And those adversaries, the 'bad guys', are the same for India and the US. The US if fighting the fight, and the enemies, which India never could.Let us not get emotional about it, USA has got a name for adversary's soldiers: Bad Guys. And yes I have no problem with their soldiers dieing in Afghanistan, more can die and I won't blink, they made their choices and they are paying for it.
India has more than a billion dollars invested in Afghanistan. Once the US goes, good luck guarding that investment!Neither do have I any problem with their money being spent in the battle-torn nation. India must use every opportunity for her advantage, even if it comes at USA's expense.
Does India not require the US, and its allies, to needle China?amitkriit's language may be a bit harsh. But there should be no hesitation in using US to further our aims. In fact, US will use India to needle up china and for a much pettier aim - of selling it's arms to us.
Whom to buy arms from is India's sole choice. It has got the entire world market to turn to, and it will go to the one which suite's its needs the best.
Both these points are those of mutual benefit. You cannot get something without giving something in return. No free lunch! As they say.
Than 'amitkriit' is a very bad reflection of that tradition.At least our aim is more fundamental - survival. Of course, Indian tradition is the greatest respect for soldiers, even enemy ones, as was seen in Kargil.
Once the Pakistanis understand, that Afghanistan does not equal Pashtuns alone, the first step to peace would be achieved.India's tactics in Af-Pak is 3 fold :
1. Create schism between US-Pak
2. Create schism between Pak-Pushtoons
3. Create schism between Iran-Pak
Pak can foil only one of tactic 1. or 2. since they are mutually irreconcilable. India needs to make sure that any events that show that schism are magnified and appear to be ill-intent of Pak army towards one or the other party (US or Pushtoons).
Meanwhile, our goal is to deny Pakistan the use of Afghan territory as its militant laboratory. Those 'schisms' exist due to Pakistan's insistence in using Afghanistan for its own purposes. There is nothing there for India to 'create'; India needs to align itself with Afghanistan's neighbours to integrate Afghanistan with the rest of the region, not just Pakistan.
To this affect, the Indian sponsored Afghan-Iran Chabahar port, is a good example. Anything which gives the other neighbours of Afghanistan a bigger footprint in the country is a positive for India.
It is not just an India specific problem. You continue to ignore that there are other players in the region which will also have a say. Iran, CARs, and Russia.There are some risk factors with the tactic. US may chicken out and find some way of satisfying it's pride as well as not defeating AQ/Taliban. Suppose US gets fed up of the war and wants to offer a Pushtoonistan to Pak-army which means ethnic division of Af into north and south. The south being added to NWFP (Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa) province of Pak. And in return Taliban gives up it's support for AQ permanently and declares US a "Friend of Islam".
That kind of chicken-out will have the worse repercussions for India. Pak will get it's back free and turn all it's attention to creating trouble for India by directing the jihadist fury of masses of motivated former taleban at J&K.
I see faint signs of the chicken-out from US political leadership but the US army is strongly opposed to it. And I think India should do it's best to shore up any falling spirits there - it's in our own interest.
But I fully support that stationing India troops in Afghanistan is not the right tactic. Our full energies are needed in defence of motherland. But that does not preclude us training and aiding ANA.
Last edited: