Obama announces total Iraq troop withdrawal

[Illusive]

Still one thing is that India in it's current boundary as one country might not have been. We would have been smaller states. May be democratic in some places or may be still under various Maharajas.

I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

On topic, good for US.

 

[Adux]

I'm not sure why so many found my post offensive. Indian infrastructure and institutions under British rule rivaled that of wealthy European nations. Today, the latest Global Competitive Index ranks India 89 behind countries like Egypt, Sri Lanka and Swaziland. Like I said before your own Prime Minister conceded the British provided 'good governance' but India preferred self governance. Why is it so hard to believe Iraqis feel the same as India did in 1947?

You basically told we were off better with our violent murderous rulers. We can do without railways and some machines. We would have got them eventually, we had the money!

 

[Dovah]

Any Indian who gives even a shred of credit to the British for the British Raj suffers from Stockholm's Syndrome.
No more off topic from me.

 

[Adux]

Debatable but this topic will take this thread OT. I think we might have a thread on this issue.
Still one thing is that India in it's current boundary as one country might not have been. We would have been smaller states. May be democratic in some places or may be still under various Maharajas.

The greatest "contribution" of the British was to unite it as a single country because of the fight for freedom.

Its all hypothetical Yusuf bhai, for all you know it would be Sikh Kingdom and Martha Empire, Most probably two large countries, on having 3/4 of current Indian under Maratha's, the other Pakistan, Afghanistan and North India under the Sikh Empire. For all you know, we might have united in some other way. I would give credit to British, they made it easier for the Indian civilization to make this country in a single unit, which we may or may not be able to do it ourself. They took nearly 20 trillion dollar worth in today's dollar's for that! That is quite large a fee, dont you think?

 

[Yusuf]

adux that's why I said it's debatable. Maybe one or two big kingdoms or may be many smaller ones. We don't know. But the British colonialism sure did galvanize the sub continent into one to fight for freedom which resulted in just one nation, well two.

 

[Rage]

Let's quit the politics of this for a bit and talk about the strategic intention and geo-politics behind this 'out'. Because I think that is by far, the most important.

The withdrawal of troops is meant to propel a surge elsewhere- the Af-Pak region, and I think, that has been pretty certain from:- 1) the rhetoric flying around and 2) recent events.

The coming months will witness a surge in Afghan operations. Until a security event will be used to justify operations in Pakistan. I have always harboured the suspicion that US stationings were never meant to be static, rather they were meant to be a flow, where paradigmatic shifts in security concerns, policies and methods prompted by a changing power balance and catalysed by spin doctors in the US and their ever willing allies in the media are given discharge by successive global 'combat' and then 'stability' operations.

As for Iraq, The US will not leave a power vacuum behind, I certainly don't think so, and will supplement the withdrawal by increasing use of Iraqi surrogates, private security contractors and own intelligence, this is merely a new phase of Iraqi occupation dressed up as the beginning of the end. This is also pretty obvious, because although tactics and nomenclature have changed, mission objectives remain the same. Chasing militants around the desert, with Iraqi help, has now just been started to be called 'stability operations', instead of 'combat operations'. This will, essentially, amount to the 'privatising' of Iraqi security under the State Dept. And Significantly, it will be under the State Department, not the Iraqi Parliament. Go figure.

I believe unrivalled energy assets, coupled with conventional overhang are the two new pinions of US geo-strategic policy. Rather, they are old pinions, given new force by a changing age and a changing security environment.

Watch out for Pakistan. Already, the new, more aggressive US salvo is coming evident with military drones elminating more than a half dozen Haqqani men in Miran Shah last week. And the 12-hour seige of the US Embassy in Kabul. Anybody who knows of the US embassy in Kabul, will tell you that it is just not possible to mount a lengthy-seige of the area without US compliance. Unless security was purposely weakened in anticipation of a frontal attack.

This is both an opportunity and a challenge to India. The key is to have withdrawable stakes and withdrawable agents, coupled with shared denigr-able responsibility. Joint operations with the US, for example, may be used to eliminate insurgent camps in Pakistn, where otherwise single Indian action may not be viable or worthwhile.

 

[Adux]

Has anyone written, in a scholarly manner, on the subject (I guess you could call this alternate history) of what India would be today had the British never shown up?

