Indian boots in Afghanistan?

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/?page=2010\11\08\story_8-11-2010_pg7_39

By Ali K Chishti

US President Barack Obama has already begun his 10-day trip to Asia where he would be visiting Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and India. Obama's trip to Japan, South Korea and Indonesia is seen as a "continuing policy" to further strategic cooperation between the US against growing Chinese influence and North Korea. However, it is his trip to India, which is being seen as "agenda-driven" and somewhat a strategic shift by the US.

Obama's trip to India, which the Indian media is playing up as an "extra-ordinary trip", is being seen with very high hopes domestically where various agreements and issues such as civil nuclear cooperation, economics, counter-terrorism, Pakistan and China will be discussed in great detail. The real agenda of Obama's trip to India is "Afghanistan" where there's "an absolute breakdown of relations". While both the US and India wish to avoid re-emergence of terrorism sanctuaries capable of carrying out international terrorism, it is the "US giving all cards to the Pakistanis in Afghanistan, which is a real problem. We have investments, assets and recent history which prove that Afghanistan is abused and used against carrying out attacks inside India", confirmed Zahid Hussain, an Indian defence analyst.

"Afghanistan has become a major source of tension between the US and India for the primary reason that India does not believe that we will stay until the job is done," McCain said in a speech before leaving for a trip to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. While President Obama will be in India signing deals and will give a strong statement supporting India, McCain will be on a "Mission Pakistan" to make sure "no egos are hurt" in Islamabad.

While Obama will be singing praises for New Delhi, Daily Times had been told by many American analysts close to the US Defence Department that finally, the US has made up it's mind up to formally ask India to send troops to Afghanistan due to shortage of manpower in Afghanistan, to satisfy non-Pakhtuns, and to satisfy the concerns of India and other regional powers, including Russia regarding a possible Taliban take-over. It should be noted that Pakistan's all-powerful army chief General Ashfaq Kayani, in Washington DC, publically called for "minimising Indian role" in Afghanistan for an exchange of stability in Afghanistan.

The US, according to Harvey Caroll, a US defence analyst, "is thinking broadly and keeping all its options open and while there had been talks with the Taliban, the US also wants to keep the Northern Alliance and "non-Pakhtuns" happy or give some sense of security for the long term. Pakistan needs to get out of its India-centric attitude and stop the blackmail".

"The almost 9,000 Indian troops deployed on UN peacekeeping missions could easily be re-deployed in Afghanistan," confirmed Bharat Singh, an Indian defence analyst. While it should be noted that India has other interests in Afghanistan too, it primarily wants to end Pakistan's monopoly as a gateway to Afghanistan and had even financed an alternate corridor of strategic importance that connects Afghanistan with the Iranian port of Chahbahar. The 280km road from Delaram on the Kandahar-Herat highway to Zananj is India's own 'Silk Road', which it wants to protect at any cost with the Iranians, who play along.

India, which traditionally has been supporting the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, has many defence officials and even a serving brigadier inside Afghanistan to look after Indian interests. Daily Times has been told that Lt Gen RK Loomba, the Indian Army's Military Intelligence DG, was also in Afghanistan to assess Afghan military's capabilities, and India is keen on taking the new role in Afghanistan.

It should be remembered that the Afghan Defence Ministry, which is mostly headed by old leftists, denied Pakistan's offer to train the Afghan army, while General Caldwell, the head of NATO training mission, during an interview previously published in Daily Times, also denied Pakistan's role in training the Afghan army. Meanwhile, the NATO and ISAF command, which sees Pakistan as an "enemy" because of Pakistan's security doctrine of "strategic depth" and the analogy of "good Taliban and bad Taliban", also wants Indian boots in Afghanistan since 2006 and would still welcome them.

In a conference call with reporters this week, Robert D Blackwill, who served as an ambassador to India during the George W Bush administration, said India is extremely anxious that the US would forge a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan. McCain described the emergence of a strategic partnership with India as "one of the most consequential, bipartisan successes of recent US foreign policy". While it should be remembered that India has taken Russia, France, the UK and now even the Americans on board for their permanent membership in the UN Security Council.

