India’s growing clout in Kabul may impact stability
- Thread starter LETHALFORCE
- Start date
ppgj
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,029
- Likes
- 168
true. that foothold gives them advantage vis-a-vis both russia, china and to some extent india. above all iran.
ppgj
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,029
- Likes
- 168
encirclement for iran (not pak arms specific). checking india's growing influence in afghanistan.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,876
- Likes
- 48,566
afghanistan puts USA close to Iran,Pakistan,Russia,China,India and the Central asian states it is a strategic location.
This has more to do with desperation than "fishiness." Pakistan wants nothing more than to preserve their right to play spoilsport, and the rest of the world (including Afghanistan, US and any one else who wants to fix Afghanistan) has no other option to but to make short term concessions to Pakistan.
StealthSniper
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,111
- Likes
- 61
Don't be fooled for one second, America is in full control and pretty much controls all of Pakistan. They have many bases in Pakistan and I think they even know detailed information on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. America is allowing Pakistan to act aggressively because it shows the world that things are not going well and they need to stay in Afghanistan and Pakistan to fix the situation. I am worried that now they are "allies" of India that they are already putting India is tight situations. Be smart people and observant.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,563
- Likes
- 27
i shall take this with a pinch of salt such articles or news is spewed out by uncle just as a Lullaby to keep the spolied bart called pakistan ( which was spolied by uncle in the first place) calm and do any one think that India will sacrifie her hard won powerbase in Afghanistan ??? I for one dont think so
ppgj
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,029
- Likes
- 168
i think you need to be realistic. it is not easy to be in full control as you put it. pakistan is a vast country and the people are extremely hostile to the USA. why do you think they can't operate on the ground if they were in control. just 'cos they coerce GOP to toe their line by doling out aid does not give them as much as you think, which precisely gives pakistan to play the game on both sides. they have been greatly successful up till now.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 20,311
- Likes
- 8,403
Look at the incidents over the few days. McChrystal report, (deliberately) misquoting Krishna, increasing aid to Pak, Karzai urging taliban to join peace process, brit politicians urging peace talks with taliban etc.
It is clear that the cost of Afghanistan operation is becoming too much for the west. Peace with Taliban and aid to Pak is their (dishonorable quick) exit strategy.
Indian interests are inconsequential to the west. All our good work will come to nought in Afghanistan. We need nothing sort of a miracle to save Afghanistan, and our strategic interests.
It is clear that the cost of Afghanistan operation is becoming too much for the west. Peace with Taliban and aid to Pak is their (dishonorable quick) exit strategy.
Indian interests are inconsequential to the west. All our good work will come to nought in Afghanistan. We need nothing sort of a miracle to save Afghanistan, and our strategic interests.
StealthSniper
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,111
- Likes
- 61
Honestly I don't see anything successful about what's happening in Pakistan right now. They are financially in trouble, their government is unstable, they have been found to be training terrorist to attack India, and ISI is found to not really be in control by it's own government. Also everyday you here American UAV's kill innocent civilians in Pakistan. That doesn't really sound like Pakistan is playing a game and if they are playing a game they are losing bad.
If America is giving Pakistan money to defeat the Taliban and maybe fix their internal problems then fine, but Pakistan has admitted to using the funds to makes it's military larger so nothing has changed. Pakistan is going to have a broken economy but a large military, and America should be monitoring the funds to make sure things are done properly.
ppgj
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,029
- Likes
- 168
because pakistan will not let it be successful. simple. that is what gives them space to do what they do. just 'cos drones are active does not mean they can wipe out every individual enemy. besides USA has diffeerent agenda too apart WOT.
that is the game everyone knows. besides keeping india bogey alive in the pakistani masses, it allows USA to keep india in check by propping up pakistan.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,876
- Likes
- 48,566
Pakistan: Now or Never? Blog Archive India, Pakistan and Afghanistan: the impossible triangle | Blogs |
India, Pakistan and Afghanistan: the impossible triangle
A single paragraph in General Stanley McChrystal’s leaked assessment of the war in Afghanistan has generated much interest, particularly in Pakistan.
“Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment,” it says. “In addition the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter-measures in Afghanistan or India.”
He did not say anything that anybody did not already know. Pakistan has long been wary of India’s growing influence in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 and is seen as reluctant to turn against the Afghan Taliban and other insurgent groups as long as it believes it might need them to counter India. The fact that he said it all suggested a renewed focus on the relationship between India and Pakistan, whose confrontation to the east spilled long ago into rivalry over Afghanistan to the west.
Pakistan’s Daily Times said in an editorial the rivalry between India and Pakistan in Afghanistan highlighted the need for peace talks between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, which have fought three full-scale wars since independence in 1947, two of them over Kashmir.
“One must be clear in one’s mind that in many ways the mess in Afghanistan is actually a spillover of the Indo-Pak conflict in the region of South Asia,” it said. “Pakistan’s policy of “strategic depth”, which reached a climax with the hijacking of an Indian airliner to Kandahar in 1999, was in reaction to the unresolved dispute over Kashmir which created the “threat of India” that Pakistan felt “from the east”. Even today, as Pakistan struggles against the Taliban, 80 percent of its army is stationed on the Indian border.
Dawn newspaper said McChrystal’s words on India were ”perhaps as significant as any other in the report”. The Americans appeared to have finally understood, it said, that the war in Afghanistan could not be won without help from Pakistan. “But that means gaining Pakistan’s full cooperation, which in turn means alleviating the national security establishment’s concerns vis-à-vis India.”
However, as discussed in this analysis, India is in little mood to move rapidly towards peace talks with Pakistan until it takes greater action against militants it blames for last year’s attack on Mumbai, although the two countries have been taking incremental steps towards repairing relations. Many argue that the powerful Pakistan Army would be unlikely to turn against militant groups it once cultivated to fight India in Kashmir, without a comprehensive peace settlement with India. (For an understanding of how complicated all this is, read this book reviewby Pakistani strategic analyst Ayesha Siddiqa.)
So, to win the war in Afghanistan, the United States needs help from Pakistan, which Pakistan in turn is reluctant to provide so long as it believes it is threatened by India to both the west and east. From Washington’s point of view, it needs to nudge Islamabad and New Delhi towards the negotiating table, by leaning on Pakistan to act against militant groups and putting pressure on India to resume peace talks.
Here is another catch. Although the relationship between the United States and India blossomed under former President George W. Bush, there is far less warmth in New Delhi towards the Obama administration. The relationship started on the wrong foot with India concerned about increasing U.S. economic dependence on its rival China.
Now India and the United States are at loggerheads over President Barack Obama’s nuclear non-proliferation drive. India has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That row, in turn, complicates efforts by Washington to persuade India to talk to Pakistan.
India, Pakistan and Afghanistan: the impossible triangle
A single paragraph in General Stanley McChrystal’s leaked assessment of the war in Afghanistan has generated much interest, particularly in Pakistan.
“Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment,” it says. “In addition the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter-measures in Afghanistan or India.”
He did not say anything that anybody did not already know. Pakistan has long been wary of India’s growing influence in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 and is seen as reluctant to turn against the Afghan Taliban and other insurgent groups as long as it believes it might need them to counter India. The fact that he said it all suggested a renewed focus on the relationship between India and Pakistan, whose confrontation to the east spilled long ago into rivalry over Afghanistan to the west.
Pakistan’s Daily Times said in an editorial the rivalry between India and Pakistan in Afghanistan highlighted the need for peace talks between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, which have fought three full-scale wars since independence in 1947, two of them over Kashmir.
“One must be clear in one’s mind that in many ways the mess in Afghanistan is actually a spillover of the Indo-Pak conflict in the region of South Asia,” it said. “Pakistan’s policy of “strategic depth”, which reached a climax with the hijacking of an Indian airliner to Kandahar in 1999, was in reaction to the unresolved dispute over Kashmir which created the “threat of India” that Pakistan felt “from the east”. Even today, as Pakistan struggles against the Taliban, 80 percent of its army is stationed on the Indian border.
