Skip to comments.Will India join NATO’s war in Afghanistan?
Posted on 01/30/2012 8:56:02 AM PST by MBT ARJUN
While U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Pakistani counterpart, Hina Rabbani Khar, attempt to normalize relations between the countries after the recent American drone strikes in Pakistan, the question has arisen as to how India can become an integral member of the multi-party Afghan equation, where U.S. and NATO stakes are still very high. What does the question entail? he Pakistani transit routes for NATO convoys that supply military cargo to Afghanistan have been closed for two months (after an erroneous attack by a NATO aircraft on a Pakistani army checkpoint in the Pakistani-Afghan border region in November last year V.S.). There is no end in sight, and everything depends on the expected reset of US-Pakistani relations. At the same time, Washington and Brussels boldly insist that NATO has alternative means of cargo delivery and that Pakistan is backing itself into a corner. But the events of the past two months, since the so-called southern route for NATO cargo stopped operating, demonstrate that NATO feels a painful prick for its successful activity in Afghanistan.
According to American news agency the Associated Press, the cost of transporting NATO goods may have increased by 512% following the closure of the Pakistani route. The monthly cost of transportation today is up to $115 million (along the so-called northern route), versus $17 million if using the transit route through Pakistan. In addition, there is both a political risk and political cost. Washington should seek support from Russia for increased use of the northern route to deliver NATO cargo. But with the current state of Russian-American relations with Moscow directly opposing the Obama administrations commitment to regime change in Syria and Iran, and also given the differences over the U.S. missile defense system (Moscow still does not agree with U.S. plans to build missile defense systems in Europe and believes they are directed against Russia) its not that simple.
So what are Washingtons options in this situation? In our opinion, it would, of course, be preferable for the U.S. if Pakistan reopened the transit route for NATO convoys through its territory in the near future; however, this still seems to be a distant deed, in view of new strikes by U.S. drones on Pakistani territory which, as the Pakistani military commented emotionally, As before, violates Pakistans sovereignty. Thats why the question has arisen of Indias attractiveness for Washington in engaging alternative routes. If you take the word of American commentators, this question has come up recently.
According to Luis Martinez, military commentator for the channel ABC, American officials claim that much of the added cost of transporting NATO cargo comes out of rerouting cargo originally intended for Pakistans territory, and it is currently arriving by ship in other countries in the region for subsequent air transport to Afghanistan. For example, there is the added cost of moving some types of cargo from Pakistani ports to Indian ones, from which the goods are transported by air to Afghanistan, or transporting them further north on freight trains for subsequent transport along one of the northern way routes.
With all this, were experiencing déjà vu. When in 2001, U.S. forces entered Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban regime, New Delhi zestfully offered its services as a U.S. partner in the antiterrorist coalition. As former Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf said, the momentous offer from the Indians only spurred him to cooperate with the U.S. in Washingtons fight in Afghanistan (Islamabad could not allow their eternal antagonist to surpass them in cooperating with the U.S. V.S.).
Curiously, in 2001, Washington politely declined the Indian offer, because it believed that a partnership with Pakistan would be more valuable in Afghanistan. Today, in order to force Pakistan to resume its role as a partner of the U.S., Washington seems to have knocked on Indias door. And New Delhi has opened its doors, ignoring the fact that its proposal was rejected in 2001. So in our opinion, there is a big game happening in the region, with the U.S., India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other players that have been drawn in. The cost of winning in this game is the further strengthening of a strategic partnership between Washington and New Delhi, but above all pressure on Islamabad to take steps to change its position in relation to the U.S., and to once again become a valuable strategic ally.
Its noteworthy that the U.S. could use an Indian route to transport sensitive military equipment. Whatever the case, if India is in fact seen as a transit point for military supplies to Afghanistan, this will be the first time that New Delhi will do big business with the Atlantic community. Many Indian analysts say this would be a historical turning point in the politics of Indias cooperation with the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan (New Delhis current cooperation with Kabul doesnt count V.S.).
