Trumps new Afghan Policy

Params7

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
52
Likes
17
It was a speech very light on specifics (on purpose) but big on overall goals - push back terroristic taliban/AlQ/ISIS and let Afghanis build their own government. He called out Pakistan as well as India on their trade surplus with US, and asked them to step up troop support in Afghanistan.
 

aliyah

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2015
Messages
698
Likes
843
......................so wats the new policy???
 

Project Dharma

meh
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
4,836
Likes
10,862
Country flag
Whoa sick burn for honest Abduls. Uncle Sam has groped and molested them badly. :hail::hail::eek1::eek1:


(CNN)US President Donald Trump had tough words for Pakistan Monday, as he attempted to steer a new approach on Afghanistan.

"We can no longer be silent about Pakistan's safe havens for terrorist organizations," he said in a speech at Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia.
"We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time, they are housing the very terrorists we are fighting ... that must change immediately."
He also called on Pakistan's regional rival India, to "help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistant and development."
"We appreciate India's important contributions to stability in Afghanistan but India makes billions of dollars in trade from the United States and we want them to help us war with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development."





Tough talk
Washington has long accused Islamabad of not doing enough in efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.
In July, Secretary of Defense James Mattis informed Congress the US was withholding $50 million in funding from Pakistan because he was unable to certify that Islamabad "has taken sufficient action against the Haqqani Network," a branch of the Afghan Taliban.
US officials believe that much of the Haqqani leadership is based in Pakistan and some analysts believe eliminating their safe havens is critical to stabilizing Afghanistan.
Trump seemed to reference this in his speech Monday, saying that "Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan (and) much to lose from harboring criminals and terrorists."


Afghanistan: 16 years, thousands dead and no clear end in sight

But analysts warn following up tough talk with effective action may be a more difficult task.
"Pakistan has ironclad immutable strategic interests which dictate maintaining ties to groups like the Taliban," said Michael Kugelman, deputy director and senior associate for South Asia with the Asia Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
"It sees them as useful tools to keep Pakistan's enemy, India, at bay in Afghanistan."
Kugelman pointed out previous US Presidents have called on Islamabad to do more to crack down on terrorists operating within its territory.
"Trump didn't really offer any specifics on what the US will do to get Pakistan to change its ways," he said. "I'm left wondering will this be any different."
New US strategy took time
Trump has previously expressed reservations about the seemingly endless US military commitment in Afghanistan and questioned the objectives of staying there.
The President reached a decision on the future of the US strategy in Afghanistan on Friday after months of deliberation.
Trump's decision comes as Taliban militants have been resurgent in recent months, posting a series of recent gains against Afghan government forces, which are backed by a US-led coalition of NATO allies.
The United States first invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The Bush administration accused the country's then Taliban government of sheltering al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, who had masterminded the previous month's September 11 terrorist attacks.
The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial, but only to a third country, rather than directly to the United States. Washington refused the offer and launched air and ground attacks, joined shortly thereafter by US allies.
CNN's Ben Westcott and Jeremy Diamond
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
Whoa sick burn for honest Abduls. Uncle Sam has groped and molested them badly. :hail::hail::eek1::eek1:


(CNN)US President Donald Trump had tough words for Pakistan Monday, as he attempted to steer a new approach on Afghanistan.

"We can no longer be silent about Pakistan's safe havens for terrorist organizations," he said in a speech at Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia.
"We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time, they are housing the very terrorists we are fighting ... that must change immediately."
He also called on Pakistan's regional rival India, to "help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistant and development."
"We appreciate India's important contributions to stability in Afghanistan but India makes billions of dollars in trade from the United States and we want them to help us war with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development."





Tough talk
Washington has long accused Islamabad of not doing enough in efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.
In July, Secretary of Defense James Mattis informed Congress the US was withholding $50 million in funding from Pakistan because he was unable to certify that Islamabad "has taken sufficient action against the Haqqani Network," a branch of the Afghan Taliban.
US officials believe that much of the Haqqani leadership is based in Pakistan and some analysts believe eliminating their safe havens is critical to stabilizing Afghanistan.
Trump seemed to reference this in his speech Monday, saying that "Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan (and) much to lose from harboring criminals and terrorists."