Dawn newspaper said McChrystal’s words on India were ”perhaps as significant as any other in the report”. The Americans appeared to have finally understood, it said, that the war in Afghanistan could not be won without help from Pakistan. “But that means gaining Pakistan’s full cooperation, which in turn means alleviating the national security establishment’s concerns vis-à-vis India.”
However, as discussed in this analysis, India is in little mood to move rapidly towards peace talks with Pakistan until it takes greater action against militants it blames for last year’s attack on Mumbai, although the two countries have been taking incremental steps towards repairing relations. Many argue that the powerful Pakistan Army would be unlikely to turn against militant groups it once cultivated to fight India in Kashmir, without a comprehensive peace settlement with India. (For an understanding of how complicated all this is, read this book reviewby Pakistani strategic analyst Ayesha Siddiqa.)
So, to win the war in Afghanistan, the United States needs help from Pakistan, which Pakistan in turn is reluctant to provide so long as it believes it is threatened by India to both the west and east. From Washington’s point of view, it needs to nudge Islamabad and New Delhi towards the negotiating table, by leaning on Pakistan to act against militant groups and putting pressure on India to resume peace talks.
Here is another catch. Although the relationship between the United States and India blossomed under former President George W. Bush, there is far less warmth in New Delhi towards the Obama administration. The relationship started on the wrong foot with India concerned about increasing U.S. economic dependence on its rival China.
Now India and the United States are at loggerheads over President Barack Obama’s nuclear non-proliferation drive. India has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That row, in turn, complicates efforts by Washington to persuade India to talk to Pakistan.
thakur_ritesh
Ambassador
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,435
- Likes
- 1,733
pakistan by default happens to be in a situation where they are bound to benefit. is there any other country geographically and strategically as well placed as pakistan next to afghanistan and is also friendly, or shall i say ready to adhere to all the concerns (wimps and fancies) of the us, none what so ever. pakistan is a part of the problem but the most tangible solution also flows through their end.
let us get one fact clear, the us and the nato are no where in a winning situation in afghanistan, on the contrary they seem on a complete back foot. other than the initial days on wot success has been more or less elusive for them, so what do they do? well try and find solutions by negotiating with the problem creator and that solution leads to the pakistan armed forces room who happen to be the masters of the taliban and also the bridge of communication between the us and the taliban.
there was a time when wot in pakistan was despised, and termed as the us's war that they were forced to wage but today with in a span of less than one year the same war has become pakistan's own war, amazing transformation, isnt it but has it happened in isolation? certainly not and this became possible only when the pakistan armed forces were dragged into this war. have the pakistanis delivered, certainly not, and for the moment they are holding their cards close to their chest and playing the game, they are still feeding the afghan taliban through whom they believe in the coming days they will influence afghanistan as they believe the us will be out of afghanistan soon, which is a way of giving them the strategic depth through where they can increase their influence to the car.
soon the us is to launch the much hyped offensive against the taliban and the need to make it a success is huge and for this pak armed forces are the key, and if this is not a success this wot is only going to get more unpopular amongst the american public, a risk obama and his administration can not take since the electoral process for the next presidential elections in the us is to start soon or else it will be suicidal for obama. here a failure means coffins after coffins heading their way back to the us, a very likely scenario without the support of pak armed forces, a misadventure abama can ill afford, or the first black as the us president will be a thing of history soon.
secondly, the us's long term goal in the region is afghanistan but only partly, the real concern is the prc and if the pakistan media reports are anything to go by the us is trying to increase its strategic reach beyond the car to south asia and the prc by way of what is now getting termed as occupation of pakistan in certain circles. their embassy is being increased so is the staff strength, there is big presence of black water, us navy is to house a few of its combatants in karachi, there are supposedly 200(+) homes in possession of certain americans in the capital city islamabad, they are coming up with new consulates at two new sites with a decent staff presence and all this is certainly not happening without the consent of the pakistan armed forces. by doing this the us would quite successfully blunt one of the main allies of the prc and possibly use the same ally against them if need be and through pakistan they can be more in control of things happening in beijing.
in all this keeping with the interests of the us, pakistan does matter a lot to them, and they are bound to listen to their concerns and for the pakistanis any influence good or bad of their erstwhile enemy india in their immediate neighborhood is no good news, quite similar to how we feel about the string of pearl policy of the prc. they first said india is supporting terrorism but could not substantiate that with solid proof to the us or india would have been out of a'stan for sure by now, so the new idea is to talk about india trying to spy which in real terms does not add up to much and comes out as a dwarf when compared to the allegations of support of terrorism. in all this india has been lucky to have hilary clinton as sectrary of state or else india would have been fighting an extremely difficult war in the power corridors of dc washington and probably a loosing one at that. for the moment there is nothing to worry but yes, certainly interesting times ahead.
if anything, it is a test of our diplomacy, and this be seen as an irritant as we grow our influence on a regional basis. we need to win this battle that is being waged through the negotiating tables hands down or else our dream of a bigger international role could remain a dream for a long time to come. let us see, how good are our best from the indian foreign services, supposedly few of the finest in the indian bureaucracy.
let us get one fact clear, the us and the nato are no where in a winning situation in afghanistan, on the contrary they seem on a complete back foot. other than the initial days on wot success has been more or less elusive for them, so what do they do? well try and find solutions by negotiating with the problem creator and that solution leads to the pakistan armed forces room who happen to be the masters of the taliban and also the bridge of communication between the us and the taliban.
there was a time when wot in pakistan was despised, and termed as the us's war that they were forced to wage but today with in a span of less than one year the same war has become pakistan's own war, amazing transformation, isnt it but has it happened in isolation? certainly not and this became possible only when the pakistan armed forces were dragged into this war. have the pakistanis delivered, certainly not, and for the moment they are holding their cards close to their chest and playing the game, they are still feeding the afghan taliban through whom they believe in the coming days they will influence afghanistan as they believe the us will be out of afghanistan soon, which is a way of giving them the strategic depth through where they can increase their influence to the car.
soon the us is to launch the much hyped offensive against the taliban and the need to make it a success is huge and for this pak armed forces are the key, and if this is not a success this wot is only going to get more unpopular amongst the american public, a risk obama and his administration can not take since the electoral process for the next presidential elections in the us is to start soon or else it will be suicidal for obama. here a failure means coffins after coffins heading their way back to the us, a very likely scenario without the support of pak armed forces, a misadventure abama can ill afford, or the first black as the us president will be a thing of history soon.
secondly, the us's long term goal in the region is afghanistan but only partly, the real concern is the prc and if the pakistan media reports are anything to go by the us is trying to increase its strategic reach beyond the car to south asia and the prc by way of what is now getting termed as occupation of pakistan in certain circles. their embassy is being increased so is the staff strength, there is big presence of black water, us navy is to house a few of its combatants in karachi, there are supposedly 200(+) homes in possession of certain americans in the capital city islamabad, they are coming up with new consulates at two new sites with a decent staff presence and all this is certainly not happening without the consent of the pakistan armed forces. by doing this the us would quite successfully blunt one of the main allies of the prc and possibly use the same ally against them if need be and through pakistan they can be more in control of things happening in beijing.
in all this keeping with the interests of the us, pakistan does matter a lot to them, and they are bound to listen to their concerns and for the pakistanis any influence good or bad of their erstwhile enemy india in their immediate neighborhood is no good news, quite similar to how we feel about the string of pearl policy of the prc. they first said india is supporting terrorism but could not substantiate that with solid proof to the us or india would have been out of a'stan for sure by now, so the new idea is to talk about india trying to spy which in real terms does not add up to much and comes out as a dwarf when compared to the allegations of support of terrorism. in all this india has been lucky to have hilary clinton as sectrary of state or else india would have been fighting an extremely difficult war in the power corridors of dc washington and probably a loosing one at that. for the moment there is nothing to worry but yes, certainly interesting times ahead.
if anything, it is a test of our diplomacy, and this be seen as an irritant as we grow our influence on a regional basis. we need to win this battle that is being waged through the negotiating tables hands down or else our dream of a bigger international role could remain a dream for a long time to come. let us see, how good are our best from the indian foreign services, supposedly few of the finest in the indian bureaucracy.