On the Pakistani side, the country has taken a central role in Afghanistan policy by assuring the Americans earlier this year that "we will help you stabilise Afghanistan only when you reduce Indian influence in Afghanistan". The offer to India from the US to actually bring in uniformed Indian soldiers to Afghanistan would be seen as a serious security threat and an anti-thesis to Pakistani security doctrine of strategic depth.

Could this be all bluff? The US actually pressurising Pakistan? "Maybe, but it would certainly take skeletons out of the Pakistanis, plus the possibility is real. We can't get blackmailed anymore," Daily Times was told.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
Cant say if this will be a good option . We will be hot target for all taliban groups. But on the other hand it will send a strong message to Pakistan and they will go nuts. Having somewhere around 20-30 K soilders in Afganistan will definitely release pressure on eastern front and send right message to Pakistan.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
The reaction from Pakistan, as indicated by Pakistan's Daily Times, is natural.

There is no doubt that Pakistan is petrified by India. Her history books are all organised to wipe ot any reference that there was a India before Pakistan came in to being. In fact, by inference, India came into being carved out of what they believe is Pakistan! (Please see Najma Sethi's discourse on Pakistan's Distorted History in the tread with the same name).

Not all of Indian media is giving round the clock coverage. However, Chisti is right on one point and that it is an extraordinary visit, in that the US President is visit spans three days, which I believe is extraordinary. Hence, it is obvious that it would give Pakistan sleepless nights speculating and getting ulcers caused by hyperacidity through agony!

Obama has been very circumspect over Jihad and Pakistan's well documented tryst with terrorism exporting worldwide. Therefore, he can hardly be taken to be anti Pakistan. He has gone to the extent of reminding Indians that Pakistan herself is a victim of terrorism. One could forgive him for forgetting the Bible – As ye sow, so shall ye reap. The terrorism is but a Pakistani and US Frankenstein that has visited them now! In fact, there is a growing cynicism that Obama is downright Pakistan centric and that is what his 'agenda' is! It is true that a stable Pakistan is good for India, but then that is asking for the moon. Can one make a pig's tail anything but curly and never straight?

Agreements have to come. A quid pro quo. After all the Americans are fully aware that there is no free lunches and that is a saying of their own coinage and so they should know best. It is not India's fault that Pakistan has nothing to offer even to Burkina Faso, excepting possibly terrorists and the world does not find it listed as blue chip on their Stock Exchange!

If Obama's visit to Asian countries that skirts China is seen as an anti China move, it is not of India's doing. Pakistan should ask Obama and the US of this since that is more important an issue that moving with the begging bowl at the drop of a hat.

What will be discussed 'behind closed doors' is anybody's guess. If the reality of Asian geopolitics and India's pivotal role is discussed, it will be worth the while of his visit to the peripheral nations on China's border, including those annexed or being threatened to be annexed as a threat in being.

It is not understood as to how McCain on a "Mission Pakistan" is to make sure "no egos are hurt" in Islamabad. I thought he was quite categorical that the US must forge even closure relations with India.
McCain said the United States must endorse India's bid for a permanent seat on an expanded United Nations Security Council.
"If we want India to join us in sharing the responsibilities for international peace and security, then the world's largest democracy needs to have a seat at the high table of international politics," McCain said at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
He also said Americans must not allow their anxieties about globalisation to cause them to "demonise India for crass political gain,"........
India's relationship with China has been fraught with tension. McCain said he agreed with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's concern about China's new assertiveness. "It has not escaped notice both in Delhi and in Washington that some of the largest recipients of Chinese arms are states bordering India; that China continues to build deep-water ports suitable for military purposes in multiple nations encircling India; and that China has settled all its land border disputes except those with India where Chinese incursions continue into Indian territory," McCain said.
"It is not difficult to understand why many Indian strategists and leaders, including Prime Minister Singh, see in these actions a Chinese effort to surround India and weigh down its rise to global power with persistent local problems," he added.
On Afghanistan, McCain said fears about a premature US withdrawal had created tension in the United States' relationship with India and reinforced the Pakistani military's strategy of supporting terrorist groups in the region.
"Afghanistan has become a major source of tension between the US and India for the primary reason that India does not believe that we will stay until the job is done," McCain. He added that it was important for the US to address this concern head-on.
Describing the US relationship with Pakistan as the one in which broader strategic interests are not entirely aligned, McCain said nothing the US has done since September 11, 2001, has changed the basic strategic calculus of the Pakistan army. "When compelled, it is willing to fight terrorist groups that threaten Pakistan, but not related groups that threaten Afghanistan, India and increasingly America as well," he said.
The senator said some in Pakistan army and intelligence service continue to support these terrorist groups as a tool of influence. "A belief that America will withdraw prematurely from Afghanistan has only reinforced the Pakistani military's inclination to hedge its bets," he added. The Obama administration will conduct a review of its policies in Afghanistan in December....

