Indian Armed Forces' strategy in Afghanistan after US leaves?

[aerokan]

[/B]

With that insignificant number, nobody cares.



That depends who is the other side. If China and Russia require these countries to block the channel for indian supplies, do you think they will still lend their support to India?

How about asking the same question with a small change..If India and Russia requires Afghanistan to block the channel for Chinese supplies, do u think they will lend support to China?

Just to let you know the ground reality, In Afghanistan, Indian diaspora and India as a country enjoy the most popular standing compared to any other country in the world (including US) while your best friend in bed - Pakistan gets the worst ratings. And don't expect all the countries to be in China's favor.

 

[t_co]

How about asking the same question with a small change..If India and Russia requires Afghanistan to block the channel for Chinese supplies, do u think they will lend support to China?

Just to let you know the ground reality, In Afghanistan, Indian diaspora and India as a country enjoy the most popular standing compared to any other country in the world (including US) while your best friend in bed - Pakistan gets the worst ratings. And don't expect all the countries to be in China's favor.

China doesn't need a partner to ship supplies to Afghanistan, as it shares a border with Afghanistan.

Also, Afghanis have a generally positive view of China, as it pretty much is the only large neighbor they have that has not tried to invade or puppet them.

 

[Ray]

China doesn't need a partner to ship supplies to Afghanistan, as it shares a border with Afghanistan.

Also, Afghanis have a generally positive view of China, as it pretty much is the only large neighbor they have that has not tried to invade or puppet them.

Very treacherous terrain and interdictable.

Are they really very positive about the Chinese?

 

[rock127]

[/B]

With that insignificant number, nobody cares.

That depends who is the other side. If China and Russia require these countries to block the channel for indian supplies, do you think they will still lend their support to India?

We dont want anyone to care, we are not there to occupy AF.

 

[t_co]

Very treacherous terrain and interdictable.

Are they really very positive about the Chinese?

Interdictable... by whom? Who would start bombing Chinese supply convoys leading into Afghanistan, of all places? And from where would those bombers fly?

As for Afghan attitudes towards China, 58% hold positive attitudes, and 13% negative attitudes, roughly equal with how they view India (59% positive and 11% negative).

BBC Poll: Attitudes towards Countries

 

[Ray]

Interdictable... by whom? Who would start bombing Chinese supply convoys leading into Afghanistan, of all places? And from where would those bombers fly?

As for Afghan attitudes towards China, 58% hold positive attitudes, and 13% negative attitudes, roughly equal with how they view India (59% positive and 11% negative).

BBC Poll: Attitudes towards Countries

Interdiction is not by bombing alone.

IED, bridge demolition and so on.

The BBC poll is interesting.

India loves China too!

 

[t_co]

Interdiction is not by bombing alone.

IED, bridge demolition and so on.

The BBC poll is interesting.

India loves China too!

And China likes India

 

[hello_10]

I believe India would only stick with the fact that it wants a stable government in Afghanistan, which would be at least as liberal as Pakistan's government, and thats it . India has done heavy investment in Afghan and it may well serve as the purpose to trade with Central Asia also, as presence of China will also mean the same, get benefits through a stable/progressive Afghanistan :thumb:

Indian role would be limited by influence of Russia and China, I think, to have a type of friendly government which wants progress and also help India in its intention to have a close/friendly relation with this country. we do want a stable/friendly and liberal government in Afghan, without a label of anti-Taliban force :thumb:

=> US Lost Every War Since WW2

Without Any 'Proud' Performance Even in WW2 Too

Afghanistan has been the graveyard of empires.

thats the mistake people do while discussing about wars and whether you may continue hold the position for longer.......

what about Vietnam, a truly Asian country with Buddhist background? US had the similar experience there also, isn't it?

what about the UN's wars in African countries, these African militias are posing much more problem for the US's/UN's peace mission than the consequences they faced in Afghanistan???????

with the fact that, they could win over Saddam but they couldn't maintain hold in Iraq too, over a trillion dollar loss with 1000s of deaths of US's soldiers and Mr Bush was finally kicked with a 'shoe' ??????

from here, we do know that the oppositions of US like China, Russia including India, South America etc only got powerful since WW2. and even in WW2, Japan faced nuclear attack on the non-military cities, the reason why they surrendered to US????

I mean, its not just the Afghan but US lost almost every war since WW2. and their victory in WW2 too, isn't of very proud for the US/West, including victory over Nazi-German who were in fact defeated by the Russians :thumb:

 

[hello_10]

Why US and Western Allies Won in Libya? at least

Further to the above talk, I was told by one member that at least in Libya, US and allies won after so many humiliation in most of the wars since WW2. and I answered as below:

In Libya, the opposition party won over the ruling person, who belongs to the Libya itself. it was more like how Bangladeshis, Mukti Bahini, won over Pakistan by help of India Army and formed 'majority' 'local' government this way. in Libya, people of locals fought for that war, over 50,000 rebels died to get the hold on Libya and they formed a 'majority' government this way. the Role of foreign military was limited to air strike only and then get Gaddafi killed when the rebels take over the state . in Libya, people of the same state won their war, who fought on the 'ground'. :thumb:

but its almost 'impossible' to take the people out of their home they are living in, win over a very different part of the world, as in case of Afghan, Iraq, Vietnam, African countries, including how the opposition of US like China, India, South America etc have got enough strength till ow too.