Can we ask the same about the American mainland? Or how Europe would be first tier economic countries today without the money looted from the colonies? India was not some sub-saharan africa when British came here, we had universities far before the western kingdoms could even think about formalized education.

 

[Adux]

adux that's why I said it's debatable. Maybe one or two big kingdoms or may be many smaller ones. We don't know. But the British colonialism sure did galvanize the sub continent into one to fight for freedom which resulted in just one nation, well two.

Or maybe we could have united it into one. Who knows maybe the Sikhs and Maratha's would have merged, or a new country be formed. All the the 5. India, Burma, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan makes the true Indian landmass.

 

[Adux]

Let's quit the politics of this for a bit and talk about the strategic intention and geo-politics behind this 'out'. Because I think that is by far, the most important.

The withdrawal of troops is meant to propel a surge elsewhere- the Af-Pak region, and I think, that has been pretty certain from:- 1) the rhetoric flying around and 2) recent events.

The coming months will witness a surge in Afghan operations. Until a security event will be used to justify operations in Pakisthan. I have always harboured the suspicion that US stationings were never meant to be static, rather they were meant to be a flow, where paradigmatic shifts in security concerns, policies and methods prompted by a changing power balance and catalysed by spin doctors in the US and their ever willing allies in the media are given discharge by successive global 'combat' and then 'stability' operations.

As for Iraq, The US will not leave a power vacuum behind, I certainly don't think so, and will supplement the withdrawal by increasing use of Iraqi surrogates, private security contractors and own intelligence, this is merely a new phase of Iraqi occupation dressed up as the beginning of the end. This is also pretty obvious, because although tactics and nomenclature have changed, mission objectives remain the same. Chasing militants around the desert, with Iraqi help, has now just been started to be called 'stability operations', instead of 'combat operations'. This will, essentially, amount to the privatising of Iraqi security under the State Dept. And Significantly, it will be under thetate Department, not the Iraqi Parliament. Go figure.

I believe unrivalled energy assets, coupled with conventional overhang are the two new pinions of US geo-strategic policy. Rather, they are old pinions, given new force by a changing age and a changing security environment.

Watch out for Pakistan. Already, the new more aggressive US salvo is coming evident, with military drones elminating more than a half dozen Haqqani men in Miran Shah last week. And the 12-hour seige of the US Embassy in Kabul. Anybody who knows of the US embassy in Kabul, will tell you that it is just not possible to mount a lengthy-seige of the area without US compliance. Unless security was purposely weakened in anticipation of a frontal attack, to that effect.

This is both an opportunity and a challenge to India. The key is to have withdrawable stakes and withdrawable agents, coupled with shared denigr-able responsibility. Joint operations with the US for example may be used to eliminate insurgent camps in Kashmir, where otherwise single Indian action may not be viable or worthwhile.

Withdrawal from Iraq means, screws on Pakistan. Will it go beyond Drone strikes and hot pursuit? If it does, India will be facing eminent Nuclear attack. India will not attack with the Nuclear over hang , even along side the US. India wont even want US to cross red lines even when India is not involved, If Pakistan is going down, we are going down with it. That is the Pakistani plan, always has been.

 

[Rage]

Withdrawal from Iraq means, screws on Pakistan. Will it go beyond Drone strikes and hot pursuit? If it does, India will be facing eminent Nuclear attack. India will not attack with the Nuclear over hang , even along side the US. India wont even want US to cross red lines even when India is not involved, If Pakistan is going down, we are going down with it. That is the Pakistani plan, always has been.

