120,000 Indian troops for Afghanistan or hot air

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

actually , i dont see any scope for conflict with PA in afghanistan until and unless PA initiates it. As long as IA is in afghanistan (if that is) then PA itself will ensure not one militant rests in NWFP and instead goes out to fight IA in afghanistan. Safe haven will be there but ISI would not let anyone rest especially if Indian forces get advantage.

The view here is that we see n scope for conflict unless India initiates it - so sounds dandy!

The issue will not be one of the ISI sending militants into Afghanistan to fight, but that of public opinion being inflamed, especially in the Pashtun areas (Afghanistan and Pakistan), and to a lesser degree in the rest of Pakistan, that will possibly result in a significantly larger number of volunteers joining organizations fighting in Afghanistan.

These would all be people who would not be extremists, and have so far not fallen prey to the message of the Taliban and AQ - that would be a very negative development in the regional dynamics, and the ISI woudl have nothing to do with it.

actually you are incorrect. india is considered as a master of high altitude operations and US and UK have been sending troops regularly to india to train and study the techniques for operations in ladakh. also the russian delegation has come to study indian techniques in high altitude and winter warfare to incorporate necessary changes. a high altitude war fighting is way different from the technologically oriented plains fighting. here all advantage in terms of air supremacy etc are negated. also the experience of fighting an insurgent and militant without air and artillery coverage (gained by IA over 25 years now) is something that NATO lacks especially US.

I am not questioning how well trained the Indian troops are - I am pointing out that they have no actual combat experience in an environment like Afghanistan against a foe like that in Afghanistan. Yes they have CI experience in Kashmir, but that is nowhere close to the intensity we see in FATA and Afghanistan.

They may also have more cultural familiarity, but they will still be alien to the region, given its extremely conservative Islamic nature, and will be associated with the Americans - remember the Extremist catch phrase - 'Yahood -o Hunood ...' (the Jews and Hindus).

Therefore my point is that well trained Indian troops will only provide similar advantages that any othee well trained troop increase (regardless of nationality) would provide, except that the Indian deployment carries a significant risk of inflaming public sentiment in Afghanistan and Pakistan and increasing the intensity and volunteers for the insurgency.

the expansion of forces in arms in terms of Assam Rifles (reorganisation) and Rashtriya Rifles as also ITBP has allowed these units to be trained and equipped like a usual Infantry Unit and AR and RR are officered by regular army officers. As such it has allowed india to raise about 60 additional brigades of 3 units each. as such these forces may see deployement to bolster a comparatively small number of IA units IF AT ALL.

Could you provide links to validate the actual increase and capacity building of these forces?

If so, then the similar Pakistani plan to increase the size of the FC, as well as as capacity building, including training with US SOF's, may point to a matching effort on the Pakistani side. If the Pakistani program is successful, that frees up regular Army resources once again for the East. So the equation is back where we started.

 

[phoenix80]

Well, Bombay police does

oh they are meant for artillery support too bad they never trained for it though ....

by the ways I hear PA uses MG3 and H&K G3 rifles still? are you trying to battle it out for status of oldest weapon in battlefield?


just joking

 

[phoenix80]

Actually thre is strong evidence gov has, of Indian involvement in supporting Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan led by Baitullah-Mehsood and the miscreants in Balochistan .

And India got that billion dollar nuclear deal from US not just to fullfill its energy demands.
India also obtaining Patriot Missile defence system and long rang Reconisance boing Aircrafts for its navy not just to show off .
There are some extreem concerns not just in Pakistan but Also in Iran and China over recent US-Indian Deals
India buys P-8I Long-Range Maritime Reconnaissance (LRMR) Aircraft - Military Photos
Asia Times Online :: South Asia news - India's foray into Central Asia
http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/IndiaAbroadOCR2_October21,2005_2.pdf


You cant deny that Phoenix80

am sure you shall be able to appreciate the economic aspect of the expanding indian defence market as also the geopolitic realities ..... china and muslim fundamentalism needs to be checked and US has only India increasingly as a willing partner ..... never an ally though ... dont read too much into deals with US .... we shoot ourselves into our own feet ..... something Pakistan and India have very much in common .... our own biggest enemy we are ....... as also most are with end user conditions and verifications which we dont like and agree to adhere to .....although lately the french have offered complete TOT including the key generator for their Rafael and its new AESA radar which is a new development. in harsh economic times of today ..... india definitely has an edge as it expands its forces and upgrades equipment

as for evidence of teherik e taleban ... its purely a front that wants to get out of Pak control ..... why the hell will india train such elements for in the end they will fight india only ......

 

[phoenix80]

Agnostic kindly please bear with me. delete the post if you find it veering way off course.

regarding a direct confrontation, the fact that incase (and here the plans do exist) IA does enter Afghanistan, then there shall be no direct conflict, instead a campaign on lines of soviet invasion can be mounted again with, as you rightly pointed out, the massive amount of volunteers for the fight against IA in afghanistan, now being actively trained and armed by ISI and PA. Its the norm and its expected. It shall be a dream come true for PA and ISI. There is no doubt about it and one can not deny it. Given a chance, we would love to do the same to PA, its an honest assesment and a fact.

The experience I talk of, has intensity. The terrain we have emulated successfully in Ladakh and upper reaches of North Sikkim along Gobi Desert and plateau. They serve as indoctrination. Also on an average, the Indian army soldier is sensitive to religious sentiments, we have mixed units as you are well aware, with traditions of british raj continuing in having community based companies in infantry units with some being purely muslim, sikh, jat etc As for terrain, its a familiarisation, soldiers have to adapt to it. No ways out of that I agree. Will take time and some casualties but they will get around to it as basically it involves high alt fighting with CI mode. The basic difference being that now rules of engagement dont restrict employability of suppressive firepower in assymetrical environ.. In J&K we have specific rules that call upon us to wait before firing, so usually we are fired upon from behind women and children and we are unable to retaliate for fear of killing innocent civillians. This will not be so, as directives in Afghanistan will vary. We will take all necessary measures to eliminate threats to our own soldiers first and foremost, then civillians.

Actually I shall have to find links for exact composition of upgraded RR and AR and ITBP units. I am aware of the changes made in it PE (Peace Establishment) but am unsure if the same is available in any documented form online. Please bear with me. Shall get back asap

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agnostic kindly please bear with me. delete the post if you find it veering way off course.

regarding a direct confrontation, the fact that incase (and here the plans do exist) IA does enter Afghanistan, then there shall be no direct conflict, instead a campaign on lines of soviet invasion can be mounted again with, as you rightly pointed out, the massive amount of volunteers for the fight against IA in afghanistan, now being actively trained and armed by ISI and PA. Its the norm and its expected. It shall be a dream come true for PA and ISI. There is no doubt about it and one can not deny it. Given a chance, we would love to do the same to PA, its an honest assesment and a fact.

The PA/ISI is not currently training or supporting any militant groups active in Afghanistan, nor will it if India deploys, for the simple reason that the cooperation with the US, and the overall US control of the mission in Afghanistan would preclude it - See the DG ISI's statement on why the PA is not interested in shooting down US drones.

The increase in the intensity of the insurgency would all on its own, primarily due to inflamed sentiment from the Indian deployment, and the Taliban AQ have no shortage of funds or other resources through the drugs and smuggling trade to cater to the increased number of volunteers. The Indian deployment therefore carries more risks than benefits, since any other well trained force could provide the benefits of additional troops without the associated rise in 'recruitment numbers' for the insurgents/AQ.

The experience I talk of, has intensity. The terrain we have emulated successfully in Ladakh and upper reaches of North Sikkim along Gobi Desert and plateau. They serve as indoctrination. Also on an average, the Indian army soldier is sensitive to religious sentiments, we have mixed units as you are well aware, with traditions of british raj continuing in having community based companies in infantry units with some being purely muslim, sikh, jat etc As for terrain, its a familiarisation, soldiers have to adapt to it. No ways out of that I agree. Will take time and some casualties but they will get around to it as basically it involves high alt fighting with CI mode. The basic difference being that now rules of engagement dont restrict employability of suppressive firepower in assymetrical environ.. In J&K we have specific rules that call upon us to wait before firing, so usually we are fired upon from behind women and children and we are unable to retaliate for fear of killing innocent civillians. This will not be so, as directives in Afghanistan will vary. We will take all necessary measures to eliminate threats to our own soldiers first and foremost, then civillians.

