India to send 150,000 troops for anti-Pakistan operations
- Thread starter Neo
- Start date
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
well here people discuss sh.its for more than 5 pages whereas this is something seriouse to Pakistan if not to Indians and your beloved supporters 
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
do you seriously believe India will transport the said quantity of soldiers? how do you propose to transport such a huge contignent along with supplies and assorted tosh? using Fairy dust??
dont get mad man. in My book nothing is impossible.
Besides even if not the said number of soldiers, half of or even 50,000 is also a cause of concern for Pakistan.
This area is not something about which you can shrug your shoulders and say its a routine matter.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Yes you will be concerned. Its only that you not yet had heard such kind of thing about Pakistan nor there is any such plan. I bet if tommorrow there is any such news all the Indians and their media and politicians will defintly get alarmed it would not matter whether the condition the respective countries was favorable or not.
Its a big game and in big game everyone needs to keep their minds and eyes open.
Even if there is nothing like that on grounds but the concerned countries should not be obliviouse of any such plan any time and the future engagments.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Taliban wake-up call for India
By M K Bhadrakumar
For the bulk of the Indian strategic community, the unthinkable is happening - the prospect of an Afghan settlement involving the Taliban is increasing.
A sensational expose by an investigative journalist, based on highly sensitive cable traffic last month between the French Embassy in Kabul and Quai d'Orsay in Paris, has thrown light on the Afghan war. For India, it is especially helpful in spotting the war, otherwise hidden behind the global banking meltdown and the India-United States civilian nuclear deal.
Claude Angeli, veteran journalist of Le Canard Enchaine, got hold of a copy of a coded cable by the French deputy chief of mission in Kabul, Francois Fitou, based on a briefing by the heavyweight British diplomat, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, who serves as ambassador to Afghanistan. What Sir Sherard told Fitou in confidence is worth recalling:
"The current situation [in Afghanistan] is bad; the security situation is getting worse; so is corruption and the government [of President Hamid Karzai] has lost all trust."
"The foreign forces are ensuring the survival of a regime which would collapse without them ... They are slowing down and complicating an eventual exit from the crisis, which will probably be dramatic."
"We [NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies] should tell them [United States] that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one. In the short term, we should dissuade the American presidential candidates from getting more bogged down in Afghanistan ... The American strategy is doomed to fail."
Britain aimed to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan by 2010.
The only realistic outlook for Afghanistan would be the installation of "an acceptable dictator" and the public opinion should be primed for this.
For the bulk of the Indian strategic community, the unthinkable is happening - the prospect of an Afghan settlement involving the Taliban. From all accounts, the Taliban appear edging closer to the Afghan capital and tightening their control in the provinces ringing Kabul.
Unsurprisingly, Karzai has appealed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to mediate with the Taliban. To request the Saudi king to stake his prestige is serious business. Karzai couldn't have acted alone. Alongside there are reports that the British intelligence has been talking to Taliban envoys in London.
The influential Asharq al-Awsat newspaper reported that senior Taliban functionaries who travelled to Saudi Arabia in the recent days have put forward 11 conditions, which include the withdrawal of foreign forces, political accommodation of the Taliban in key ministries and the drawing up of a new constitution that affirms Afghanistan as an Islamic state.
Indian policymakers, who have been bogged down in the labyrinthine passage of the Indo-US nuclear deal, need to take note that the ground is dramatically shifting. Regional security is set to transform. Several factors call for reckoning. First, there is cause to worry about Washington's attention span in the period ahead to press ahead with the Afghan war.
The big issue in America is the bailout of the economy. As well-known columnist Alexander Cockburn summed up, the Americans are indifferent to whether vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is capable of waging a nuclear war or frying "Afghan terrorists". Their sole concern today is that in the political tier in Washington, they have someone "who sounds somewhat like a human being with the same concerns as them, starting with the fear that their local bank will lock its doors in the morning".
That is truly an extraordinary recalibration of national priorities for a world power. Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, during their debate on September 26, paid lip service to Afghanistan but were preoccupied with the new priorities. Both took the easy way out, agreeing that they would take troops out of Iraq and put them in the Hindu Kush. But is it that simple? Surely, there is a vague sense of bipartisan enthusiasm in the US for an Afghan "surge". The new US commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, says he could do with three additional brigades to the one promised by the Pentagon, which will add at least 15,000 troops to the current 35,000.
