At that point, cool heads in New Delhi probably will see that India’s rapid move into Afghanistan was based on the wrong but understandable conclusion that Washington meant to defeat its 9/11 attackers. Undone by US-NATO fecklessness, they will also see that what once was a glittering economic and diplomatic opportunity has been transformed into a potentially war-causing question of national honor, willpower and prestige.
If India leaves Afghanistan, there’s no way to avoid having the Taliban, Pakistan and all the Muslim world perceive the common-sense Indian departure as anything but a victory for Islam over Allah’s polytheist enemies. Unavoidably, India’s Afghan withdrawal will be seen as a triumph for Pakistan that restores its strategic depth; as an act that puts a huge dent in New Delhi’s oft-stated ambition to be a regional superpower; as a signal to India’s growing Islamist militant movement and its foreign backers that Hindu power is not invincible; and, by Beijing, as a sign of India’s lack of resolve at a time of rising Indo-Chinese tensions.
It’s nice to think that when this no-win situation becomes clear, New Delhi and its generals will have the thick-skin and toughness to decide the Afghan game is not worth the candle. (And that their counterparts in Islamabad are adult enough to forego public gloating.) For New Delhi, realism dictates that a major military effort in Afghanistan is not sustainable, and that it isn’t worth introducing the massive Indian force needed to try to protect India’s Afghan investment only to fail and perhaps set in motion events that could potentially lead to a nuclear confrontation with Pakistan.
Sadly, few governments in history have ever had the courage to get out of quagmires while the going was good. The US surged in Iraq and Afghanistan and still lost both wars, for example, and Russia is now losing its second war in the North Caucasus. At day’s end, the need of both New Delhi and Islamabad to save face and protect their strategic interests may well lead to the brink of a nuclear disaster over Afghanistan, which, to paraphrase Bismarck, probably isn’t worth the bones of one Indian grenadier.
Michael Scheuer is the author of ‘Imperial Hubris’ and former chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Issue Station. He writes regularly for Non-intervention.com
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
roxtggub
I’m not sure where you are getting your info, but good topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for wonderful info I was looking for this info for my mission.
John Smith
Here is a different approach India can take to win them all. Since Muslim nations are never at ease with each other when the external threat is absent. India can leave Afghan with NATO at the same time. After a while the quarrel about who is a good Muslim will break out between different branches of Islam, India can return to Afghan as a good mediator. This strategy will avoid the danger of nuclear flash point between India and Pakistan, as well as establish India as a good partner to all Muslim nations.
Fuzair
So the Pakistanis are paranoid, are we? How come there is no mention of Ayni Farkhor Air Base in this article? The only IAF base outside India? And the recent military training exercises carried out by the IA and IAF there?
And I’ve heard reports of a second IAF base being planned outside India as well.
Singh
Read the following link at pakistan defence forums of all places, for an answer on the Ayni airbase. Your information seems to be slightly outdated.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/65021-why-indian-air-force-tajikistans-ayni-air-base-idle.html
As for India planning a second airbase outside India, without any concrete proof, you may as well say India is planning a thousand airbases. I sense a hint of paranoia here, what do you think?
Anon
Michael Scheuer: “A good deal of the Indian media portrays India’s activities in Afghanistan as successfully winning Afghan hearts and minds and building a long-term welcome for India. This is unlikely.”
India is interested in preventing Pakistan, its longtime enemy, from gaining too much influence here.
Fortunately for India, that interest actually appeals to nearly three-quarters of the population, which has a somewhat unfavorable or worse view of Pakistan and tend to blame it for their country’s problems.
These Afghans tend to view India’s aid work here as motivated primarily to curb the interests of Pakistan, something they strongly support, further bolstering India’ s reputation as a benevolent neighbor.
India has managed to become one of the most-liked foreign countries in Afghanistan — with almost three-quarters of the population finding India somewhat favorable or better — after committing just $1.2 billion to the country.
Though some of India’s success in winning over Afghans has to do with historical ties between the two countries, when it comes to administering aid, India is often simply better than the U.S. at developing projects that locals find more tangible and effective.
Nine years into the war, the U.S. has now begun shifting toward an Indian aid model, focusing on projects that produce brick-and-mortar results.
India outdoes U.S. aid efforts in Afghanistan
Tom A. Peter GLOBALPOST 9 September 2010
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/afghanistan/100908/india-outdoes-us-aid-efforts-afghanistan
Harry
Right solution for elimination of terrorism worldwide is for West to create a stable Afghanistan. To do this they need the support of Pashtuns or Pathans, as bulk of Taliban and Al-qaeda are hiding in Pakistani Pashtun area. Pakistan, in spite of receiving largess from the West, is unwilling or unable to do West’s bidding. So the solution is public support of Western government for self -determination of Pakistani tribal areas to create groundswell of good will among Pashtuns, in order to create an Asian Kosovo. Once this is done Pashtuns will eliminate Taliban and Al-qaeda in their area in their own way and it would be much more cost effective than current one done with help of Pakistanis. This area along with Afghanistan should be protected by presence of some western troops, so that bulk of Western troops are able to return home far away from harms way.. Many in CIA does not want solution to the problem, because then they will not be able to take taxpayers for a ride and so the status quo will persist. Pakistani government and Military will continue to bleed western taxpayers dry in this tough economic times. It is Pakistanis and not Western taxpayers that created this problem, and so it is unfair to Western taxpayer that they, rather than Pakistanis, should shoulder the brunt of expenses and part with their hard-earned money.
Andrew Murray
I read this article three times but did not figure out what Mike is trying to say. Pakistan does not like India in Afghanistan and so it will start a nuclear war to drive India away!!!
Pakistan army ever too hungry for hegemony of course does not want India (or the West for that matter) in Afghanistan and is backing friendly Afghan Taliban against both the allied forces and India, while at the same time drawing on its credit lines with the West. No wonder the Allied forces are losing.
India on the other hand is fighting Pakistan on its Eastern boundaries and is happy to see Pakistan engaged on its Western boundaries (also from within its tribal boundaries). Men and material costs of propping up Hamid Karzai government which India-friendly (and hostile to Pakistan) are lower than the cost of facing a Pakistan army and intelligence that is care-free on its Western boundaries and focuses all its attention on waging a “war of thousand cuts” on India. Development activities might not win India too many heart or even ensure a enduring friendly rule in Kabul. In a fragmented frontier state like Afghanistan, India gets a toehold, which will keep Pakistan and its running dogs Afghan Taliban engaged.