What you refer to is once again training - which I have not contested - not actual combat experience in such an environment against such an enemy. I have to point out again that Kashmir insurgency, while high altitude, does not come close to the intensity and the environment faced in FATA and Afghanistan - in terms of 'native support', tactics, numbers and resources. No doubt the IA will adapt, but so will any other well trained military force.

Secondly, being well trained is not the sole domain of the IA, which is my point. The argument is being made that the IA provides some sort of qualitative advantage that is not available from other forces. Aside from perhaps being able to provide more troops than most other countries, the IA deployment does not offer any significant advantage.

Whatever advantage it does offer through 'cultural sensitivity' or 'cultural familiarity', is offset by the increased hostility and negativity in the people of the region IA deployment will bring about.

Additionally, regardless of cultural sensitivities, the fact is that the IA will be deploying in a deeply conservative Muslim region, will be considered a 'Hindu force', and will be associated with America and Israel. Ancient history, especially that associated with conquests and attempts to conquer, is still remembered here - and it does not paint a rosy picture for a perceived 'Hindu/Sikh' army being deployed in support of 'Zionists and Crusaders'.

I therefore see significantly more risks associated with the IA deployment, in terms of inflaming and destabilizing the region, without any intervention by the PA/ISI, than benefits.

 

[Anwar2]

Yeh thats a million dollar question!! Who will make better gun fodder in Afghanistan?!! Indian Army or Pakistan Army?
The world has indeed taken a full circle back to days of Colonial India! Just replace the Brits with the Americans .... the is no shortage of GHULAM IBN GHULAMS here!

 

[S-2]

"The PA/ISI is not currently training or supporting any militant groups active in Afghanistan..."

I'd like to think so but I'm uncertain if contact with Haqqani and Hekmatyar has entirely ceased. These would be the two oldest relationships of which I'm aware and may almost be institutionalized to some extent. Disengagement may not be overnight to anybody's satisfaction for any number of reasons- none of which I can imagine as justified- but there nonetheless.

"I therefore see significantly more risks associated with the IA deployment, in terms of inflaming and destabilizing the region, without any intervention by the PA/ISI, than benefits."

It's an interesting topic to Pakistanis but it's relevance is minimal. I think that you've highlighted sufficient concerns, whether they'd prove accurate or not, to carefully consider the benefits of an Indian deployment.

I suspect that this calculus has already long since been performed by all parties concerned with conclusions similar to those of yours reached. At least for now.

As I've said, the GoI is proceeding apace on a very visible and above-board program of civil aid that's difficult to argue given it's scope, need, and generosity. The self-interest is clear but commercial penetration of CAR is hardly an unrealistic objective of theirs.

Possessing very cordial relations with any GoA would seem a key and natural component of those objectives. In that regard, India is well on it's way with Afghanistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I'd like to think so but I'm uncertain if contact with Haqqani and Hekmatyar has entirely ceased. These would be the two oldest relationships of which I'm aware and may almost be institutionalized to some extent. Disengagement may not be overnight to anybody's satisfaction for any number of reasons- none of which I can imagine as justified- but there nonetheless.

No arguments from me that we continue to maintain contact with individuals/entities that were previously clients in Afghanistan. However, there is a difference between maintaining contacts, and actively supporting those former clients in fighting NATO.

I see the former, in fact the former is arguable the source of much distrust between the two sides, US and Pakistan, I do not see any of the latter.

I suspect that this calculus has already long since been performed by all parties concerned with conclusions similar to those of yours reached. At least for now.

I have to wonder if the 'stick' of inviting the IA into Afghanistan, even if the policy amounts to little more than a manifestation of the adage of 'cutting off ones nose to spite the enemy', has been used to nudge Pakistan towards greater action in Pakistan.

It is possibly similar to NATO plans exploring more expensive routes through the CAR's, Russia etc. - so long as transport through Pakistan remains feasible, most supplies will be trucked through our territory, despite those other options being available.

