Offstumped Community Portal

Hi Al,,
Welcome to this first debate being hosted in the new year

Hello everyone

Have our panelists joined yet

Hi all

We have nitin here

Hello

Hi Nitin & Dhruva, Welcome

Hi Nitin, Dhruva

Let us give a few minutes for others to join and we get started

Sure

Sure.

Hi All

Hi Prasanna thanks for joining

Happy new year folks

Hi

Ok we have Rohit as well I guess we can get started, Sushant will join along mid-way

@COR why dont you introduce the format

I see we have Shantanu and Dubash as well enquiring on it

Hi All, This is going to be an online chat for 90 Minutes Approximately. A debate where there will be lot of questions to the panelists for the first 60 minutes. The last 30 mnutes Audience questions to panelists for debate

Hi All

Hi (how long is this event?)

Hi guys, is this going to be an online chat or audio? Sorry, this is my first one

Yoss , Can we start the format

Yes please go ahead

Hi All, Welcome once again. We have read articles written by Rohit, Nitin and Sushant writing that India needs to send its troops to Afghanistan, Can we know what is the view of Dhruva

I am probably the only one broadly against the deployment of combat troops there, although not for the reasons usually articulated.

That is great we have one against the motion and 2 for the process, Yoss can you take it forward

There have been atleast two articles from fairly respected veterans in the last few days on the risks of going to Afghanistan so perhaps we should go around and hear from the panelists what can go wrong and where do they see serious risks ?

Nitin maybe you can go first

Thanks Yoss. Good evening/morning/afternoon to readers. Thanks for taking the time this Saturday to participate in this discussion.

Let me first briefly re-state the strategic case why we ought to be there, so that we have a basis for the discussion

please do

Dismantling the Pakistani military-jihadi complex is one of India’s biggest national security challenges. It cannot be done directly because direct military action, in a nuclear context, poses asymmetrical costs on India. That’s even if we set aside the risk of nuclear war.

It must, therefore, be done indirectly. The current situation in Afghanistan & Pakistan – the US presence there and President Obama’s objectives present India with another opportunity to take a bold initiative.

That is,  to compel the US troops to dismantle the military-jihadi complex.

So Nitin basicallys says if you want the Pak MJC dismantled and cant do it yourself go to Afghanistan that will remove all excuses for U.S. to not compel Pak- Dhruva please chip in ?

Every single US soldier available for combat  must be deployed along Pakistan’s border.

India can help make sure this happens by sending troops to locations along Afghanistan’s borders with Iran, Turkmenistan & Tajikistan

Every U.S. soldier along Pak border sounds like a good mantra

Rohit where do you stand ?

Nitin: Is there an implict assumption that the US is as worried about the Military-Jihadi complex as we are?

I will be happy to chip in, after we hear from Rohit.

Note to panelists – audience comments will appear periodically so you can weave them in to your responses

I concur with Nitin. Essentially, the question is where do we fight? We either fight them here at home or we fight them in the Af-Pak theatre. I think if we view it in those terms, the choice should be clear enough

Hmmm take the fight to their other border why fight them on our borders – sounds good to me as well.

Dhruva let us hear tyou ake on these guys

Satyam, in response to your comment, it is not necessary for US and India to be worried about exactly the same thing. Is there a broader agreement of interest? As of now, yes.

Thanks. Good morning (it is morning here in Washington) to everyone.

I would say that in large part I agree with Nitin and Rohit’s diagnosis, so I believe a lot of the criticism being leveled at their thesis is misplaced. I would be happy to address that if there is sufficient time and interest.

Note to audience – feel free to chip in with comments to keep the momentum in debate going, we will also have an explicit Q&A at the end

Dhruva Let us begin with your contrarian view we can then get to the criticism

The MJC is certainly the greatest national security challenge for India, and arguably it is the United States’ greatest national security challenge. There is a growing consensus on this point.

Druva says – MJC is U.S.’ greatest national security challenge fair enough

Rohit: Thanks…Personally, I am not convinced and I remain wary about how long the “congruence/convergence” in interest will last…the Military-Jihadi complex is an existential threat to India..not so to the US…or am I over-reacting?

My arguments are three-fold:

First, does deployment further your political objectives (not your strategic objectives, which it clearly does)? I would argue ‘no.’ If reorienting and enervating the MJC is our objective, the deployment of Indian troops serves the purpose of galvanising support for it within Pakistan.  It plays into their positioning themselves as the ultimate guarantor of their countries security.

Hmm so politically we strengthen Pak MJC inside Pak by threatening it from Af ?

Secondly, we often overestimate the ability of the Indian armed forces to take casualties in military operations ABROAD. At home, our soldiers have fought bravely to defend every inch of territory we claim.

Abroad, it is another matter. I agree with the choice laid out by Rohit – we either fight away or at home. However, I favor home: from a logistic, budgetary and public opinion standpoint, a fight at home is always to our benefit.

satyam, of course. The extent of the challenge posed by the MJC differs across India and US. Having said that, their reaction differ too. US is not going to wait for MJC to pose an existential challenge before it attempts to route it. See the reaction to Detriot bomber. You may call it excessive but even a failed attack leads to major operations and policy changes.

Will we also not strengthen Af MJC along with Pak MJC? Double jeopardy?

So your 2nd point is do we have the stomach for casualties abroad ?

I actually rolled my second and third arguments into that last post, so let me leave my rebuttal there for now.

Yoss, can I respond?

