PDA

View Full Version : Indian Troops for Afghanistan



Ray
23 Sep 06,, 19:30
Nato calls
SUJAN DUTTA
In the war zone

Brussels, Sept. 22: Nato, the US-led western military alliance, wants Indian troops for its missions in volatile regions like Afghanistan and Kosovo.

Nato officials here at its headquarters said Indian troops would be part of a wider engagement the alliance envisages with non-member states.

The alliance does not expect Indian troops for its missions overnight but as a consequence of a protracted engagement that will drive policy change in New Delhi and reforms within Nato.

Beginnings have been made at two levels. Nato headquarters has briefed Indian diplomats here. Its secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Schaffer has met defence minister Pranab Mukherjee.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060923/asp/frontpage/story_6783200.asp

A very interesting development.

Pakistan will be least pleased.

The US equation with Afghanistan is very good including with the local population.

India has vast experience in High Altitude Warfare and it is in India's interest to box in Pakistan.

However, the numbers may not be very large since India's commitments are quite a few.

Officer of Engineers
23 Sep 06,, 19:33
About Bloody Time!

kams
23 Sep 06,, 20:18
Ray Sir and OOE,

I think the probability of Indian troop deployement In Afghanistan is low. Why?

1. Pakistan will scream murder and may seriously downgrade its co-operation with NATO in Afghanistan.
2. Pakistan seriously degrade its level of intel sharing with western agencies.
3. I think for US/NATO its more important to get Pakistans co-operation than couple of thousand Indian troops.
4. Commies in our govt. won't let it happen (Co-operation with US? not unless they get approval from CCP first:biggrin: ).

Despite all this if US manages to palacate Pakistan, then Indian troops are likely to be deployed in Northern sector. Indian intel guys were working with Northern alliance for long time. Infact I think it was in Indian run hospital in Tajikistan Masoud Shah was declared dead.

Jay
24 Sep 06,, 05:25
You do know why Pakistan agreed to be a part of WOT in the first place dont ya? They dont have a choice :cool:

lemontree
25 Sep 06,, 04:53
While we thought that the US was crazy to agree to the Pak-Taliban peace deal, and abused Manmohan to declare that Pakistan was also a victim of terror, we hardly knew what these old men Bush-Manmohan were cooking.:rolleyes:

These seem to be the steps taken to get Indian troops into Afghanistan. Something that we were looking forward to.

*cursing my luck* that I'm not part of it.:frown:

kams
25 Sep 06,, 05:18
Or is it a gentle warning to Mushy in light of tribal agreement? Behave or else you will find Indian Troops on your Nothern border.

Bill
25 Sep 06,, 06:19
I'll believe it when Indian boots are on the ground, cause the Pakistanis are going to SKITZ.

lemontree
25 Sep 06,, 06:38
I'll believe it when Indian boots are on the ground, cause the Pakistanis are going to SKITZ.
What will they do that they already hav'nt done in Afghanistan?

Ray
25 Sep 06,, 08:40
Or is it a gentle warning to Mushy in light of tribal agreement? Behave or else you will find Indian Troops on your Nothern border.

I think this is more likely.

As Sniper has indicated Pakistan will get "dast". (upset stomach!).

xplore
25 Sep 06,, 09:24
I think this is more likely.

As Sniper has indicated Pakistan will get "dast". (upset stomach!).

It is most funny likelyhood...........even if NATO gets extremely frustrated they wont collect "Junk". Ans decondly how can Indian troops be spared when they are fighting more then 20 seperatist movements at home??

"When tigress was killed a rat started running around and telling animals that "its more likely" that he would get blamed.

lemontree
25 Sep 06,, 09:46
It is most funny likelyhood...........even if NATO gets extremely frustrated they wont collect "Junk".
Lets let NATO decide for themselves.

Ans decondly how can Indian troops be spared when they are fighting more then 20 seperatist movements at home??
The Indian armed forces fight untill they win, they are not in the habit of surrendering to or making peace deals with terrorist scum bags, unlike the case in Waziristan.

"When tigress was killed a rat started running around and telling animals that "its more likely" that he would get blamed.
Your calling the Pakistani army a rat?..I am not sure people will agree here.

Samudra
25 Sep 06,, 10:00
But do we have enough troops to spare? :confused:

santosh tiwari
25 Sep 06,, 10:05
i think india wont miss this chance and would send atleast 50,000 troops with a aircraft carrier with no less than 50-60 advance aircrafts. india would plan for a complete military operation with all T90s and other military weapons. removal of Taliban is directly related to peace in Kashmir. this is well known that india has done fencing on kashmir border. its now hard for even pakistan based terrorists to cross border and come to this side. this is impossible that a indian kashmiri will first cross and go to pakistan for training and will get arms and will then cross the border and back. almost 100% terrorists of kashmir are born outside india and were trained by Taliban and ISI. if main source of terrorists will be destroyed, there will be no problem in Kashmir where already a democratically elected government is doing well.