Similarly, while discussions with India on an IA deployment may continue, the idea behind an Indian deployment may be one of last resort, in the face of a completely hostile and uncooperative Pakistan.

As I've said, the GoI is proceeding apace on a very visible and above-board program of civil aid that's difficult to argue given it's scope, need, and generosity. The self-interest is clear but commercial penetration of CAR is hardly an unrealistic objective of theirs.

Possessing very cordial relations with any GoA would seem a key and natural component of those objectives. In that regard, India is well on it's way with Afghanistan.

Certainly the publicly visible components of Indian efforts in Afghanistan appear benign and primarily reconstruction or commercial based in nature, but then that wouldn't be the 'covert' Indian activity that Pakistan is concerned about.

In this context, the best possible option I see Pakistan adopting is one of reaching out to the GoA and its institutions, as we see Zardari and Gen. Pasha doing, and working to build a closer relationship that would inherently deny India (or the GoA) space in Afghanistan to stage covert action within Pakistan. The 500 million in aid, and enhancements in the inherent trade and cultural relationships being the main catalysts for such a relationship.

The insurgency in Baluchistan is largely controlled, though simmering, and Pakistan has been able to show that even extremely well armed and dug in Taliban have been unable to sustain themselves in the face of an organized assault by the Pakistani military. I would say that given these two factors, Pakistan can afford to tolerate any potential covert Indian activity till such time as we build a good enough relationship with the Afghans.

 

[S-2]

"I have to wonder if the 'stick' of inviting the IA into Afghanistan, even if the policy amounts to little more than a manifestation of the adage of 'cutting off ones nose to spite the enemy', has been used to nudge Pakistan towards greater action in Pakistan."

Not if Pakistan's analysis generated the same conclusions as India's and others that it would be "cutting off ones nose to spite the enemy." Implied by the comment is it's inherently counter-productive nature.

"It is possibly similar to NATO plans exploring more expensive routes through the CAR's, Russia etc. - so long as transport through Pakistan remains feasible, most supplies will be trucked through our territory, despite those other options being available."

I think it's different. NATO must be supplied through some route or routes. It's not as clear, as you've indicated, that Indian troops are absolutely indispensible-particularly given the friction that may accompany their deployment. A choice.

We've no choice with supplies. The more routes we acquire, regardless of stability on any given route, the better. Aside from security, building tonnage capacity over time gives us flexibility and potential for growth. This becomes particularly important should we contemplate having to feed 100,000 extra mouths somewhere in the undetermined future.

"Similarly, while discussions with India on an IA deployment may continue, the idea behind an Indian deployment may be one of last resort, in the face of a completely hostile and uncooperative Pakistan."

Exactly. The benefits exceed the risk at that point.

 

[BATMAN]

Why the US Will Scale Down Its Goals in Afghanistan

The Pentagon has made clear that the U.S. will leave Afghanistan when the ragtag Afghan security forces have been beefed up to the point at which they can keep the peace without help. "Significantly expanding [Afghanistan's national security forces] is, in fact, our exit strategy," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told U.S. troops in Kandahar last week. But that's a strategy that could leave U.S. forces in Afghanistan for quite some time to come. The economy of impoverished Afghanistan is unlikely, for the foreseeable future, to be able to sustain an army big enough to guarantee the country's security. And that's just one of several thorny issues likely to make success in Afghanistan harder to achieve than in Iraq — unless the U.S. scales back its ambitious goals for the country. Such a rethink may be in the cards, U.S. military officers say, as internal U.S. reviews and President-elect Barack Obama give the seven-year war a fresh look.

U.S. military officers are already making clear that many of the additional 20,000 U.S. troops bound for Afghanistan in the coming year won't be headed to the Afghan-Pakistani border, where the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies are launching regular and deadly attacks against U.S. and allied troops. Instead, they'll be concentrated on defending the capital, Kabul, from Taliban attacks and also on reinforcing British troops in Helmand and other parts of the south. That will do little to assuage the criticism that the limited U.S. and NATO deployments in Afghanistan have left Afghan President Hamid Karzai with little more real authority than the mayor of Kabul or alter the reality that the Taliban currently enjoy the momentum. (See pictures of Afghan police forces in training.)

The U.S. troop surge in Iraq may have helped restore relative security there, but the same period has seen a shocking deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan: the Taliban, which controlled 54% of Afghanistan in 2007, now controls about 72% of the country, according to a new study from the Paris-based International Council on Security and Development, one of the few independent groups that keeps full-time staffers in the country. That's why U.S. and civilian casualties have spiked in Afghanistan lately, after years of being eclipsed by the bloodshed in Iraq. There are currently about 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The U.S. scattered the Taliban in the invasion launched a month after the 9/11 attacks but then turned its attention and resources toward Iraq. "As seven years of missed opportunity have rolled by, the Taliban has rooted itself across increasing swaths of Afghan territory," the independent report says. "The increase in their geographic spread illustrates that the Taliban's political, military and economic strategies are now more successful than the West's in Afghanistan. Confident in their expansion beyond the rural south, the Taliban are at the gates of the capital and infiltrating the city at will."

U.S. military officers, speaking privately, concede that the bleak outlook in Afghanistan will probably prompt a scaling back of U.S. goals for the country. The desire to build a strong central government with a large army is likely to be de-emphasized in favor of a provincial structure that relies more on local militias to provide security. "There's a widespread belief in national-security circles that the Bush Administration's goals for Afghanistan were too ambitious," says Stephen Biddle, a military expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "If George W. Bush had served a third term, my guess is that he would be re-evaluating his aims too."

Biddle recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan at the invitation of Army General David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander. Biddle estimates that Afghanistan will need about 500,000 soldiers and police of its own to keep the peace, but U.S. plans call for a force level of about 215,000 (there are roughly 160,000 now). And although the international community will pay for the Afghan security forces while war continues, it won't do so afterward, he says.

Biddle says the military personnel he spoke with in Afghanistan didn't seem to have spent much time assessing how big an army Afghanistan could support. "It seemed like a new question to a lot of people," he says. "They hadn't spent time computing projected Afghan GDP and the likely percent of GDP they could spend on security and how many troops that would allow them to support." Biddle says that because Afghanistan can't support a unified force big enough to defend itself, provincial authorities and their militias will have to pick up the slack. "Going to a decentralized Afghan end state — with local authorities providing their own security — means the national government's security apparatus can be much smaller," Biddle says. The bad news, of course, is that many such provincial officials are little more than warlords, who often profit from trafficking in opium. The United Nations estimated last month that the Taliban and its allies — including some of those provincial officials — could clear nearly $500 million in the drug trade this year. If the U.S. and its allies need to find a way to bring home their troops while leaving behind a modicum of security, they may find themselves forced to settle for something less than a happy ending.

Short sightednes of policy makers.

 

[batmannow]

US Agency Hits Afghan War Missteps
January 08, 2009
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The United States and its partners have shortchanged Afghanistan by focusing on short-term goals pursued without a cohesive strategy or a clear understanding of the way the poor, decentralized country works, an independent study concludes.

The incoming Obama administration should refocus the U.S. war and rebuilding effort in Afghanistan and think of the project as the work of at least a decade, according to the report compiled by the United States Institute of Peace.

The assessment was set for release Thursday at a conference to be attended by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and Army Gen. David Petraeus, who is in charge of the Afghan and Iraq wars.

Petraeus' own review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is expected to be presented to Obama the week after he takes office Jan. 20. The plan would shift the focus from the waning fight in Iraq to the escalating Afghan battle.

President George W. Bush's in-house Iraq and Afghanistan adviser has already done a separate assessment; it has not been made public.

"The Bush administration has had all but eight months of its entire tenure to stabilize Afghanistan and here it is January and one of the top foreign policy priorities for the Obama administration is to stabilize Afghanistan," said J. Alexander Thier, an Afghan scholar at the institute.

Thier, the report's editor, does not place all blame with the Bush administration, which led an invasion of Afghanistan shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Other countries and international organizations have too often set unrealistic or shortsighted goals for a country unaccustomed to top-down government, he said.
The study includes essays by scholars in a range of fields.

