US $ 750 million. Of this, US$ 400 million have already been disbursed so far.

India has undertaken projects virtually in all parts of Afghanistan, in a wide range of sectors including hydro-electricity, power transmission lines, road construction, agriculture and industry, telecommunications, information and broadcasting, capacity development, humanitarian assistance, education and health, which have been identified by the Afghan government as priority areas for development.

All the projects are undertaken in partnership with the Government of Afghanistan (GoA), and in alignment with the Afghanistan National Development Strategy and with focus on local ownership of assets.

Major projects include: Construction of Transmission Line from Pul-e-Khumri to Kabul and a sub-station at Kabul under the North-East Power System project which will bring power from neighbouring countries to Kabul; humanitarian food assistance of 1 million tons of wheat in the form of high protein biscuits under School Feeding Programme in Afghanistan supplied through World Food Programme; construction of 218 km road from Zaranj to Delaram that will facilitate movement of goods and personnel from Afghanistan to Iranian border; reconstruction and completion of Salma Dam Power Project (42 MW) in Herat province; construction of Afghanistan’s Parliament Building; reconstruction of Indira Gandhi Institute for Child Health in Kabul in various phases including reconstruction of surgical ward/ polyclinic/ diagnostic centre; reconstruction of Habibia School; digging of 26 tube wells in north west Afghanistan; gifting of vehicles (400 buses, 200 mini-buses, 105 municipality and 285 army vehicles); setting up of 5 toilet-cum-sanitation complexes in Kabul; telephone exchanges in 11 provinces to connect them to Kabul; national TV network by providing an uplink from Kabul and downlinks in all 34 provincial capitals; rehabilitation of Amir Ghazi and Quargah Reservoir dams, solar electrification of 100 villages, etc

Skills development and capacity building has been identified as another key area of priority, expected to become the vanguard in tackling the mammoth challenge of institutional building in Afghanistan. In furtherance of this, the Government of India (GoI) has offered 500 Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) long-term university scholarships and 500 short-term Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) training programmes for Afghan nationals annually from 2006-07 onwards. 30 Indian civil servants are also being deputed under the GoI/GoA/UNDP Tripartite MoU for Capacity for Afghan Public Administration programme envisaged to build capacity in various Afghan Ministries. Other major skills development projects include CII project for training 3,000 Afghans in the trades of carpentry, plumbing, welding, masonry and tailoring, as well as SEWA project for technical assistance to Women’s Vocational Training Centre in Bagh-e-Zanana. Since 2002, around 2215 Afghans have trained/studied in India under the various GoI sponsored training programme. India is training the Afghan police and the army.

India is also implementing numerous community-based, small development projects in the fields of agriculture, rural development, education, health, vocational training, water and sanitation etc. These projects, with short gestation periods, have direct and visible impact on community life, and focus on local ownership and management

On the issue of patronage in Afghanistan, I daresay neither the US nor anyone is there as missionaries who are bringing civilisation to the savages! In other words, it is the first mistake - superimposing western ethics in a hurry, as if it were Instant Coffee being served!

While I am not condoning corruption, but ‘patronage’ as you see it, is a historical convention, even practised in ancient West. It is bringing gifts to the ruler! It was also prevalent with the British in India, who used to get dolis which they accept with élan. If you are conversant with British Indian history, you will recall the rationale for the impeachment of the Governor General Warren Hasting of India. Education in India over about 300 years of colonial rule inculcated British ethics and hence the custom of Mughal nazrana fell by the way and was taken to be bribes............. but then Afghanistan never had the benefit of English education and customs or ethics since they were never conquered.

Neither are they aware of the English phrase Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

[blueblood]

First of all, a large Indian military presence is highly unlikely. India had it's share of unfortunate adventures in Sri Lanka.

India is the country which is supposed to lose the most if taliban returns to power bar the Afghanistan itself. What do you think these thousands of trained jihadis will do after that? A 9 to 5 job is not my guess. It will be 1988 Kashmir redux for India. Energy and minerals security too will vanish into thin air.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Airlines_Flight_814

If (a big if) India enters Afghanistan, then it has some advantages which Americans never had.

1) Common culture between Indians and Afghans.
2) Historically good ties and goodwill.
3) Rich experience in fighting insurgencies and as Brig. Ray mentioned a "low tech approach". In the last 23 years of fighting insurgency in Kashmir, 84mm Carl Gustav is the heaviest weapon used. Thus, minimum logistics required.
4) A different approach of dealing with locals. Not bringing the civilization to the savages. If an Afghan wants to beat his wife, let him do it.
5) Support from Iran, another stakeholder.

For the logistics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-to-Iran.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chah_Bahar#Chabahar_Port

Large Indian contingent is probably a stupid move but I think it's better than to sit on one's hands and then regret.