I mean to say, a Christian background, White US military lost heavy money with over 50,000 troops to Buddhist background Chinese Race Vietnamese in their 10 years efforts but all gone. similarly again, the Christian background, White Race US/NATO, lost over one trillion dollar in Iraq, with over 50,000 NATO troops too but lost finally after 6-7 years. and the same we see in Afghan and also in the troubling African wars with the local militants..........

its very simple that you can't enter in other's home and "Rule" over them. even if you had come to Iraq for few years, its only mean for losing over a trillion $ and 50,000+ troops to hold the position for few years only, the same thing happened in Vietnam too . and similar experience they got in Afghan, continuing in Africa etc, with enough resistance from China, Russia, India, South America, ASEAN nations etc who have got heavy strength now....

and here we have example of WW2 again, which fits with the above theory. Japan surrendered to US after nuclear attack on the non-Military cities, for good of their own people, to defend themselves/ their own families. and Russians won over Nazi-Germany after losing over a million to defend the main Russian city, and then they chased them to Germany. but they first won their own land against the Germany and then they proceeded to Germany......:ranger:

 

[Sam2012]

Russia will never support Taliban because they don't support terror groups as per their foreign policy, India will also not support taliban regime

Not sure about china because they have to respect Pakistan national interest & concerns over growing Indian influence in Kabul

We wish this Af-Pak war does not spill to wagah border , if it happens then both India & pakistan will be on a brink again no one can stop final confrontation

 

[W.G.Ewald]

After US "leaves" Afghanistan, thousands of US troops will remain.

 

[t_co]

After US "leaves" Afghanistan, thousands of US troops will remain.

Good... the US will foot the security bill for Chinese mines, pipelines, and railroads.

 

[Decklander]

Good... the US will foot the security bill for Chinese mines, pipelines, and railroads.

Don't open the bubbly so soon buddy. We will make afgan hell for PA and Chinese as we have trained ANA officers and also told them as to how Durand line is a shame on Afgans and how they must reclaim their territory from Pakistan. Even if 10% of ANA officers buy our argument, Pak will be dismembered. And you chinese, wud you want a war with India for Pakistan????????????

 

[anoop_mig25]

Well i would suggest when US leave pack the bag and leave

And second is why not try to negotiate(buy) with taliban and use taliban against their eastern neighbours

After all taliban are also men and there can be offer which they can`t really resist

 

[afako]

Re: What should be the strategy of indian armed forces in afganistan a

Unfortunately, that is not the interest of the United States, nor China, nor Russia. All three nations would rather the Taliban find a large, convenient, nearby target that is not American, Chinese, or Russian.

Taliban and Osama Bin Laden are US creations only which went out of hand.

 

[afako]

Good... the US will foot the security bill for Chinese mines, pipelines, and railroads.

US army in Afghanistan (Plan is Scripted till 2024 atleast) is there primarily for China's Containment.

 

[afako]

Well i would suggest when US leave pack the bag and leave

And second is why not try to negotiate(buy) with taliban and use taliban against their eastern neighbours

After all taliban are also men and there can be offer which they can`t really resist

Taliban wants to overtake Islamic Republic of Pakistan by creating a True Islamic State.

 

[t_co]

US army in Afghanistan (Plan is Scripted till 2024 atleast) is there primarily for China's Containment.

Except force projection into Western China from Afghanistan is nightmarishly difficult for the United States, since all the supplies for American forces in Afghanistan go through Pakistan, China's ally. If China ever felt those US troops in Afghanistan to be inconvenient, they could just lean on Pakistani truckers to go on strike again.

Even the most highly trained forces on Earth are useless if deprived of food, fuel, and ammunition.

 

[amoy]

US army in Afghanistan (Plan is Scripted till 2024 atleast) is there primarily for China's Containment.

Nah, Chinese r not that paranoid as if everything were for containing China.

As writtn earlier, peripheral countries India n China included hv bn freeloading on the security provided by US/NATO. Departure or even reduced presence of US in Afg. will lead to a calamity. Hence SCO + Pakistan shall pitch in and broker an all-inclusive peace deal w/ major faction incl. GOOD Talib. like US is doing now.

As for Indias involvemt in Afg. that's really a zero sum game - any inch India advances will be at the xpense of SCO aka. Ruski + Chini.
- Security: SCO is sufficient to provide Afg. with trainings + eqpmt India gives to ANA
- Resources: shall be an exclusive feast for SCO + PAK + Iran

Sooner or later Iran will realize the corridor for India to Afg. as an add'l competitor isnt in its own interest

 

[Bhadra]

'New' Hagel Speech, 2011: India Has Sponsored Terror Attacks Against Pakistan - See more at: 'New' Hagel Speech, 2011: India Has Sponsored Terror Attacks Against Pakistan