Afghan Army Chief to visit India

1.44

Member of The Month SEPTEMBER 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
4,359
Likes
52
Partnership with Afghanistan has been an excellent move by India.Hopefully we'll be able to make a great friendship into strategic partnership in the future to really freak out the Pakistanis.
India has been focusing on infrastructure development i hope the Afghan army chiefs visit results in closer defense cooperation.
 

Kabuli

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
39
Likes
0
To stabilize Afghanistan we have to announce a plan for national reconciliation which would include addressing the issue of foreign soldiers and the opium cultivation. The NATO presence in Afghanistan is an irritant, exacerbating the situation and only strengthening the reactionary forces. The destruction of opiates is also contributing to the deterioration of security. If people have no income they will find it the only place it is available, the Taliban. The Taliban only continue to exist because the presence of NATO forces. So, if they are removed and alternative crops are made available the Taliban will die out. Those left will be the extremists/foreigners and remnants of the drug mafias.

So key to our situation is an Afghan military able to provide its own nation-wide security. Another possibility is a coalition of regional nations providing security in Afghanistan until the Afghan army is ready. That would include Iran, Uzbekistan, also a few Arab countries, India, Turkey could maintain its presence. Pakistan contributing would only inflame the situation in Afghanistan as well as the tribal areas of Pak. We could also consider integrating villagers into "self-defense forces" to protect their own villages like the communists did in the eighties, it was a very effective strategy. That of course comes with its own problems though.

We won't have peace by killing the Taliban. They are Afghans just like the rest of us. Although the tribal hierarchy and structure has been deeply damaged in Afghanistan, it is not entirely destroyed and the Afghan Taliban are not ideologues like their leaders want to portray them. Their primary motivator is not religion, but rather socio-economic isolation.
 

deltacamelately

Professional
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
134
Likes
6
To stabilize Afghanistan we have to announce a plan for national reconciliation which would include addressing the issue of foreign soldiers and the opium cultivation. The NATO presence in Afghanistan is an irritant, exacerbating the situation and only strengthening the reactionary forces. The destruction of opiates is also contributing to the deterioration of security. If people have no income they will find it the only place it is available, the Taliban. The Taliban only continue to exist because the presence of NATO forces. So, if they are removed and alternative crops are made available the Taliban will die out. Those left will be the extremists/foreigners and remnants of the drug mafias.

So key to our situation is an Afghan military able to provide its own nation-wide security. Another possibility is a coalition of regional nations providing security in Afghanistan until the Afghan army is ready. That would include Iran, Uzbekistan, also a few Arab countries, India, Turkey could maintain its presence. Pakistan contributing would only inflame the situation in Afghanistan as well as the tribal areas of Pak. We could also consider integrating villagers into "self-defense forces" to protect their own villages like the communists did in the eighties, it was a very effective strategy. That of course comes with its own problems though.

We won't have peace by killing the Taliban. They are Afghans just like the rest of us. Although the tribal hierarchy and structure has been deeply damaged in Afghanistan, it is not entirely destroyed and the Afghan Taliban are not ideologues like their leaders want to portray them. Their primary motivator is not religion, but rather socio-economic isolation.
Arabs should be kept out of the mix. Further Arabic presence will present its own incentives for the radicalized rural masses. Iran and Uzbekistan have a more realistic role to play, AND yes, you can not station Turkish or Indian forces without perfectly putting Pakistan's panties on fire.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Arabs should be kept out of the mix. Further Arabic presence will present its own incentives for the radicalized rural masses. Iran and Uzbekistan have a more realistic role to play, AND yes, you can not station Turkish or Indian forces without perfectly putting Pakistan's panties on fire.
Actually, Pakistan would not be happy not only with the presence of India and Turkish forces, but it would be unhappy with any solution that can effectively stabilize Afghanistan. Becoz a stable, strong Afghanistan would prove to be a big headache to Pakistan(they have border issues, and Afghanistan claims almost half of Pakistan). Hence, Pakistan would always try and keep Afghanistan as destabilized as possible. Therefore, so anyone wanting to resolve Afghanistan's situation must not pay attention to noises coming out of Pak.
 

Kabuli

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
39
Likes
0
Arabs should be kept out of the mix. Further Arabic presence will present its own incentives for the radicalized rural masses. Iran and Uzbekistan have a more realistic role to play, AND yes, you can not station Turkish or Indian forces without perfectly putting Pakistan's panties on fire.
I don't know, what issues would the presence of Arabs present? Most of the rural population are not radicalized per se as they are just ignorant. They have no education maybe not even from a madrassah. Can't read, write, only know how to work their fields. Feudalism.

I agree, the presence of Indian forces would present an opportunity for the Pakistanis to further inflame the situation. I think we will have to wait and see what happens in the NWFP & FATA. If the situation doesn't cool down as I don't believe it will then it may present an opportunity to weaken the Taliban in Afghanistan. Although, I doubt Pak will ever completely stop aiding them.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,798
Likes
48,277
Country flag
how committed can USA be to this war when they know that Pakistan is playing this game and they still increased the funding to pakistan?
 