Afghanistan: 16 years, thousands dead and no clear end in sight

But analysts warn following up tough talk with effective action may be a more difficult task.
"Pakistan has ironclad immutable strategic interests which dictate maintaining ties to groups like the Taliban," said Michael Kugelman, deputy director and senior associate for South Asia with the Asia Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
"It sees them as useful tools to keep Pakistan's enemy, India, at bay in Afghanistan."
Kugelman pointed out previous US Presidents have called on Islamabad to do more to crack down on terrorists operating within its territory.
"Trump didn't really offer any specifics on what the US will do to get Pakistan to change its ways," he said. "I'm left wondering will this be any different."
New US strategy took time
Trump has previously expressed reservations about the seemingly endless US military commitment in Afghanistan and questioned the objectives of staying there.
The President reached a decision on the future of the US strategy in Afghanistan on Friday after months of deliberation.
Trump's decision comes as Taliban militants have been resurgent in recent months, posting a series of recent gains against Afghan government forces, which are backed by a US-led coalition of NATO allies.
The United States first invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The Bush administration accused the country's then Taliban government of sheltering al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, who had masterminded the previous month's September 11 terrorist attacks.
The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial, but only to a third country, rather than directly to the United States. Washington refused the offer and launched air and ground attacks, joined shortly thereafter by US allies.
CNN's Ben Westcott and Jeremy Diamond
Yeah, but if he is expecting Indian boots on the ground in Afghanistan, we can not do that. Economic assistance can be considered, if U.S is willing to part with some sweet defence tech.
 

aditya10r

Mera Bharat mahan
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
5,718
Likes
11,618
Country flag
Yeah, but if he is expecting Indian boots on the ground in Afghanistan, we can not do that. Economic assistance can be considered, if U.S is willing to part with some sweet defence tech.
Actually indian troops(i mean special forces like MARCOS) and ITBP soldiers are deployed in afghanistan.

Plus having an indian base in afghanistan with about 15-20k soldiers is a plus for us,that will help us stretch paki military more.

But now is not the time,maybe 10-15 years from now when ana defection rate is low.

========================================================================
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
Actually indian troops(i mean special forces like MARCOS) and ITBP soldiers are deployed in afghanistan.

Plus having an indian base in afghanistan with about 15-20k soldiers is a plus for us,that will help us stretch paki military more.

But now is not the time,maybe 10-15 years from now when ana defection rate is low.

========================================================================
Indian army engaging Taliban under NATO command would be a disaster.

Not to mention that we do not have a direct route to Afghanistan, so our supply lines will either have to pass through Pakistan along with NATO supply lines or through Iran, I doubt Iran would allow that considering our troops being there at USA's request. There are too many variables involved.

India right now has a lot of goodwill in Afghanistan specifically because we are not engaged in a war there. I do welcome some more nation-building though, if an agreement can be reached with U.S.A but not deploying a fighting force is one of the more sensible strategies of the UPA era that I do not want to see changed.
 

Project Dharma

meh
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
4,836
Likes
10,862
Country flag
Yeah, but if he is expecting Indian boots on the ground in Afghanistan, we can not do that. Economic assistance can be considered, if U.S is willing to part with some sweet defence tech.
Why wouldn't they just pay Afghans directly then rather than going through India? Don't think this is what he has in mind. However, I agree we cannot afford to commit troops at this stage with the Chinese and Pakistanis threatening a war.
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
Technically, even US troops don't fight under NATO command. They take orders from their own Generals. Not disagreeing with you overall though.
Is it true? I always thought it was local commanders assigned by NATO joint command.

I need to read up on it. :hmm:
 

aditya10r

Mera Bharat mahan
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
5,718
Likes
11,618
Country flag
Indian army engaging Taliban under NATO command would be a disaster.

Not to mention that we do not have a direct route to Afghanistan, so our supply lines will either have to pass through Pakistan along with NATO supply lines or through Iran, I doubt Iran would allow that considering our troops being there at USA's request. There are too many variables involved.

India right now has a lot of goodwill in Afghanistan specifically because we are not engaged in a war there. I do welcome some more nation-building though, if an agreement can be reached with U.S.A but not deploying a fighting force is one of the more sensible strategies of the UPA era that I do not want to see changed.
Well quite right,even i dont want indian soldiers being killed by ugly afeem smoking pathans,that is why i am saying,let afghanistan stabalise in next 10-15 years and then get a military base there,free from NATO-ISAF-USA.
=========================================================================

But i beleive i am quite optimistic,i am unable to see any muslim country with somewhat stability which has a lower per capita income.
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
Why wouldn't they just pay Afghans directly then rather than going through India? Don't think this is what he has in mind. However, I agree we cannot afford to commit troops at this stage with the Chinese and Pakistanis threatening a war.
He is trying to leverage India's trade surplus as a negotiating chip. We need to bargain too.
 

Project Dharma

meh
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
4,836
Likes
10,862
Country flag
Is it true? I always thought it was local commanders assigned by NATO joint command.

I need to read up on it. :hmm:
US troops usually get deployed under their own command and they collaborate closely with NATO. Murica is very sensitive about other countries bossing around their own.
 