I am of the view that it's more of a front than anything else. If Pakistan nuclear attacks India, it will be the end of Pakistan diplomatically, politically, financially and militarily. It will be isolated into oblivion and anything India does in reprisal will be justified. At least, if the United States attacks Pakistan under the pretext that they cannot control insurgents, they will lose a part of their territory to lawlessnes or occupation. And many months later once a series of expectations and appositeness/apropriateness has been created, as with the drone attacks, if India and the United States mounted a joint attack, on an insurgent camp, once the political hum-drum had died down, merely a degree of self-respect, with the chance of escalation. That escalation would probably further US objectives in the region, especially if as has been occuring, NATO is brought into the process by giving them a legitmate grievance against the nation. I don't expect China to be able to mount anything other than a proxy war, which could only be protracted, given the geography and ethnicity of the region. And I think the United States would trade a few thousand dead soldiers, many of whom would probably be of Afghani and other third-world country origins, as the United States has increasingly been doing in both Afghanistan and Iraq, for long term stability and strategic goals in the region. That presents the opportunity for India. The challenges include what India will have to give up for this on-the-face-value favourable situation, and what would happen after. Maybe i'm looking too far. But the history of the Anglo-Saxon world, shows that they usually get what they want.

 

[Adux]

Rage,

I am expecting any open conflict between US- Pakistan, to be border skirmishes, as soon as the Central route is establish, or we may in a more ironical way, Pakistan being openly attacked by the US, but still some of the goods will come through Karachi. After all this is Pakistan we are talking about, they will sell their mothers for dollars. If we can get re-building equipment through Iran, using India as outsourcing partner of the world and getting the military supplies through CAR for the USA

Now the most important scenario and the least likely scenario, is an open US-Pakistan War. That will be a war to completely annihilate Pakistan as military-political entity. How will Pakistan behave to such a scenario?

 

[SHASH2K2]

India as usually will sit outside the boundry as mute spectator. We will not do anything in USA pakistan conflict. If we want we can help USA in many ways and can mediate with Iranians for them but we never do what we should do

 

[Adux]

India as usually will sit outside the boundry as mute spectator. We will not do anything in USA pakistan conflict. If we want we can help USA in many ways and can mediate with Iranians for them but we never do what we should do

Question is, will Pakistani's let us be mute spectators, when they are loosing?

 

[SHASH2K2]

Question is, will Pakistani's let us be mute spectators, when they are loosing?

I dont see any major attack coming on Pakistan from USA. USA will chase terrorists inside TSP territory and pakistan will keep on complaining. Unless there is a major attack on USA soil thats directly licked to pakistan there wont be any attack . IF USA was about to attack Pakistan Pakistan would not have joined UNSC as temporary member. These statement from both ends are just to fool local audience.

 

[nitesh]

IA/IAF strike elements are near by, US is amassing troops at border. What are the choices with fat generals of terrorists in uniform? Let tali bunnies die? If they allow this to happen enmasse, who will control there juniors? A possible mutiny on cards. Coming weeks are going to be interesting

 

[SHASH2K2]

IA/IAF strike elements are near by, US is amassing troops at border. What are the choices with fat generals of terrorists in uniform? Let tali bunnies die? If they allow this to happen enmasse, who will control there juniors? A possible mutiny on cards. Coming weeks are going to be interesting

Nitesh sir any credible source for massive troop movements .

 

[Yusuf]

Withdrawal from Iraq means, screws on Pakistan. Will it go beyond Drone strikes and hot pursuit? If it does, India will be facing eminent Nuclear attack. India will not attack with the Nuclear over hang , even along side the US. India wont even want US to cross red lines even when India is not involved, If Pakistan is going down, we are going down with it. That is the Pakistani plan, always has been.

If the US actually escalates to that kind of level, I am sure paki nukes will be the first target. The US on the face of it is kit going after Pak but the terrorists in it. Pakistan will have to decide if they would still want to be jn bed with the terrorist or save their nation from being sent to stone age, well split into 4. I think the Pakis will do what they did in 2001, a retreat by dumping the terrorists and living to fight another day.

I think with Obama eager to wind down ops in Astan, I would no be surprised if Pak compromises the Haqanis to give the US a sense of victory while actually nothing changes on the ground as someone else will become leader. What Pakis need is terrorists and they can make leaders out of anyone.

 

[nitesh]

Nitesh sir any credible source for massive troop movements .

Sir ji, exercise Sudarshan.............

 

[SHASH2K2]

Sir ji, exercise Sudarshan.............

If I am correct then these exercises are planned well in advance and no body knows if troops are already in process of returning to barracks or are still there.

 

[The Messiah]

I am expecting any open conflict between US- Pakistan

In that case you can come up north and see the fireworks across the border.

Don't forget to bring beef and chilled beer. 8)