F-14

Global Defence Moderator
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
1,563
Likes
27
delta sir i dont think that the presence of Arab forces allied to India like oman and the UAE(who already have a presence in afghanistan ) will be of any problems to the afghans but rather the Pakistan elite will be having heart attacks if we stablize afghanistan then pakistan will lose its"stratagic depth" as it is they blame us for spreading terror in pakistan( on which i think is a mear halucination) on their part
 

Pintu

New Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
12,082
Likes
348
Sir, as per F-14 says , I also believe that presence of India friendly country like Oman and UAE may not harm our interest or Afghanistan but I feel Saudi forces should not be allowed there, but the stabilisation of Afghanistan is a must for both Afghanistan and as well as ours.

Regards
 

Kabuli

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
39
Likes
0
Sir, as per F-14 says , I also believe that presence of India friendly country like Oman and UAE may not harm our interest or Afghanistan but I feel Saudi forces should not be allowed there, but the stabilisation of Afghanistan is a must for both Afghanistan and as well as ours.

Regards
I agree, Saudi presence should not be allowed, but I also dislike the UAE. They were one of the main financial supporters of the Taliban and one of only three nations which extended them official recognition.
 

F-14

Global Defence Moderator
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
1,563
Likes
27
The UAE had 170 soldiers serving in Tarin Kowt province in March 2008 as reported by the BBC
 

1.44

Member of The Month SEPTEMBER 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
4,359
Likes
52
how committed can USA be to this war when they know that Pakistan is playing this game and they still increased the funding to pakistan?
What i wonder is how US invaded Iraq and left Pakistan alone
 

Kabuli

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
39
Likes
0
The UAE had 170 soldiers serving in Tarin Kowt province in March 2008 as reported by the BBC
This is true and one of their soldiers was even captured by the Taliban. I think they exchanged prisoners.

Edit:

What i wonder is how US invaded Iraq and left Pakistan alone
Pakistan was then ruled by an obedient violator of human rights rather than the defiant Baathist regime in Iraq. Oh and lots of oil in Iraq, Pak land like us has not been very blessed with natural resources other than Baluchistan.
 

deltacamelately

Professional
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
134
Likes
6
Actually, Pakistan would not be happy not only with the presence of India and Turkish forces, but it would be unhappy with any solution that can effectively stabilize Afghanistan. Becoz a stable, strong Afghanistan would prove to be a big headache to Pakistan(they have border issues, and Afghanistan claims almost half of Pakistan). Hence, Pakistan would always try and keep Afghanistan as destabilized as possible. Therefore, so anyone wanting to resolve Afghanistan's situation must not pay attention to noises coming out of Pak.
There is a difference between being unhappy and getting one's panties on fire. You know what? However unhappy Pakistan get's with the prospect of Indian presence on the other side of the Durand line....
It still has the biggest incentive for Afghanistan for a durable stability. India has no imperialistic ambitions, never had one, shouldn't be a problem for most sensible Afghan nationals. However, InA boots alone can ensure stability and security of a nascent nation state in the long run, having undergone decades of turmoil and bloodbath of its citizens, an aka "Great Game".

One country after another has played blood spilling games in this country for attaining their short term gains. There has to be FULL STOP. This country belongs to its natural inhabitants, Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Tajiks...whatever...and they should have FULL rights to lead a life of peace and prosperity, see their sons and daughters getting educated and married, reap the harvest of having a country to call their own without the fcking necesssity to serve as somebody else's Strategic Depth.

And if an Indian Army presence can extend a helping hand...so be it.
We have the most extended experience in COIN operations then any other country in the vicinity operating in similar combat terrain. We are more similar to these men than a Canadian or an American. Lastly we have more to lose if Astan goes down the road to hell.
 

kautilya

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
69
Likes
2
Arabs should be kept out of the mix. Further Arabic presence will present its own incentives for the radicalized rural masses. Iran and Uzbekistan have a more realistic role to play, AND yes, you can not station Turkish or Indian forces without perfectly putting Pakistan's panties on fire.
Why Turkish? Turkey has historically been very pro-Pakistan and pretty antagonistic towards India. It's pro Pakistan on Kashmir incidentally.

Save for China, Turkey might just be Pakistan's best bet in Afghanistan.
 

F-14

Global Defence Moderator
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
1,563
Likes
27
the turkish are already deployed in afghanistan with the ISAF
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
We have the most extended experience in COIN operations then any other country in the vicinity operating in similar combat terrain.
Agreed, but isn't Afghanistan's terrain rather different than Kashmir's or that of the NE? It's hell of a lot hotter, and far less thinly populated....besides, the IA is unfamiliar with the land and it would be very hard to maintain and supply a sizeable combat force there through Iran's port of Chabahar. How many troops are we talking anyway? Upto 50,000? More? The cost of such a military operation would put a huge drain on India's economy and all for little benefit. If the US and other NATO countries have problems with the escalating cost, we're still a developing country with far more pressing social and economic problems of our own.