But the total allied force level in Afghanistan stands at just above 70,000, including the US troops. The NATO allies are reluctant to commit more troops. After much US persuasion, French President Nicolas Sarkozy chose to be helpful, adding a measly 100 troops to the French contingent, while opinion polls show that two out of every three French citizens disapprove of the war. The outgoing NATO commander estimated that 400,000 troops were needed to defeat the Taliban. An optimal troop level is impossible to be met. The US and its NATO allies simply do not have the capacity to deploy the troops necessary to force a military settlement or to pacify and occupy Afghanistan.
Even with additional troops, to quote the new head of the US Central Command, David Petraeus, "wresting control of certain areas from the Taliban will be very difficult".
Petraeus' approach is to repeat his tactic in Iraq, to bribe the Pashtun tribesmen and to turn them against the pro-Taliban groups - in other words, hire Pashtun mercenaries to fight the war. Given the Pashtun character and tribal ethos, the strong likelihood is that the tribal belt will become anarchic and the war will spread to Pakistan. Its effect on Pakistan will be catastrophic, but the expansion of the war is unlikely to stem the tide within Afghanistan, which has gone badly wrong for Western forces.
The Taliban today operate in virtually every Afghan province. They have the capacity to mount sustained offensives. It has created a parallel government structure. Pamela Constable, correspondent of The Washington Post and old hand on the South Asia beat, wrote recently: "In many districts a short drive from the capital, some of them considered safe even six months ago, residents and officials said the Taliban now control roads and villages, patrolling in trucks and recruiting new fighters."
Meanwhile, a new dimension has appeared. The incoming US administration in January may not consider doubling down in Afghanistan as an option at a time when its attention is riveted on putting together a rescue package for the American economy. How would this scenario play out in the tangled Afghan mountains - precisely, how would the protagonists of the Afghan resistance view Washington's difficulty in financially sustaining the open-ended war effort?
'Deep, rich chuckle'
Irrepressible British columnist Neil Lyndon obviously made a point when he wrote last week: "Whenever the wind stops howling over the mountains of Tora Bora, a deep, rich chuckle can presumably be heard echoing down the valleys. If he is still alive, nobody will be enjoying the plight of America more than Osama bin Laden. The anarchic carnage in the American financial and political system brings in sight a humiliating withdrawal and defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq. It even raises the possibility of the final collapse of the evil empire which Osama forecast."
Gloomy, but entirely plausible. A perception is growing that with the US government taking responsibility for $5 trillion in liabilities in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and under compulsion to pledge billions to support the financial system, there is bound to be difficulty in bearing the combined cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the US Congressional Budget Office estimated could total $2.4 trillion over the coming decade. No wonder, a feeling is gaining ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan that it is a matter of time before Washington makes a deal with the Taliban for a coalition government.
The interplay of these various factors will accelerate as Afghanistan gears up for the presidential election in 2009. The election year will be highly divisive. There is a challenge to Karzai from other Afghan groups. His political base in the Pashtun areas remains fragile. The US and its allies are yet to decide whether Karzai is their best choice to hold the reins of power for another five years. Britain, in particular, has had public spats with Karzai. The failure of the war is blamed on him.
But the failure of the war is not personal. A US-style presidential system does not suit Afghanistan. The country needs a decentralized system of power-sharing and a constant search for intra-Afghan compromise. Most certainly, it means bringing the Taliban into the political process. The cardinal mistake has been that the Taliban movement is entirely conflated with al-Qaeda, whereas, to quote Tariq Ali, "If NATO and the US were to leave Afghanistan, their [the Taliban's] political evolution would most likely parallel that of Pakistan's domesticated Islamists."
Tariq Ali didn't mention Maulana Fazlur Rahman, but New Delhi knows how farcical it would be to remain in the grip of paroxysms of nervousness about the redoubtable Islamist leader. India's apprehensions withered away once the Maulana, variously described as the "Father of the Taliban", began visiting India. Equally, India needs to do some "out-of-the-box" thinking about the Taliban.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
By M K Bhadrakumar
For the bulk of the Indian strategic community, the unthinkable is happening - the prospect of an Afghan settlement involving the Taliban is increasing.
A sensational expose by an investigative journalist, based on highly sensitive cable traffic last month between the French Embassy in Kabul and Quai d'Orsay in Paris, has thrown light on the Afghan war. For India, it is especially helpful in spotting the war, otherwise hidden behind the global banking meltdown and the India-United States civilian nuclear deal.
Claude Angeli, veteran journalist of Le Canard Enchaine, got hold of a copy of a coded cable by the French deputy chief of mission in Kabul, Francois Fitou, based on a briefing by the heavyweight British diplomat, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, who serves as ambassador to Afghanistan. What Sir Sherard told Fitou in confidence is worth recalling:
"The current situation [in Afghanistan] is bad; the security situation is getting worse; so is corruption and the government [of President Hamid Karzai] has lost all trust."
"The foreign forces are ensuring the survival of a regime which would collapse without them ... They are slowing down and complicating an eventual exit from the crisis, which will probably be dramatic."
"We [NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies] should tell them [United States] that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one. In the short term, we should dissuade the American presidential candidates from getting more bogged down in Afghanistan ... The American strategy is doomed to fail."
Britain aimed to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan by 2010.
The only realistic outlook for Afghanistan would be the installation of "an acceptable dictator" and the public opinion should be primed for this.
For the bulk of the Indian strategic community, the unthinkable is happening - the prospect of an Afghan settlement involving the Taliban. From all accounts, the Taliban appear edging closer to the Afghan capital and tightening their control in the provinces ringing Kabul.
Unsurprisingly, Karzai has appealed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to mediate with the Taliban. To request the Saudi king to stake his prestige is serious business. Karzai couldn't have acted alone. Alongside there are reports that the British intelligence has been talking to Taliban envoys in London.
The influential Asharq al-Awsat newspaper reported that senior Taliban functionaries who travelled to Saudi Arabia in the recent days have put forward 11 conditions, which include the withdrawal of foreign forces, political accommodation of the Taliban in key ministries and the drawing up of a new constitution that affirms Afghanistan as an Islamic state.
Indian policymakers, who have been bogged down in the labyrinthine passage of the Indo-US nuclear deal, need to take note that the ground is dramatically shifting. Regional security is set to transform. Several factors call for reckoning. First, there is cause to worry about Washington's attention span in the period ahead to press ahead with the Afghan war.
The big issue in America is the bailout of the economy. As well-known columnist Alexander Cockburn summed up, the Americans are indifferent to whether vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is capable of waging a nuclear war or frying "Afghan terrorists". Their sole concern today is that in the political tier in Washington, they have someone "who sounds somewhat like a human being with the same concerns as them, starting with the fear that their local bank will lock its doors in the morning".
That is truly an extraordinary recalibration of national priorities for a world power. Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, during their debate on September 26, paid lip service to Afghanistan but were preoccupied with the new priorities. Both took the easy way out, agreeing that they would take troops out of Iraq and put them in the Hindu Kush. But is it that simple? Surely, there is a vague sense of bipartisan enthusiasm in the US for an Afghan "surge". The new US commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, says he could do with three additional brigades to the one promised by the Pentagon, which will add at least 15,000 troops to the current 35,000.
But the total allied force level in Afghanistan stands at just above 70,000, including the US troops. The NATO allies are reluctant to commit more troops. After much US persuasion, French President Nicolas Sarkozy chose to be helpful, adding a measly 100 troops to the French contingent, while opinion polls show that two out of every three French citizens disapprove of the war. The outgoing NATO commander estimated that 400,000 troops were needed to defeat the Taliban. An optimal troop level is impossible to be met. The US and its NATO allies simply do not have the capacity to deploy the troops necessary to force a military settlement or to pacify and occupy Afghanistan.
Even with additional troops, to quote the new head of the US Central Command, David Petraeus, "wresting control of certain areas from the Taliban will be very difficult".
Petraeus' approach is to repeat his tactic in Iraq, to bribe the Pashtun tribesmen and to turn them against the pro-Taliban groups - in other words, hire Pashtun mercenaries to fight the war. Given the Pashtun character and tribal ethos, the strong likelihood is that the tribal belt will become anarchic and the war will spread to Pakistan. Its effect on Pakistan will be catastrophic, but the expansion of the war is unlikely to stem the tide within Afghanistan, which has gone badly wrong for Western forces.
The Taliban today operate in virtually every Afghan province. They have the capacity to mount sustained offensives. It has created a parallel government structure. Pamela Constable, correspondent of The Washington Post and old hand on the South Asia beat, wrote recently: "In many districts a short drive from the capital, some of them considered safe even six months ago, residents and officials said the Taliban now control roads and villages, patrolling in trucks and recruiting new fighters."
Meanwhile, a new dimension has appeared. The incoming US administration in January may not consider doubling down in Afghanistan as an option at a time when its attention is riveted on putting together a rescue package for the American economy. How would this scenario play out in the tangled Afghan mountains - precisely, how would the protagonists of the Afghan resistance view Washington's difficulty in financially sustaining the open-ended war effort?
'Deep, rich chuckle'
Irrepressible British columnist Neil Lyndon obviously made a point when he wrote last week: "Whenever the wind stops howling over the mountains of Tora Bora, a deep, rich chuckle can presumably be heard echoing down the valleys. If he is still alive, nobody will be enjoying the plight of America more than Osama bin Laden. The anarchic carnage in the American financial and political system brings in sight a humiliating withdrawal and defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq. It even raises the possibility of the final collapse of the evil empire which Osama forecast."
Gloomy, but entirely plausible. A perception is growing that with the US government taking responsibility for $5 trillion in liabilities in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and under compulsion to pledge billions to support the financial system, there is bound to be difficulty in bearing the combined cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the US Congressional Budget Office estimated could total $2.4 trillion over the coming decade. No wonder, a feeling is gaining ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan that it is a matter of time before Washington makes a deal with the Taliban for a coalition government.
The interplay of these various factors will accelerate as Afghanistan gears up for the presidential election in 2009. The election year will be highly divisive. There is a challenge to Karzai from other Afghan groups. His political base in the Pashtun areas remains fragile. The US and its allies are yet to decide whether Karzai is their best choice to hold the reins of power for another five years. Britain, in particular, has had public spats with Karzai. The failure of the war is blamed on him.
But the failure of the war is not personal. A US-style presidential system does not suit Afghanistan. The country needs a decentralized system of power-sharing and a constant search for intra-Afghan compromise. Most certainly, it means bringing the Taliban into the political process. The cardinal mistake has been that the Taliban movement is entirely conflated with al-Qaeda, whereas, to quote Tariq Ali, "If NATO and the US were to leave Afghanistan, their [the Taliban's] political evolution would most likely parallel that of Pakistan's domesticated Islamists."
Tariq Ali didn't mention Maulana Fazlur Rahman, but New Delhi knows how farcical it would be to remain in the grip of paroxysms of nervousness about the redoubtable Islamist leader. India's apprehensions withered away once the Maulana, variously described as the "Father of the Taliban", began visiting India. Equally, India needs to do some "out-of-the-box" thinking about the Taliban.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
1. So once again India is much worried about representation to the majoirty the Pashtuns (in terms of bringing Taliban onboard) in the wake of economic crisis US is facing today.
2. When Pakistan was saying the same thing since long that the government system forced upon Afghans by US was not suitble for them sans bringing all the players into the folds of the government, Indians used to starte spreading propaganda against it.
What happens now ???
3. SO now Indians are advocating that they should think of out-of-box relations with Taliban but when Pakistan was doing so India was on top of her toes to shout that we are dealing with terrorists.
So now when India starts dealing with the Taliban would it be that India is dealing with the same terrorists whome she accused Pakistan of having ties.
But the laughable things is that at the same time Mr Bahadur Kumar stressed upon dealing with Taliban by India but on the other hand he has expressed the typical Indian fear and phobia if Pakistan goes for the same.