So India seems to be using the current crisis in U.S.-Pakistani relations to their own advantage. And this time, New Delhi is acting very pragmaticallyit waited until Washington came to them with requests, and the Indian leadership will have another chip in bargaining with Pakistan. We can only speculate about where the Indian-Pakistani-American triangle will go with the high cost of resolving the Afghan crisis. But some things can be predicted already. The first is that the government of President Asif Ali Zardari in Pakistan (with his current precarious position in the country) wishes to make concessions to Washington and, despite everything, will reopen the transit route for NATO cargo to Afghanistan via Pakistan. The Pakistani military, most of which is currently sharply opposed to amplifying Indias role in Afghan affairs, will support this. They will even put aside their strong dissatisfaction with both U.S. policy and the policy of the civilian administration in Pakistan. The second, and in our view less likely thing, is that the thaw begun in Pakistani-Indian relations will stop because, once again, for the Pakistani military, above all else, India is the main threat. But this is unlikely because Washington, playing on the Pakistani-Indian controversies to solve their own problems, is simultaneously pushing Pakistan to defuse its relations with India to ensure the support of both New Delhi and Islamabad in resolving the Afghan crisis and creating the most favorable conditions for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. So Washington is playing high stakes in the region, but both India and Pakistan are playing the game along with them. After all, a situation may arise, purely hypothetically, where India offers its services to the U.S. in the latest peace talks with the Taliban involving, say, the Northern Alliance, with which New Delhi has long been developing a trusting relationship. But that falls within the domain of bold political predictions.
That would be great. They could accidently lose some bombs over Islamabad on their way to Afghanistan. That wouldn’t piss too many people off.
Pakistan would freak if India started to deploy troops to Afghanistan. However I’m not sure that freaking Pakistan out would be a bad thing. The Pakistani intelligence service has gotten very full of itself. Might be nice to see them sweat a bit.
I wish they would. India is a republic and has a lot more in common with us than with China or Russia...yet we constantly push them that way because of our ties with Pakistan.
India is a much more natural ally and counterbalance in that part of the world and I wish we woulld get vey close to them economically and with military exercises and equipment.
Some of that is already starting, but we need a lot more.
One thing is for sure, India will not tolerate a fundamental Islamic government in Pakistan with nukes.
Not only freak but shit out in her pants if RR AKA Rastriya rifles(National Guards) lands at afganistan (One of the most reputed counter insurgency and battle hardened guys in World ,even Nato and US Forces never forget to take some valuable tips . They virtualy wiped out Islamic militancy from Kashmir )
Some kick a$s pics of these guyss...
< i mg s r c = “i40.tinypic.com/2w3cr3c.jpg “ a l t = “ RR” w i d t h = “ 800 “ h e i g h t = “ 600 “ / >
< i mg s r c = “img359.imageshack.us/img359/4422/37rm1.jpg “ a l t = “RR “ w i d th = “ 3 0 4 “ h e i g h t = “ 2 2 8 “ / >
< i mg s r c = “ img11.imageshack.us/img11/6505/tavor1.jpg “ a l t = “ P u l p i t r o c k “ w i d t h = “ 800 “ h e i g h t = “ 600 “ / >
< i mg s r c = “ cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08OS0aa29lcrk/610x.jpg “ a l t = “ P u l p i t r o c k “ w i d t h = “ 800 “ h e i g h t = “ 600 “ / >
< i mg s r c = “ img856.imageshack.us/img856/9572/28120991.jpg “ a l t = “ P u l p i t r o c k “ w i d t h = “ 800 “ h e i g h t = “ 600 “ / >
I need a map. Can’t remember if India borders Afghanistan or not.
While I am all in favor of two or three divisions of Indian soldiers getting good training in Afghanistan, the logistics of doing so are impossible. Afghanistan has no border that is accessible, and the US has to go to extremes just to support our own forces there.
Short answer is IRAN ,India all weather Friend .
Long answer is The Islamic Republic of Iran ,CIS country to support logistic.Being a soft power pays sometime.
India know how to dea withl pakis at home and outside ,no need to War cry.
Can someone posts images,which i posted above.
With warm regards.
Can someone posts images,which i posted above.
With warm regards.