I don't think your argument stems from altruistic considerations, so from a strategic viewpoint, I think we'd achieve far more if we actually aid the separatists in Balochistan and the groups that oppose Pak in Afghanistan covertly than if we put boots on the ground.
 

deltacamelately

Professional
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
134
Likes
6
Agreed, but isn't Afghanistan's terrain rather different than Kashmir's or that of the NE? It's hell of a lot hotter, and far less thinly populated....besides, the IA is unfamiliar with the land
The concept of combat terrain engulves mainly the landscape design for combat effectiveness, not necessarily dependign upon the thermal temperature. InA is used to operate in similar arid, vegetationless and mountaneous terrain.
and it would be very hard to maintain and supply a sizeable combat force there through Iran's port of Chabahar. How many troops are we talking anyway? Upto 50,000? More?
You have just clubbed the problem and the solution together.
It would be very tough to sustain logistics if we consider that we have a land locked country and a hostile party in between. Air supply isn't sustainable. However, and this has been much debated in the US Military circles as well, Chabahar offers a radically different prospect, short, cheap and reliable.
The cost of such a military operation would put a huge drain on India's economy and all for little benefit. If the US and other NATO countries have problems with the escalating cost, we're still a developing country with far more pressing social and economic problems of our own.
Concur, however a strategic argument is technically different from an economic one. In any case, I was commenting upon the long term geo-polictical implications of securing Astan with InA's support.

I don't think your argument stems from altruistic considerations, so from a strategic viewpoint, I think we'd achieve far more if we actually aid the separatists in Balochistan and the groups that oppose Pak in Afghanistan covertly than if we put boots on the ground.
My homework on this is done a long term back and I've been made to consider this as a logical consideration.

As about Baluchistan, have you ever wondered why India never abetted the BLA inspite having EVERY possible means and capabilities to wreck havoc in that part of Pakistan a declared adversary of ages? Let me know if you already done so.
 

deltacamelately

Professional
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
134
Likes
6
Why Turkish? Turkey has historically been very pro-Pakistan and pretty antagonistic towards India. It's pro Pakistan on Kashmir incidentally.

Save for China, Turkey might just be Pakistan's best bet in Afghanistan.
A US Artillery Officer is of the view that the mere introduction of Turkish troop in Astan puts PA's panties on fire. It not always about political considerations, its often about the military derivative and Turkish forces are seen as an extension of Amarican military. Ask any PA Officer and he'll twist and turn considering the prospect of Turkish forces conducting an operation is Swat or Bajaur.
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
The concept of combat terrain engulves mainly the landscape design for combat effectiveness, not necessarily dependign upon the thermal temperature. InA is used to operate in similar arid, vegetationless and mountaneous terrain.
Where? In Rajasthan?

And what would be the primary objective of the IA in Afghanistan? Merely defending the major population centres from Taliban onslaught or going after them in terrain that they're intimately familiar with? All said and done, the IA doesn't have the sort of advanced recon capability that western militaries do. Technology wise, the IA is far poorer due obviously, to the fact that India is a developing country. The western countries, inspite of all their overwhelming military superiority, are having a hard time defeating the Taliban, who engage in hit and run tactics across from the Pak border.

I don't see how the IA could fare better in any scenario against the Taliban.

In fact, the only long term overseas military deployment by the IA, in Sri Lanka, ended in a disaster.

You have just clubbed the problem and the solution together.
It would be very tough to sustain logistics if we consider that we have a land locked country and a hostile party in between. Air supply isn't sustainable. However, and this has been much debated in the US Military circles as well, Chabahar offers a radically different prospect, short, cheap and reliable.
Well, I think it would actually be longer than the route through Karachi, and about reliability, well, that's hard to predict, considering the fickleness of the mullahs in Iran.

As about Baluchistan, have you ever wondered why India never abetted the BLA inspite having EVERY possible means and capabilities to wreck havoc in that part of Pakistan a declared adversary of ages? Let me know if you already done so.
Because it might ruffle US feathers? Or is it because the Balochis in Iran might also start thinking of separation?
 

kautilya

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
69
Likes
2
A US Artillery Officer is of the view that the mere introduction of Turkish troop in Astan puts PA's panties on fire. It not always about political considerations, its often about the military derivative and Turkish forces are seen as an extension of Amarican military. Ask any PA Officer and he'll twist and turn considering the prospect of Turkish forces conducting an operation is Swat or Bajaur.
I'd be curious to know the reason behind this view. Turkey has been extremely close politically to Pakistan supporting it in every war with India(including supplying aircraft during the '71 war) and on Kashmir. Further I understand they have a mature military relationship. We also hear news of exercises and joint manufacture of mil. eqpt. every now and then. The Pakistani elite often expresses sentiments of molding Pakistan along the lines of Attaturk's Turkey most recently Musharraf of course.

Turkey has acted independently of America quite often in the recent past, closing Turkey as a staging ground for OIF and the purchase of Russian arms recently. I'm not entirely sure I follow the line of reasoning.

Are you at liberty to shed any further light on it?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top