The U.S. military is preparing to pour at least 20,000 extra troops into southern Afghanistan to cope with a Taliban insurgency that is fiercer than NATO leaders expected. The new troops will augment the 12,500 NATO soldiers - mainly British, Canadian and Dutch - in what amounts to an Afghan version of the surge in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the U.S. can expect to commit significant numbers of Soldiers there for several more years. Gates said he will not have to cut troop levels further in Iraq to free up at least two of those three brigades for Afghan duty.

When the additions are complete, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will climb to more than 50,000. Some 31,000 U.S. troops are there now.

Violence in Afghanistan has spiked in the past two years. Taliban militants now control wide swaths of countryside. Military officials say they have enough troops to win battles but not to hold territory, and they hope the influx of troops, plus the continued growth of the Afghan army, will change that.
In 2008, 151 U.S. troops died in Afghanistan, more than in any of the seven years since the invasion to oust the Taliban. U.S. officials warn violence will probably intensify next year.
The institute is an independent, nonpartisan institution established by Congress in 1984 to help prevent and resolve violent international conflicts, promote post-conflict stability and increase peacebuilding capacity.

 

[phoenix80]

US Agency Hits Afghan War Missteps
January 08, 2009
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The United States and its partners have shortchanged Afghanistan by focusing on short-term goals pursued without a cohesive strategy or a clear understanding of the way the poor, decentralized country works, an independent study concludes.

The incoming Obama administration should refocus the U.S. war and rebuilding effort in Afghanistan and think of the project as the work of at least a decade, according to the report compiled by the United States Institute of Peace.

The assessment was set for release Thursday at a conference to be attended by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and Army Gen. David Petraeus, who is in charge of the Afghan and Iraq wars.

Petraeus' own review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is expected to be presented to Obama the week after he takes office Jan. 20. The plan would shift the focus from the waning fight in Iraq to the escalating Afghan battle.

President George W. Bush's in-house Iraq and Afghanistan adviser has already done a separate assessment; it has not been made public.

"The Bush administration has had all but eight months of its entire tenure to stabilize Afghanistan and here it is January and one of the top foreign policy priorities for the Obama administration is to stabilize Afghanistan," said J. Alexander Thier, an Afghan scholar at the institute.

Thier, the report's editor, does not place all blame with the Bush administration, which led an invasion of Afghanistan shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Other countries and international organizations have too often set unrealistic or shortsighted goals for a country unaccustomed to top-down government, he said.
The study includes essays by scholars in a range of fields.

The U.S. military is preparing to pour at least 20,000 extra troops into southern Afghanistan to cope with a Taliban insurgency that is fiercer than NATO leaders expected. The new troops will augment the 12,500 NATO soldiers - mainly British, Canadian and Dutch - in what amounts to an Afghan version of the surge in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the U.S. can expect to commit significant numbers of Soldiers there for several more years. Gates said he will not have to cut troop levels further in Iraq to free up at least two of those three brigades for Afghan duty.

When the additions are complete, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will climb to more than 50,000. Some 31,000 U.S. troops are there now.

Violence in Afghanistan has spiked in the past two years. Taliban militants now control wide swaths of countryside. Military officials say they have enough troops to win battles but not to hold territory, and they hope the influx of troops, plus the continued growth of the Afghan army, will change that.
In 2008, 151 U.S. troops died in Afghanistan, more than in any of the seven years since the invasion to oust the Taliban. U.S. officials warn violence will probably intensify next year.
The institute is an independent, nonpartisan institution established by Congress in 1984 to help prevent and resolve violent international conflicts, promote post-conflict stability and increase peacebuilding capacity.