Means if Taliban are with India its all good and nice but if they are with Pakistan its a sleepless night for India.
indiapakistanfriendship
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 587
- Reaction score
- 0
So that means we should stop attempting to potect our citizens ....
True .... One underlying interest is it does not turn out into a terrorist training camp and have xenophobes return to government.
They are Indian citizens and India promised her full protection before sending them to Afghanistan...
When did Chinese become fools...
In the same page please don't tell me you propped up Mullah Omar out of your love for Afghanis
IPF
PakistanFront
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, India always has dreams to act as an international player. So it is getting one good chance, here. No one should assume that India will deny such a good chance. Although, they are very well aware with what will be happening next to them. India is always ready to make stupid mistakes.
If that is the condition of the India-US nuclear deal. Then, remember my words, India will be paying a very heavy cost of this move.
Pakistan is not afraid with such moves. Pakistan's roots and influence could never be eliminated from Afghanistan. However, the fools are free to dream...
If that is the condition of the India-US nuclear deal. Then, remember my words, India will be paying a very heavy cost of this move.
Pakistan is not afraid with such moves. Pakistan's roots and influence could never be eliminated from Afghanistan. However, the fools are free to dream...
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
You have citizens in Algeria too. Why dont you send troops to protect them??
You have people in Congo too why dont you send your troops to protect them too??
So my dear we should accept this is not the matter of protection. If at all its the matter of protection why not to deploy Indian soldiers in almost all the troubled areas of India where Indian citizens are at risk.
You mean sending troops for protection of one's workers and citizens is foolishness???
We never resorted to false claims. It was all strategic moves by everyone including us .
PakistanFront
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 0
drosan said:
no jana. im a die hard follower of gandhi. i believe if someone BS's you then you should BS back at them
So gandhi remained naked throughout his life because he knew that not only now a days, but also in the next 100 years, my nation will remain poor, sleep under open air and without food and keep burning each others in trains, churches, homes and shops etc etc?
check out rupeenews.com. They have article on gandhi, saying something about his sex life.
no jana. im a die hard follower of gandhi. i believe if someone BS's you then you should BS back at them
So gandhi remained naked throughout his life because he knew that not only now a days, but also in the next 100 years, my nation will remain poor, sleep under open air and without food and keep burning each others in trains, churches, homes and shops etc etc?
check out rupeenews.com. They have article on gandhi, saying something about his sex life.
PakistanFront
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 0
jana said:
Kasrkin the CIA is desperate to call the Indain troops for taking part in terror training against Pakistan specialy in FATA areas and Balochistan otherwise Indian army is not having balls to fight in Afghanistan.
Indian Army chief had been advocating sending Indian troops to Afghanistan saying "We need to proect our assests (read RAW activities and agents) in Afghanistan/region"
And it was decided that by october 2009, about 150,000 Indian army will be deployed at all the Indian consulates (terror training camps) in Afghanistan.
And what about the financial matters? Is India ready to bear the cost of its troops by itself. Or will be invoicing USA?
Kasrkin the CIA is desperate to call the Indain troops for taking part in terror training against Pakistan specialy in FATA areas and Balochistan otherwise Indian army is not having balls to fight in Afghanistan.
Indian Army chief had been advocating sending Indian troops to Afghanistan saying "We need to proect our assests (read RAW activities and agents) in Afghanistan/region"
And it was decided that by october 2009, about 150,000 Indian army will be deployed at all the Indian consulates (terror training camps) in Afghanistan.
And what about the financial matters? Is India ready to bear the cost of its troops by itself. Or will be invoicing USA?
But, please don't forget that Mohaman Singh said Indians LOVE George Bush.
And you know what a lover will do for the other party.
asaad-ul-islam
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,141
- Reaction score
- 0
I highly doubt the contents of this article, india would not and need not send 150,000 of its troops to afghanistan.
can anyone provide concrete proof of this claim? I'm hoping there would be some open agreement with karzai and singh?
oh yeah, and guys there's no need to go overboard with paranoia.
can anyone provide concrete proof of this claim? I'm hoping there would be some open agreement with karzai and singh?
oh yeah, and guys there's no need to go overboard with paranoia.
Similar threads