McCain described the emergence of a strategic partnership with India as "one of the most consequential, bipartisan successes of the recent US foreign policy".

Ah Ha!
If India does puts boots on the ground in Afghanistan, then Pakistan's dreams will be shattered since she will have two fronts to defend!! And no freebies from the USA!! China would also be up a gum tree!
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
If we want to be a force to reckon with we must let them know that we will go to any extent to protect our interests. Indian presence in Afghanistan will definitely be a right step in this direction.It will be right step to let Pakistan know that they need to be careful in its policies against India.
 

Iamanidiot

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
5,325
Likes
1,504
Indian boots on ground seems to be in lala land with several problems

1)what is our command structure?Under NATO or UN?

2)How will we secure our logistics route can't see through pakistan or iran

3)compatibility with regard to training with nato guys
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
Indian boots on ground seems to be in lala land with several problems

1)what is our command structure?Under NATO or UN?

2)How will we secure our logistics route can't see through pakistan or iran

3)compatibility with regard to training with nato guys
I would say that its too early to decide our role there . Ideally it should be under UN command and we should be there to maintain law and order in areas which are free from line of fire or more hostile areas. It will allow NATO and USA to concentrate more on crushing Taliban.

Troops and goods can be routed through Iran . Chabahar can be used .
It will take very long time to send our troops there and mere thought or talks of our troops going there will force Pakistan to yield desired result. Mere talk of us going there will be enough to screw Pakistan's Happiness.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Russians are already in cooperation with the US in Afghanistan and Russians are operating out there.

1 October 2010 Last updated at 05:21 GMT

Afghan President Karzai criticises US-Russia drugs raid
Hamid Karzai (25 October 2010) Mr Karzai said Afghanistan's relationship with Russia had to be based on mutual consent

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has criticised the first joint operation by Russian and US agents to destroy drug laboratories in his country.

Mr Karzai said he had not been informed of Russia's participation - a sensitive issue in Afghanistan ever since the Soviet occupation ended 21 years ago.

He called it a violation of Afghan sovereignty and international law.

Russia said more than a tonne of heroin and opium, with a street value of $250m (£157m), was destroyed in the raid.

Officials in Moscow have in the past accused coalition forces in Afghanistan of doing little to tackle drugs, and thereby helping to sustain the estimated 2.5 million heroin addicts in Russia.

'No authorisation'

On Friday, the head of Russia's drug control agency said its agents had taken part in an operation on Thursday to destroy a "major hub" of drug production about 5km (three miles) from the Pakistani border, near the city of Jalalabad.

Viktor Ivanov said that along with 932kg (2,055lb) of high-grade heroin and 156kg (345lb) of opium, a large amount of technical equipment was destroyed.

But in a strongly worded statement on Saturday, President Karzai's office alleged that Russian military personnel had taken part in the "illegal" raid.

"While Afghanistan remains committed to its joint efforts with the international community against narcotics, it also makes it clear that no organisation or institution shall have the right to carry out such a military operation without prior authorisation and consent of the government of Afghanistan," it said.

"Such unilateral operations are a clear violation of Afghan sovereignty as well as international law, and any repetition will be met by the required reaction from our side," the statement added.