Batman

actually contrary to popular belief, there is a higher than ever probability of more troops being inducted into afghanistan by the new obama administration. obama has taken a stand on this issue and has infact termed pakistan as being a safe haven for terrorism and it with afghanistan as epicenter of terror echoing Indian views

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need

Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan - washingtonpost.com

Barack Obama: U.S. presidential election, 2008/al Qaeda, the Taliban and Pakistan - Congresspedia


the hardline policy to be followed by US over the next few years was further strengthened by appointment of Hilary Clinton as Secretary Of State in the new administration ......


agonistic have not been able to find any online version for the PE for RR and AR units .... will try and prepare a document and post it as soon as I can ....... maybe of use and help especially since this reorganistaion has shown effectiveness in local CI grid as also increasing the logistical base and troops for additional troops without increasing present troop levels (and creating an internationla outcry) and placing burden on MoD. God knows MoD rarely works without having additional work on its shoulders

 

[waraich66]

US Agency Hits Afghan War Missteps
January 08, 2009
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The United States and its partners have shortchanged Afghanistan by focusing on short-term goals pursued without a cohesive strategy or a clear understanding of the way the poor, decentralized country works, an independent study concludes.

The incoming Obama administration should refocus the U.S. war and rebuilding effort in Afghanistan and think of the project as the work of at least a decade, according to the report compiled by the United States Institute of Peace.

The assessment was set for release Thursday at a conference to be attended by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and Army Gen. David Petraeus, who is in charge of the Afghan and Iraq wars.

Petraeus' own review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is expected to be presented to Obama the week after he takes office Jan. 20. The plan would shift the focus from the waning fight in Iraq to the escalating Afghan battle.

President George W. Bush's in-house Iraq and Afghanistan adviser has already done a separate assessment; it has not been made public.

"The Bush administration has had all but eight months of its entire tenure to stabilize Afghanistan and here it is January and one of the top foreign policy priorities for the Obama administration is to stabilize Afghanistan," said J. Alexander Thier, an Afghan scholar at the institute.

Thier, the report's editor, does not place all blame with the Bush administration, which led an invasion of Afghanistan shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Other countries and international organizations have too often set unrealistic or shortsighted goals for a country unaccustomed to top-down government, he said.
The study includes essays by scholars in a range of fields.

The U.S. military is preparing to pour at least 20,000 extra troops into southern Afghanistan to cope with a Taliban insurgency that is fiercer than NATO leaders expected. The new troops will augment the 12,500 NATO soldiers - mainly British, Canadian and Dutch - in what amounts to an Afghan version of the surge in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the U.S. can expect to commit significant numbers of Soldiers there for several more years. Gates said he will not have to cut troop levels further in Iraq to free up at least two of those three brigades for Afghan duty.

When the additions are complete, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will climb to more than 50,000. Some 31,000 U.S. troops are there now.

Violence in Afghanistan has spiked in the past two years. Taliban militants now control wide swaths of countryside. Military officials say they have enough troops to win battles but not to hold territory, and they hope the influx of troops, plus the continued growth of the Afghan army, will change that.
In 2008, 151 U.S. troops died in Afghanistan, more than in any of the seven years since the invasion to oust the Taliban. U.S. officials warn violence will probably intensify next year.
The institute is an independent, nonpartisan institution established by Congress in 1984 to help prevent and resolve violent international conflicts, promote post-conflict stability and increase peacebuilding capacity.

Very Strange after seven years now US army think tank is blaming that root cause of failure is due to less number of soilders .
Still they are not painting the true picture or could not understand the chellanges of this war.
The bigest chellenges are the faith and unity in all waring faction and evironmental condition providing them favour for continue struggle for longer period.These talaban have roots in general public ,NATO and Afghan Gov. could not break this bond uptill now ,let see how new US startegy suceed when supply line of NATO is almost blocked by Pakistani talaban and NATO concluded that this war could not be won.

India have few fighting batallian like gorghas,jat and sikhs but already deployed on strategic location siachen,kashmir and china boarder ,they will not take risk to lose these fronts ,if there is war in western borders.

 

[TopCat]

Indian should emigrate all its BSF to Afganistan (They are of no use anyways).. and recruite new ones.. Bangladesh could provide them with some training.. if at all required...

 

[waraich66]

Indian should emigrate all its BSF to Afganistan (They are of no use anyways).. and recruite new ones.. Bangladesh could provide them with some training.. if at all required...

Very funny ,Britsh army recruit soilders from only 12 families of india for fighting forces see wekkipedia ,yes cooks employed from bangaladesh for british army,US need fighting personels not cooks buddy