Thanks Dhruva – so Nitin please go ahead

Yes, Yoss. Let me lay out some statistics: in less than 3 years, we lost 1225 men in Sri Lanka. The U.s. by comparison has lost 4300 in almost 7 years in Iraq. Their casualty rate in Vietnam was 12 times higher than ours at IPKF. So there should not be a comparison between those experiences in popular discourse…yet there is.

First, to Satyameva Jayate: I think there is convergence of interests, but not a full convergence in strategies.  Most strategists in the US believe that Pakistani MJC is a problem, but many still believe they can ‘manage’ it, rather than dismantle it fully.

The question for India, therefore, is: how do we get the US on board? Can we convert alignment of interests into alignment of strategy & priority?

Nitin – please expand on that

Btw, I completely agree with Nitin on that last point. We may have similar views as the U.S. but we still disagree about how to get there.

I think Dhruva’s second-third point is stronger than the first.

I do not think the Pakistani military-jihadi complex can be reoriented. I disagree with many Pakistanis who argue that endogenous change is possible. It cannot. The MJC has to be dismantled.

It doesn’t take much for the Pakistani people to rally around the MJC. The agonising and grandstanding over Gen Deepak Kapoor’s remarks shows that something as innocuous as a incomplete work-in-progress doctrine can set them off.

This is a long comment NITIN and ROHIT say that by going to Afghan we are trying to take on the MJC at the other end of the theatre effectively encircling them from that side. This is dangerous since unless we are secure on this side (Indian Side)of the border the encirclement from that side with the help of US fences (as I would call the comment of nitin of every US soldier on the Af Pak border)we may have the risk of the theatre of war shifting to the Indian side the MJC would shift theatre to India the forebodings we could see from the Hezbollah type attack on the Wagah yesterday. What is our response? A damp squib. We will end up exposing the Indian civilians for the Military operations at Afghanisthan. This idea is strategically good if our Internal security and Border security are 100% foolproof.

the US & India are both heralded as successful models of democracy – our collusion on this matter could provide fodder for further recruitment into MJC on the grounds that democracy is basically anti-Islamic?

But Dhruva is on a stronger wicket on the “let’s fight it at home” argument

Re Nitin’s comment on the lack of clarity of the US’ stance on Pak MJC, India could very well end up as the scapegoat. For eg, US cd be seen as defender of Pak MJC while we’re clearly against it.

Great…I think this is the nub of my argument: How can we (actually, can we?) convert alignment of interests into alignment of strategy & priority?

But here’s the big problem – the Indian economy will suffer increasing costs from Pakistan’s proxy war

In other words: even if the direct costs of “let’s fight them at home” are lower, the opportunity costs—in terms of lost economic growth—will get increasingly higher

Hi Sushant here

Sherenejose: you’re correct. In the Indian debate, the U.S. often remains the scapegoat – they’re throwing money at the MJC, they don’t consider our interests. It is partly true, but this kind of thinking prevents us from seeking opportunities.

Welcome Sushant as you can see we are in the thick of the debate here   chip in with your thoughts as we hear out Nitin’s rebuttal to Dhruva’s argument

What was the impact of 26/11 on the Indian economy? Will India continue to grow at 8% if investors fear serious poliical risks?

Responding to the often heard criticism that sending troops to Af-Pak will make the MJC more paranoid–to me it is a defeatist attitude which essentially argues that our policies should be guided from across the border. Its naturally corollary would be to give in to the demands of the MJC–after all, fighting in Kashmir is not liked by MJC. Indeed to take it to a rhetorical high, India’s economic growth also makes MJC more paranoid.

So I will rest my response saying that in future, fighting from home will be more expensive.

Nitin: business consultants who look at FDI levels in Naxalite-heavy areas have found no link between violence and investment, yet.

sure
apologies first for joining late. Let me hear it out for some time

My view: India sending troops to Afganistan is not a singular decision. It has to be evaluated in the context of India’s role in the region, its relation with Pak & China and offcourse US’s presence in the region. Engagement with Afganistan could help divert Pakistan’s focus from Kashmir and force it to divert forces, which is a critical strategy to counter jihadi onslaught on Indian establishment. Happy to receive views.

Ok Nitin says fighting at home is more expensive, Dhruva says no correlation between the two based on data from Naxal areas

Rohit and Sushant your thoughts please

The opportunity cost might v well be the same irrespective of whether we’re fighting at home or overseas, in tht there cd be more domestic attacks, even when the fight is in Af.ghanistan..but we would have to spread our resources thin if we go overseas…

Nitin: I think the impact of 26/11-like events on economic growth is over-rated….Our growth will happen in spite of that , I feel…yes, it would affect perceptions of the economy overseas but in the end, the smell of money to be made will draw people in.

Do agree with Nitin and Rohit’s position broadly about the strategic usefulness of helping US concentrate on the Af-Pak border. But in addition to galvanizing the Pak MJC, isn’t there also the possibility that the domestic jihadi elements in India will be strengthened too? Not that they cannot be managed but it does stretch the Indian forces.

I do not get the context. But I’d say that it is always preferable for it does disrupt the social fabric & gets a conflict economy started.

wont india be at the full wrath of alqaeda if v send forces to af v need to make arrangements to tackle it

A caveat: it is more expensive in the loss of civilian human life and in terms of the potential for ‘terror’ on the population. However, I would like to turn Nitin and Rohit’s version of ‘Pascal’s Wager’ on its head:

Even if we deploy troops to Afghanistan, there is no guarantee that terrorism and insurgencies will die down on our home soil.

Dhruva: Naxalite areas are Naxalite areas because they are in the backwaters. Mumbai is different. A campaign of terrorist attacks on Indian cities and economic centres will severely damage India’s economic growth story.

First, estimates from Vikram Sood suggest that the cost of keeping one division in Afghanistan would be roughly 1000 crores a year. Now, Sood is not someone who is actually in support of our position. Is 1000 crores too high a price for India? I would think not. We have spend much more defending Kashmir or for that matter in Siachen.

Nitin, I am not sure if MJC is a factor in FDI. Policies and elections and internal issues seem to me what analysts reports revolve around. New York analysts seem to live in a world of their own compared to D.C. defense and fp analysts?

Agree – but we didn’t see the stock markets crash after the 2006 bomb blasts. Mumbai has evolved into a financial center after 1993: investors had full knowledge of its vulnerability to terrorism, and they invested anyway.

Did the London bombings fatally affect the British economy?

Comment from the blog – We cannot afford another blunder like Op Pawan ,we are niether prepared for the actual operation nor for the political repurcussions.Tell me has the US ever messed around with troops in any of its neighbouring countries?They tried something with Cuba in the ‘Bay of Pigs; and got a swollen face. My take is that US will not quit Afghanistan the way they did in Vietnam,they will maintain some sort of reduced but sustained presence to ensure that the Taliban remains under check.There is too much at stake – Pakistan as a state is at the brink,the mighty Pak Army is also at its tethers,there are nuclear weapons to be gaurded from fanatic terrorist organisations.America is there to stay in Af-Pak.For them Af-Pak is same as Pak-Af now.The essence is the same – it will be a long engagement.

Is it only overt financial costs or are we loooking at indirect social & political costs?

As far the actual “cost” of fighting war at home or abroad is concerned, I don’t think we have sufficient data points to arrive at a definite conclusion. But I would argue that the cost to the economy should not be calculated only in terms of Rs; there is a cost to be paid in fear, tearing of social fabric; and suspicion. The cost is paid every time you go to a Mall or cinema and you are frisked. And that cost is both economic as well as social.

All costs social economic and political in fact as we are coming up on the hour request all panelists to firm up their closing arguments on the Political Case to be made in India

Yes, I mentioned the human and political costs – and those must be considered, particularly the loss of civilian life. Yet, on balance, the costs of fighting at home are far less than fighting away.

I fully agree with anyone who says that deploying troops in Afghanistan will increase the risk of jihadi attacks against Indian targets. But in the short-term and this risk can be contained.

Moreover, there is no certaintly that this risk doesn’t exist even if we do what we’ve always been doing.

there is no use fighting out in afghan until we contain the root cause of menace pakistan sure china will pressurise us on NE Front to placate its interests and its all time friend

Is deploying troops in Afghanistan our first choice course of action? Certainly not.

May I redirect the question somewhat: what is our political (not military) end-goal in Pakistan?

Any sending of troops to Afghanistan will have to ‘compensated’ with domestic concessions to a particular religious denomination.This means more communally oriented measures .

What are the alternatives?

I think the discussion is going a little bit out of format now. What’s the topic of discussion right now?

Since financial costs have been mentioned: I’d like to draw attention to the fact that the defence ministry returns Rs 7000 crore or so back to the treasury because it cannot spend it.

It does this almost every year.

It costs only Rs 1000 crore to station one division (10K-15K troops) in Afghanistan.

I don’t think we can point to NYC & London and how they’re not affected by domestic attacks – India is still a developing economy & several international investors are already apprehensive abt entering the complicated market for various reasons & having regular security blow-ups wdnt make it any easier.

Let’s get to Dhruva’s question

We debated economic costs and I think we should be getting to the political case and political goals perhaps as your closing arguments

Agree with Sheren on that point. Repeated attacks will affect the business climate and affect our economic growth. We don’t quite offer the same advantages as NYC or London do.

On costs, what are the costs of keeping troops at Siachen or at Kargil-Dras. Are they affordable? It is a question of strategic-political judgement.

Nitin you are not costing model does not take in to account huge political energy that will be expended domestically in managing the fallout of the troop deployment

Agree with Sushant: yet those costs will not dissipate just from deploying troops in Afghanistan. They need to be addressed in another manner.

Thanks Yoss. Now on political case, I think that is the major challenge which Indian government faces. Let me expand on it.

what is our political (not military) end-goal in Pakistan?

The dismantling of the military-jihadi complex, which is the only way we can have a Pakistan that lives at peace with the rest of the world, esp us

There’s a definite dearth of mention of China in this entire debate – what if China decides to aid Pakistani elements once US & India decide to collaborate in Afghanistan? Best way for China to undermine both countries..

Nitin, you wanna create a Valhalla?

Nitin says – political end goal dismantle Pak MJC so we can be at peace

Rohit – waiting for your argument ?

I would sense that there is consensus on that point, Nitin. Yet we cannot do that by empowering the MJC domestically, which is what our intervention in Afghanistan will do – not just in the short or medium term, but for many years.

Is there a possibility of the Chinese being opportunistic when we deploy troops in AfPak and maintain the status quo in Kashmir, given the recent Chinese apprehension as MMS put it?

our political goal in Pakistan is to de-radicalise their society and form deep, intricate economic links with their society.

I think as we argue in our article in Pragati, the political case can be made by a pro-active government. What does the government offer to the people of India in tangible terms? : Long-term security in our cities and major urban centers. The dismantling of MJC or otherwise does not concern the common man; so the case in political terms has to be made in terms of marked improvement in the long-term security situation. I say long-term, because in the short-term, we might see an increase in Jihadi attacks–the government must prepare the citizens for that.

In my own view, China’s beef with us is over the Dalai Lama. They too are under risk from the MJC. Heck, if the MJC can turn against Pakistani targets, it can turn against China!

Folks we are almost at the end of the hour, closing thoughts please before we get to audience Q&A

Just to update, we have 70% of the readers here saying that India Needs to send its troops while 30% disagree to that

That is a very astute observation Rohit, but I do not see any Indian government, of any political stripe, willing to take those short term political losses – which have the rise of being fatal – for long term political gains.

No democratic government, in any country, works that way.

To continue, there might be a political cost in pure electoral terms to be paid in case of sending troops, but it is an opportunity too. I think you can look at the nuclear deal and see if the risk paid off or not.

We

Closing argument — see when Taliban was in power in Kabul & what happened in Kashmir. Now see the data after 9-11. Even Pak MJC can’t fight a two-front war.

Moreover, it allows US military to stay in and stregthens the resolve of those in DC to stay in Afghanistan, if India goes in there.

We can start with audience Q&A if there arent any further closing thoughts. Feel free to keep the format loose and open ended

All The Readers please be ready with your questions to specific panelists

Dhruva: you are right, in the positive sense. Our argument is normative. We contend that we ought to send troops to Afghanistan.

Readers: We sense that the strategic community in New Delhi is way too shy to speak up and say, let’s do this thing, because it makes strategic sense. That’s why we felt we have to trigger this debate.

Dhruva, fair enough. And that is certainly a worry with any long-term planning in which the government is involved. But we should not underestimate the capacity of Indian people to suffer for a cause. Despite all the violence, demand for Kashmiri freedom has never got much tractions beyond few media outlets. Ditto for Punjab.

My First question to all Panelists – Why cannot training be provided to ANA to make them a professional fighting force?

My closing arguments:

-We should not rule out sending troops for ever, but under the present circumstances, it is not a good option.
-While it furthers some of our short term military objectives, it does not further our political objectives of dismantling the MJC (it only strengthens it). Nor is the U.S. much better equipped to do so, if we relieve its troops of duties in the west and north. The U.S. is almost as hobbled as we are in its dealings with Pakistan.
-Finally, the human, social, financial and political costs will not improve, and there is a risk – due to casualties in Afghanistan and perhaps retaliatory attacks on Indian soil – that it will decrease. We are better off fighting on our home soil in a competent manner, than fighting abroad, where public opinion will not support our troops to the same degree, where political capital will have to be expended in Delhi, and where there may be higher military casualties.

Moderator please approve we have a lot of questions flowing in

Nitin how can we dissacciate MJC when we dont even cross LOC during war times also like during Kargil

Ppl have forgotten IPKF bungle. Our armed forces had to cut a sorry figure there. Afghanistan is not our problem. Jehadis coming out of it are. We need to strengthen our intelligence agencies to counter that rather than send armed troops to fight alongside USA. How many times has USA supported the Indian cause. Give me one example of it other than when its own interests were paramount. Why does India have to be the goody goody nation all the time? We have enough of our own problems than to solve some of those of Afghanistan whose population is probably anti-Ind as it is. I dont see the reason to deploy troops to

Nitin, what is your take on the points regarding the Indian Army’s preparedness (or lack of it) that the military intelligence officials brought up in their rebuttals to your proposal? Is it under-estimation of their capabilities or the actual ground reality?

Unintended political outcome of US & India’s military colllaboration in Afghanistan could be creating a political bloc that makes China insecure? What would China do to impose itself against two major countries becoming military allies?

The nuclear deal did not threaten lives of civilians or the social order in the same manner.

If MJC is the target, then eventually it must be confronted in Pakistan proper. Afghanistan is surely a sideshow. Is India prepared to escalate in that manner? If so, why not go for it directly rather than this weird Afghan route? If not, why waste life and treasure in Kabul?

Nitin: Arent we going to strengthen Af MJC along with Pak MJC? Is our security establishment prepared to tackle highly possible violent fall-outs?

Nitin, Can you think of any short/medium-term achievable objectives? The deployment seems to be permanent

Considering that we maintain the status quo on the Kashmir front and the northeast, are we running the risk of asking too much from our armed forces, militarily and economy wise too. Don’t the Chinese have a strong hold of Sri Lanka with their recent spree of aids and building of a port. In the worst case, if the Chinese want to be opportunistic, we would then be deploying forces on all corners…or am I fundamentally wrong in my thinking here? Wouldn’t China like us to spend more on deploying troops and concentrating less on economy and growth?

Question to Nitin: Do we have any idea of the logistic limitations that India might have, to prevent the kind of deployment you speak of? I do not have a lot of facts to back up this claim, so I’m forced to keep this anecdotal. We might be over-estimating the military leadership resources we hv available. When my Dad commanded an Intelligence Unit in J&K, there seemed to be a constant dearth of officers to manage/command the units!

Should sending troops be our move, how about training Afghan troops. Our military I suspect will be far more culturally comfortable with Afghan recruits. Isn’t this a more cost effective way? We also earn the goodwill of future leadership class?

This is to nitin I am in agreement with your view it is better to fight the MJC in their theatre than in Home but should it not be after we are more than reasonably secure at home, which I feel we are not as on date? Still our homeland security is reactive and not pro active

regarding the political case, Vajpayi should have shown enuf courage then itself. congress govt wil not go this way as it has impact on their vote bank

Nitin I think the jihadi attacks may infact reduce because Pakistan will have another front to engage India on. Would you agree ?

And also, isnt the presently political leadership woefully incapable of taking normal policy decisons, leave daring ones?

Nitin – why dont we , Russia & Iran review another Northern Alliance which keeps the spread of Taliban under check?

My question to Dhruva… aren’t the short-term domestic political costs manageable when you consider the fact that we’ve just had a general elections. So even if there is a feeling after sending troops into Afghanistan that its been a political suicide, the politicians can think of a pull-back well in time for the next elections?

Panelists thats a flood of questions please take your time answering them hopefully we will get thru all

dubash: That is something that we should have done long back. It should have been done earlier, and must be done even now. But that is not a substitute for our “boots on the ground”. First is time. With the Europeans dithering, and US forces not ready yet, getting Afghans trained will take time.

A well-trained & experienced Indian army is certainly better than a half-baked Afghan army. Quality and time.

Other than the World Wars give me one example of a nation winning an overseas war?

ramkumaran: exactly the point. We cannot cross the LoC, but we can send troops to Afghanistan, and US troops can cross the Durand Line

trailblazr: From what we can see in the public domain – if the Indian army is prepared to fight COIN in J&K and North Eastern India, it is prima facie equipped to fight in Afghanistan.

Sherene: That China will be insecure is a given, whatever we do or not do. (Unless Comrade Karat becomes PM)

Primary Red: I am not in favour of direct military attacks on Pakistan. It is too risky.

To all those arguing in terms of training ANA, the Americans have been trying that for years. Sure we can off to help there but as the example of both Iraq and Afghanistan showed, a professional army cannot be constructed in a day. So ANA might be able to hold fort after the Taliban has been decimated or its capacities destroyed beyond a certain point, to expect it to be able to do so now would be to expect too much.

Pakthuns by & large perceive coalition forces as occupiers. If Indian boots engage in active fighting, they too’ll B depicted as occupiers.

Sudhirkumar: The Afghan MJC will be weakened. We will be strengthening the ANSF

Abhiagr: Very good point. Let me think these through. Perhaps a blog post later if not in this session.

When coalition goal isnt clearly defined as defeat & subjugation of AQ, Talib, those that harbor them (MJC), how wud Boots make sense4India?

Sushant-As someone who has been exposing the institutional decay of Army as an institution do you think they have wherewithal for complex operation like this?

ZOOM, Pakhtuns are only 45% of Afganinstan’s population. There are other minority groups there who may perceive us as their saviors/

Nitin: not sure the risks from the Afghan misadventure would be any less

Sherene: We have good ties with Iran, Tajikistan and Russia. We should be able to leverage them. Then again, we should be able to leverage the logistics chains that the US has set-up

ChandruPandian: The cost of deploying is not that high to drain us. That is an American argument not an Indian one.

If that be so, we could also benefit by allying with US and West in other multilateral negotiations as well, including better military equipment at good rates.

Finally, would China like to see a US-India alliance or want India to be drained out — accepting your argument ?

Malviyaamit, regarding the two-front war: Keeping up terrorism on two fronts is not difficult to do. Pakistan will not be fighting a conventional war on two fronts.

Sameer, on short term political costs: I wish that were the case – that the UPA had enough political stock to be willing to take these kinds of risks. On the diplomatic front, MMS thinks he does. In this matter, however, our political leadership is still too hesitant to get involved. State elections involving the Congress or the coalition allies come at a regular pace, which is one factor we must consider.

Nitin, and others: I don’t see what purpose the Americans crossing the Durand Line will serve. Moreover, they are focused on population-centric security, and are deterred from taking certain measures by Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Finally, their view is that this will push the jihadis closer to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and loose nukes are their ultimate worry.

Dubash & others: Training Afghan troops is something we have to do, are doing, and will do in future as well. It is not mutually exclusive.

Has the US ever helped India in its hour of need? Why should we then fight its war? We can help build Afghanistan regd infrastructure, health, elections, etc. That will create more goodwill for India, if that is what u guys advocating troop deployment are after.

Agree with Sushant, and in this matter Nitin and Rohit: we are not as constricted financially as others – the Europeans may be willing to underwrite our adventurism, since it will get them off the hook.

Are we totally ignoring the IPKF experience? Fighting on other turf is not as easy as it strategically sound …

Zooky, let’s be clear. We should go to Afghanistan because it serves our interests. Or at least some of us believe so. There is no case for going anywhere merely t help someone.

prasannavishy: A very good point which Rohit always reminds me of. But our COIN experience in Kashmir should hold us in good stead. And every crisis is an opportunity. I am hopeful Indian army will meet the challenge, adapt and come out stronger with the experience.

Amit: In the short-term, jihadi attacks on India might increase. They will try to terrorise us, get the TV crews to do IC814-like tamashas, etc. But beyond the near term, as Sushant says, the MJC can’t fight a two-front war.

It is important for India to communicate this properly to all its citizens. It cannot be seen as an anti-Muslim project, because it is not. We are saving Afghan (Muslim) lives directly!

Ramkumaran: The Northern Alliance is in fact, represented in the ANSF.

What pray are our interests in Afghanistan other than quell the jehdists creating furore in our country? Trade..of dry fruits & opium? Mineral wealth? @Rohit

The only reason to go to war is absolute victory. Absent this, men’s lives are too important to squander on strategic pipe dreams. The approach being advocated here costs us lives and silver, makes us less secure, and does little to damage the MJC who know we dare not really threaten them

Prasanna, also, if there are weaknesses in the Indian Army, we should be talking about addressing them–after all, they are not being tasked with an impossible–fight the US in a conventional war and win. Or should we say we are just too bad to do it?

Sudhir: I made the point about IPKF in my opening remarks, comparing losses there to much higher American losses in foreign wars (Iraq is 1.4 times, Vietnam is 12 times). Also, my point about a home war being better than an ‘away’ war.

Agree with Rohit in his response to Zooky – We should not be going into Afghanistan out of any sense of obligation to the United States, but rather because it advances our self-interests.

One related point: our logistic support may be better off than many suppose. We have long had a strong presence in central asia, and our involvement in building the Zaranj-Delaram Highway will put us in good stead.

ZoomIndianMedia – that “Pakhtuns and occupiers” story is propaganda. Afghanistan is a rich tapestry of ethnicities. As for occupiers, they welcomed foreign forces in 2002!

Nitin & Rohit, If the Govt Suddenly Wakes up and says lets deploy? What would be the strength to be deployed?

ssudhirkumar: What are the lessons to be learned from IPKF experience? That we never go overseas and fight. That is like saying that we should have never fought a conevntional war after 1962.

It is not 1987. We are economically and diplomatically a far more robust nation. The military is better equipped, more experienced in COIN.

@Zooky, agree. But why is not that a sufficiently good reason?

Time Check We have Another 13 Minutes I hope our panelists and readers can continue

All: Remember two things:

1. UN Security Council has already authorised ISAF to operate in Afghanistan. It carries international ‘legitimacy’.

2. The Karzai govt is not against the idea. I’ve heard that there have been soundings by Kabul over the issue of troops. If India is ready, Kabul might even extend an invitation.

Zooky: Our strategic interests in Afghanistan involve preventing the return of a Taliban or similar regime. The dangers of that are clear: remember the Indian Airlines hijacking in 1999 that took the plane to…Kandahar? A high proportion of the fighters infiltrating into J&K have had links to Afghanistan.

primary_red:
Does anyone count the lives being lost in Kashmir valley? In Siachen every week? It is a question of judgement — political, strategic & diplomatic — and whether it is workable or not. Look at the commentary of 1971.Everyone said it was a pipe dream. Sam Manekshaw didn’t plan for Dhaka as he thought that was unrealistic.But what happened?

Nitin, I forsee a Nicholas Berg type beheading and India media asking for an immediate withdrawal. We got to war with the intelligentsia and media we have. When it is afraid to even explore an idea, I doubt it’s resolve. What other non-overt ways can we “fight” in Afghanistan? Other than training the ANA?

My point is that Ind should help build Afghanistan with our material, intellectual, compassionate wealth. Not fight a war with osme of the locals there. Sooner or later the local populace is going to turn against Ind and start blaming it for the ills afflicting them. We can win over the Afghanis with compassion & help rather than fight a war for them, a war that most dont know who is fighting whom?

Quick time check we have another 10minutes left, unless the panelists and audience want to keep it going

Dhruva: Almost 80% Kashmiri jehadis were foreign in last 14 years.

Sudhirkumar – After IPKF, the Indian army has fought almost 20 years in J&K. It’s a different army and a different country today

Nitin, Why cant India Send its troops as Part of the UN Charter so that we get over the domestic opposition if any?

Thanks Sushant. I didn’t have the statistics handy, but believed it was high.

@Dhruv Thats what i said Sir. Our primary aim is to prevent Afg jehadists to create a ruckus in Ind. Period.

Dubash, we have been taking losses in Kashmir for 20 years. Yes, I agree with Dhruva’s argument that making the case of fighting outside our borders would require us to expend greater political capital. But let’s not think that we as a nation can’t take losses–in fact, the opposite, unfortunately, may be true. As for beheadings, we have already seen that in Afghanistan for our folks working there. That has not led to calls for India withdrawing from all humanitarian/reconstruction projects.

Interference in another country to settle our issues with Pak MJC smacks of the kind of FP that has earned the US much ire in the world of religious fundamentalists… India cannot plead to be a victim anymore if we do this & the repercussions is sure to spill beyond political matters. A developing economy just can’t afford to wage wars on foreign territory for PR reasons if nothing else. Is there really no way of engaging the US & Pakistan to deal with Pak MJC directly, either on Pak or Indian territory?

Sushant: I count the Indian dead and burn in rage. But I see no path here that solves the problem Even Nitin concedes he finds taking the battle to Pakistan “too risky”. If so, how exactly are we improving our circumstance?

Question for Nitin and Rohit: I broadly agree with you that sending our troops to Afghanistan will benefit India in the long term. With what specific objectives do we send Indian troops to Afghanistan? For ex., for the IPKF, the task was to disarm different Tamil militant groups in Sri Lanka. What’ll it be in Afghanistan? Something like guarding Indian works (defensive), or something like fighting the Taliban, disarming them (offensive)?

Question : What should be the extend of India’s engagement – should we be in active war against the radicals or play a passive role of being a contingent force ? Also I think we should continue to help Afganistan with economic reconstruction irrespective. Views pls.

Sheren, our pleading the victim has not helped much previously. If US is a little more sympathetic to our argument now, it is only because of the changed post 9/11 environment. We were victims when militancy in Punjab was raging too which was funded to quite a bit by folks in US, Canada and UK.

All the panelists and readers would like to extend it by another 15 minutes. Hence we have another 15 Minutes of questions to Panelists. Readers Please participate

Is US fully committed to go whole hog on dismantlement of AJC? If the answer is affirmative, there is a case for deployment.

Nitin-Dubash makes a great point.We are in age of boisterous 24 7 media.Visuals of Beheaded soldier’s coffin will be huge TRP opportunity for news hungry media.This Imagery will hurt national psyche like nothing else.And this loss of morale is catastrophic at a very important stage of national building project

COR: I’d say one division, with three brigade-level formations, is a meaningful commitment. It can be posted to the West and North

centerofright:

It is already a Chapter VII UN mission in Afghanistan. so we have the UN sanctity, if you want that.

Otherwise I am not keen on Indian army operating under some general from Togo with armies of Ghana, bangladesh & Benin doing nothing accpting earning USD for their countries.

See one real example of the Balkans where NATO, US & UN was there. What happened there? That will be the fate of any UN-PKO in Afghanistan.

India should have its independent policy and its own agenda that it should further.

An achievable and thoroughly wholesome medium term objective. To protect our investments in Afghanistan.

Nitin… I think it all comes down to the political gut. I seem to agree with Dhruva that we don’t. I guess while I agree that we SHOULD send troops into Afghanistan, I highly doubt if we WILL.

Chaitanya, we already have boots on the ground to guard our folks there. The political objective as Nitin laid out previously is dismantling of the MJC.

I have to disagree with sending troops to Af. While it seems a intersting proposition, point of fact is that as some one said, human life is too valuable to waste on things that may not yield the result. Assuming we do send and take casualties and one fine day we are said to Get Out, what would we have achieved. If one wants to really take Pak headon, the only way would be to see that it dismembers. This shall result in much lower risk for India and others than any other solution. Other solutions may work as long as its backed up with force, once force is removed, the problems will revert back with double the force.

S_Chaitanya: Indian troops will have the responsibility to ensure that the Afghan government can deliver governance to the West and North Afghanistan.

There are repetitive references to IPKF deployment. Its failure it must be noted was underwritten by VP Singh’s decision to recall it.

@zoom under pressure from MuKA, lets leave that one

primary_red: Yes, that’s true partially. Look at it this way. In Afghanistan, the US, NATO & ANA are sharing your burden of fighting the jehadis. Otherwise these jehadis would be in Kashmir or Indian mainland where our sevcurity forces will have to fight them.

In a sense, kashmir and Afghanistan are intricately linked. Look at important points on teh timeline. 1989, 1998, 2001 and there is a relation between jehadi intensity in the two theatres.

Sameer, we lay out the case. We believe the political case can be made. But ultimately, it does rest with the political leadership. I think this is an opportune time–you might be looking at long-term congress domination–single party rule has its own advantages.

Amit – It’s like what the army does in J&K. Ensure that the insurgents do not disrupt the process of governance, by providing security to the civilian population.

This will enable the US troops to deploy in the East.

Sushant can address this in further detail, but the saddest part about IPKF is that we didn’t seem to learn any lessons from it – in terms of intelligence gathering, civil-military coordination, etc.

I think it is fair to say that the big unknown in this entire discussion is how serious the US is abt finishing up the entire operation – this is probly the biggest source of discomfort to many of us opposed to deploying…

Nitin has mentioned earlier that we must await an ‘opportunity’ to make the decision to send troops palatable. Maybe that is how you circumvent the domestic politics.

Prasanna & Dubash – I do not think that our strategic options should be circumscribed by what Rajdeep, Barkha and Arnab shout at their viewers.

Nitin, do we have an “expeditionary force” capable of dealing with the logistical hurdles. But I do think we’d probably fight a more “sustainable” war. The American in their post-vietnam era have decided to go with technology to avoid domestically unpopular troop losses. Will the Indian Army fight the same misguided way?

All: let’s set aside the (a) lack of political will and (b) the media will scream for now. Once you take them out, we might as well stop thinking!

All Panelists One question – How long do you think the deployment should be Afg?

Sheren, that’s a very good point. I for one have always believed that Afghanistan is not Vietnam and the US will not quit because it threatens their homeland security, something they take quite seriously. Despite the anti-war sentiment of Obama’s base, he has still followed the surge strategy in Afghanistan. Also, but look at this way, by sending troops to Afghanistan we are strengthening the case for US to stay long-term in Afghanistan.

Sir this Afg-Pak-Ind fued is all about the historical deep rooted differences between Islam & Hinduism. Islam wants to vanquish the Kafirs & Hindus have been more than tolerant. No amount of goodwill or even Hindus fighting a war for Islam (Ind troop deployment in Afg) can ever overcome the mistrust. India has to be assertive and it should crush any force threatening it. Times of India of the yore are over.

Akash: Thanks for catching that.

Sushant: OK. But fighting jihadis in Kabul is a different objective than dismantling MJC in Islamabad. Only the latter really creates sustainable gains, but we are not ready for this yet. So, as they say, woh afsaana jise anjaam tak lana na ho mumkin, etc…

Would one make a case for Indian Army deployment in the absence of US commitment in going whole hog to dismantle MJC?

Dhruva: I’d say not upto the extent that Indian higfher defence setup should have. But in COIN, we have learned far more lessons in Kashmir. RR is a great example — equipping, training, permanency…

But we didn’t learn the full lessons from Kargil as well. That is again a tragedy.

Maybe Afghanistan will force us to accelerate the process of defence reform and modernise our armed forces.

Sherene: on the U.S. position.

-I think there is little doubt that the leadership understands how much of a national security threat is being emanated from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. I agree with Rohit on this.

-There are three views on how to deal with this on the Pakistan side.

First: continue the status quo, drone attacks, etc. At some point the situation in Pakistan will get serious enough that the Pakistani military will reorient itself.

Second: adopt the Indian position vis-a-vis Pakistan; that it will not reorient, and so harsher measures are in order. This view is growing.

Third: whether Washington likes it or not, they have to deal with the military, so concessions must be made. This is a very dangerous line of thinking and we must do our best to stamp this out.

Btw, those who question US commitment to stay and win in Afghanistan. Don’t you think the chances are higher if Indian troops are present than if they are not?

Please do not underestimate the signal that Indian involvement will send to the US political establishment and the US public opinion

Sushant: I hope that you are right. Nothing leads to reform more than a crisis. It took a debacle in Iraq for the American military to completely reorient its structure, training and doctrine.

primary_red: It really isn’t. Af-Pak has some meaning. It is one thetare. Going into Afghanistan is actually a defensive decision in that sense, more aimed at containment than dismantling. The nuclear question makes it scary. You are right in that sense.

Nitin: I hope our involvement gives the U.S. a much-needed boost. However, there is also a threat of re-hyphenation. One of the problems with our warning to Washington about Pakistan is that they view it as a part of long history of India’s Pakistan-bashing. They have had to learn their lessons about Pakistani perfidy the hard way.

COR: Actually, we should not talk about How Long in terms of time. It should be when we finish the job. What is that job has to be defined & the definition can change over time.

Zoom, see Dhruva’s reply on US line of thinking. Our job is to make sure US understands the real threat and I think we can do it best by having our skin in the game so to speak.

All Panelists – How do you think that his entire thing might come? Would this Q come up when BO visits India?

I dont think capability is a problem.

Nitin-you are underestimating the Obama dispensation’s inherent Anti–India hostility.I think our proposal might turnout to be unsolicted unilateral sepoy outsourcing offer from us unlikely to be reciprocated by POTUS or his AFPAK pointsmen

the US cd very well claim that India has been mired in regional conflicts for much longer than they have & tht it’s no longer their war & pack up shop, leaving us to clean up and take the blame – what is stopping them, really? it cd be triggered by a critical mass of US casualties or change in DC political dynamics..given that we still need to engage them for economic reasons, it’s not like we can protest vehemently either..

Rohit: the risk is of perverse thinking. The Pakistani military will tell the Americans – with a straight face mind you – that they are justified in supporting jihadis against American troops in Afghanistan, precisely BECAUSE of Indian involvement.

That sounds absurd, but they have done it now for many years, except there were harmless indian consulates there – no troops!

Sushant: Precisely right. Af-Pak are the same thing. If Pak is too risky to move on, so is Af. No sane leader will commit troops to die in a too-risky war whose outcome is uncertain. I share your objectives but caution against this course that is not been fully thought through and is (sorry to say) plays to the legit anger and frustration of Indians

Prasannavishy: Does Barack Obama want to face an election in 2012 as the man who lost the war in Afghanistan?

CoR: Bob Gates is visiting India. This may be on the agenda.

COR, I think the challenge is selling it at home. We have to wait for an opportune political time. Unfortunately, a major terror attack might be the best time. Not that I am wishing for one, but I think after Mumbai attack, the case could have been sold politically.

COR: As we have argued – India’s strategic planners must work an Afghan deployment plan out and keep it ready.

Opportunities are not always synchronised with preparedness. But if you are prepared, then you can act when there is an opportunity.

Dhruva, fair enough. But as you suggest, there are already making the case. Their paranoia–though I think it is deliberate to a large degree–cannot be cured. It can only be killed.

Time check, we have 2 minutes Closing comments from all Panelists

Rohit – I completely agree with you. Their paranoia is completely artificial, and used to further their self interest.

Which is why we should not feed it.

I would like to thank all the panelists and readers who have taken pains to attend this discussion.   Please excuse me for any hiccups in organising as this was a first round table sort of discussion that we tried out. Any of your comments are welcome. Your feedback can be sent to centerofrightcv at gmail dot com

Short/medium term achievable objectives make deployment politically viable, even if the actual goal is long term harassment of Pakistan.

I think Obama, center-left is itching to get out of Af. They have frequently spoken of maintaining solely counter-terrorism operations. They might just use the presence on Indian troops in Af as an excuse to leave. Look we are not abandoning Af but leaving it in safe hands. And then India might be forced into an escalation.

Fact: Indian soldiers fought before in Afghanistan in the three Anglo-Afghan wars. Some of the units that fought in those wars are still active. That was a very long time ago, in a different era, but still…

But Dhruva, if it is artificial, how does it matter if we feed it or not? (Let’s continue this offline)

COR: Your   question is — whether US will ask for it? Or will we offer it? Do the Pakistani objections carry any weight? Will China also tell the US to keep India out?

I think all this comes into play once the Indian government starts making the right noises. I don’t even hear any whispers yet.

Folks, have a good weekend!

Last one from me to all INI Guys -thanks for engaging the Offstumped community readers.You guys have doing yeoman service for cause of increased awareness on strategic issues.Keep up the great work

Thanks for having me guys. It was good to chat and lots of food for thought. We will probably address some of these concerns in future write-ups. Enjoy the weekend.

This was great to have the many INI bloggers who i will cll maharathis to take part in engaging with readers

Thanks everyone. Have a great 2010. Cheers!

Thanks for the discussion, panelists! Have a good weekend

The discussion will be availble for reviewing and if the panelists want it, i can send a mail with all the comments

Thanks to everyone that made this possible. INI and also Cor and Yoss.

so long keyboard warriors!

Thanks to Nitin, Rohit, Dhruva, Sushant for the debate. Thanks to center and Offstumped for bringing us this debate. Great job

YOSS/COR great job guys

Good Night/Good Morning/Good Afternoon to everyone, Have a nice weekend