Mr Karzai said Afghanistan wanted friendly ties with Moscow, but that the relationship had to be based on mutual consent.
Map of Afghanistan

A senior source in the delegation of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who is currently on a visit to Vietnam, told the AFP news agency on Sunday that Kabul's reaction to the anti-drug operation was "simply surprising and incomprehensible" because "the Afghan interior ministry participated in this operation".

The BBC's Quentin Sommerville in Kabul says Afghanistan's elite counter narcotics force did participate in the operation but it appears that the president's office was not informed of who would accompany them.

Afghanistan's interior ministry said it thought that only Russian observers rather than Russian troops were to take part, our correspondent adds.

The president's national security adviser, Rangin Dadfar Spanta, said Nato officials had apologised in private but that he wanted a public declaration.

Earlier, the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said it had killed at least 19 Taliban fighters who tried to storm a combat outpost in the eastern province of Paktika under cover of darkness.

The militants attacked from all directions, using rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, it added. Troops at the camp had to call in air support to repel the assault.

Five coalition soldiers were wounded in the fighting.
US Russian Jt Action
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
It is a moot point if India would send troops to Afghanistan unless there is some sort of a path breaking Strategic Partnership Agreement is signed wherein Indian troops will operate under a Jt Comd.

Logistics is the main concern of the US since it is wholly dependant on the Pakistan route.

India has no such huge problems and could use the Chahbahar Port in Iran and move the supplies along the Chahbahar route to Afghanistan both to the Western and Eastern part. The port and the highways were built by India in any case and possibly for this very reason.

However, all this is in the realm of speculation.
 

Soham

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,972
Likes
91
Country flag
It is a moot point if India would send troops to Afghanistan unless there is some sort of a path breaking Strategic Partnership Agreement is signed wherein Indian troops will operate under a Jt Comd.

Logistics is the main concern of the US since it is wholly dependant on the Pakistan route.

India has no such huge problems and could use the Chahbahar Port in Iran and move the supplies along the Chahbahar route to Afghanistan both to the Western and Eastern part. The port and the highways were built by India in any case and possibly for this very reason.

However, all this is in the realm of speculation.
Sir,

What in your opinion would be the Chinese reaction to any Indian boots in A'stan ? While there would be natural apprehension over increasing Indo-US co-operation, would there also be a smirk over the increasing number of bogs, that the Indian Army would be engaged in ?
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
It is a moot point if India would send troops to Afghanistan unless there is some sort of a path breaking Strategic Partnership Agreement is signed wherein Indian troops will operate under a Jt Comd.

Logistics is the main concern of the US since it is wholly dependant on the Pakistan route.

India has no such huge problems and could use the Chahbahar Port in Iran and move the supplies along the Chahbahar route to Afghanistan both to the Western and Eastern part. The port and the highways were built by India in any case and possibly for this very reason.

However, all this is in the realm of speculation.
How about taking the russian army heavy equipment Tanks, APCs from russia on lease that way it will reduce the logistic headache.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
48,596
Country flag
This maybe a good India only if/ when USA's mission is over it should not mean India's mission is over, If India is going there they have to think more of a long term almost permanent type of view.
 

chex3009

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
929
Likes
201
Country flag
I think India should send around 10000 to 12000 troops to Afghanistan under UN umbrella as a peacekeeping force.
India should use the chahbahar port of Iran for its logistics and supplies.
This move would give befitting reply to the Pakistanis and they will be forced to move some of their forces from its eastern border to the western border.
This would help Indian Army maintain relative peace in Jammu and Kashmir as well.

Mere statement "Indian boots in Afghanistan" would be giving sleepless nights to Ashfaq Qayani.
India should make this move rather earlier than to wait for the US to retreive their forces.
This will project that even India can work for its interest under the UN umbrella for the stability of the region.


Would be anxious to watch China's move on this, though.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
Atleast this way pakis wont have excuse of shifting troops to western border since they'll have Indian troops on both sides.

Although we should go until the afghan govt invites us themselves.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top