Cutting Edge 2

Space Power
Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2017
Messages
984
Likes
1,969
People realise that WE(Modi gov) wanted to increase our presence in Afghanistan for some time now but we where denied a greater role on the grounds of "Pakistani Concerns" by Obama.

We already have our troops, intelligence, diplomats, businessmen in Afghanistan.

Sending troops doesn't mean combat role. There are troops from many countries stationed in Afghanistan who don't do any fighting.

Most importantly Trump isn't asking for our troops, he wants India to take role of nation building which we are more than happy to do. Although not in today's speech it is very likely that Trump will go ahead with Pentagon's plan of increasing US troops by 4000 according to many sources.

Biggest fear from most experts was that Trump might withdraw from Afghanistan, which means all our people/investment in danger from Pak sponsored Taliban. We can't stabilise Afghanistan without US.

By involving India in Afghanistan speech, Trump has officially declared India a regional power who must be involved in all matters related to SEA.

Most important development that happen was US for the first time in the history has officially called Pakistan a terror sponsoring state and that too in such a high profile speech. This is more than what most of us were expecting.

This was a historical event in Indin-American partnership. Mark this date, today we have officially moved into US camp.
 

aliyah

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2015
Messages
698
Likes
843
india is not at all interested in sending indian troops to Afghanistan to help US,NATO or to eliminate Taliban.
India will send its troops to AF only when GOI gets clear with its Baluchistan strategy.
 

Mikesingh

Professional
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Messages
7,353
Likes
30,450
Country flag
US troops usually get deployed under their own command and they collaborate closely with NATO. Murica is very sensitive about other countries bossing around their own.
There were Regional Commands in Afghanistan under the ISAF/NATO - Regional Command North, Regional Command South, Regional Command East, and Regional Command West commanded by nominated officers from any country. Under these Commands were brigades from various countries but commanded by their own officers.

In other words, brigades and below were commanded by the country's own officers while the higher direction of war under whom the brigades were operating was the responsibility of a nominated officer from any country of the ISAF/NATO. This post of Regional Commander was more management oriented while at the brigade level it is more executive in nature where there is direct command and control of troops. So there's no question of a commander of a country's brigade being from some other country unless there were battalions under it from different countries.
 
Last edited:

aditya10r

Mera Bharat mahan
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
5,718
Likes
11,618
Country flag
There were Regional Commands in Afghanistan under the ISAF/NATO - Regional Command North, Regional Command South, Regional Command East, and Regional Command West commanded by nominated officers from any country. Under these Commands were brigades from various countries but commanded by their own officers.

In other words, brigades and below were commanded by the country's own officers while the higher direction of war under whom the brigades were operating was the responsibility of a nominated officer from any country of the ISAF/NATO. This post of Regional Commander was more management oriented while at the brigade level it is more executive in nature where there is direct command and control of troops. So there's no question of a commander of a country's brigade being from some other country unless there were battalions under it from different countries.
Sab kuch sar ke upar se nikal gaya.

Anyways very informative.

=========================================
 

Adioz

शक्तिः दुर्दम्येच्छाशक्त्याः आगच्छति
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,419
Likes
2,819
What I find disturbing is Trump linking our economic assistance to Afghanistan with US-India trade and our trade surplus in it. Its as if he does not expect us to quietly cough up whatever amount of "economic assistance" he has in mind. If the case had been otherwise, Trump would not have given a threat. He would simply said something along the lines of:-

"We appreciate Indian aid to Afghanistan and would like to see it increase significantly, because increased Indian economic aid to Afghanistan would synergise very well with our new Afghan policy and will help bring the scourge of terrorism to a swift end in the region."

^This statement would have suggested that what role he had in mind for India in Afghanistan would be acceptable to India.

However his current statement is a blunt threat effectively stating "Go along with whatever new role we have designed for you, and cough up the money for it, or else you are gonna loose your trade surplus." Maybe its just his lack of self-confidence that made him say that, but if not, then his statement must be responded to in kind.

This is going to be a real test for Modi. I hope he does not pander to Trump's pressure. If we are trying to show China that we can't be bullied, we need to do the same to USA too. If Modi yields under Trump's pressure without negotiating a better deal, he is going to loose all the respect he has garnered in my eyes.

We need to negotiate and get something in return as well. Some things I have in mind:-
  • Access to more US defence tech (and I mean technology, not platforms)
  • No clampdown on Indian H1B visas.
  • US funding and tech for meeting India's Paris climate goals.
  • Some other concession at WTO.
  • I ran out of ideas, need more of them, so help me guys.
We could negotiate for any one of the above. Let Trump get a feel of what its like to haggle with the Indians.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top