Mr Karjai is now known as the most popular leader of Afghanistan. he has got reputation as the best ever prime minister of Afghanistan. he would first request India for solving terrorism problem of Afghanistan then india would negotiate with NATO for the expanse of this type of operations. indian military has 1.2million strength and out of that about 2,00,000 are directly fighting with terrorists in kashmir. even if 50,000 – 1,00,000 get chance to make direct attack on the main source of these terrorists based in Waziristan and POK, there wont be any problem for indian military to remove those who are in indian kashmir.

Samudra
25 Sep 06,, 10:08
with a aircraft carrier

What do you do with an aircraft carrier in Afghanistan? :confused:

santosh tiwari
25 Sep 06,, 10:11
What do you do with an aircraft carrier in Afghanistan? :confused:

madam we have to put something there for father of taliban also :biggrin: and carry those aircrafts to arabian sea. :rolleyes:

xplore
25 Sep 06,, 10:42
i think india wont miss this chance and would send atleast 50,000 troops with a aircraft carrier with no less than 50-60 advance aircrafts.

Air craft Carrier in landlocked Afghanistan??????? helloooooooooooooooo

It reflects the professionalism of these troops, no wander hunger never ends from that region.

Neo
25 Sep 06,, 11:33
they are not in the habit of surrendering to or making peace deals with terrorist scum bags, unlike the case in Waziristan.


Lt,

Though I'm no longer following the SA or International politics section, I'd like to add something to your post.
There's no such thing as the Taliban-deal despite whatever the media has been saying.
The deal is between GoP/PA and the tribal leaders of Waziristan to curb taliban influence and to prevent cross border insurgencies from these area's.

Its a win-win situation for Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nato.
Just my rare $0.02.

glyn
25 Sep 06,, 12:06
It is good to see my friend Neo posting again.

Ray
25 Sep 06,, 12:08
no wander hunger never ends from that region.

That is no English, if you don't mind my saying so.

What are you implying?

Goosey goosey gander wandering or wondering about wandering?

xplore
25 Sep 06,, 12:15
Air craft Carrier in landlocked Afghanistan??????? helloooooooooooooooo

It reflects the professionalism of these troops, no wander hunger never ends from that region.

Can you see it now?

Ray
25 Sep 06,, 12:20
Here is something about the "deal".


Sunday, September 24, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

EDITORIAL: President Musharraf and the Taliban

President Pervez Musharraf said at the joint White House press conference with President George W Bush on Friday that his deal with a grand jirga in North Waziristan had been misrepresented in the press. It was not a deal “with” the Taliban, he explained, but “against” the Taliban. The American president gracefully nodded, implying he believed what his Pakistani counterpart was saying. But the fact is that there is a whole gallery of pen-wielders in Pakistan and the United States who don’t believe that any jirga conceivably can, or will, challenge the Taliban. The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, who too is in the United States, is not so trusting; he says the Taliban leader Mullah Umar could be sitting in Karachi and that those who have reared a “snake” should beware because the snake is bound to sting them too, a reference to the Taliban allegedly hiding in areas of Pakistan.

Admittedly, Mr Karzai’s credibility on this score has fallen since he tried “pointation” with telephone numbers and addresses in Quetta when he last visited Pakistan. In the event, the information he gave was outdated or fictitious even in the eyes of the CIA whom the Pakistanis took along when they investigated the charges. President Bush also has to take Mr Karzai with a pinch of salt because of his “irredentist” refusal to put gates at the Torkham border to better regulate the traffic of people and goods between Afghanistan and Pakistan . But if Mr Karzai is less than credible, what about General Musharraf. It is not so much a question of whether he is telling the truth or not, but whether his statement is credible policy? Can he tackle the Taliban??

We believe that President Musharraf sincerely intends to grasp the nettle of the Taliban and put an end to the scepticism about his policies that is very much in the air in Washington. The problem is that his action against the troublemakers in Waziristan has not paid off. The new “package deal” put together by Governor Orakzai is more or less a pull-back from the earlier strategy of “going and getting them” and a reversion to the well-known traditional approach of letting the tribals do what they want. The “deal” repeats some of the elements of the earlier agreements made in the area — after much greasing of dubious palms — and includes the condition that “foreigners” register themselves or get out. If the “foreigners” did not get out last time when the army was in the area hunting them, what guarantee is there this time that they will tamely register themselves? Or is that not a condition anymore?

The jirga which is supposed to deliver the “foreigners” cannot be different from the earlier jirgas who were tamed by the Taliban and Al Qaeda after killing over a hundred influential jirga members. The Taliban are supposed to be Afghan followers of Mullah Umar who take refuge in Pakistan and launch attacks in Afghanistan, but they are linked to Al Qaeda too, together with other warriors from a number of neighbouring countries in the region. They are in Waziristan and in places like Bajaur where members of Al Qaeda were last sighted. And they are in Balochistan, mostly ensconced in and around Quetta, where too many foreign and local journalists have met them for Pakistan to deny it credibly.

Both the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Balochistan are outside of the normal “writ” of the state and iCOLOR="Red"]it has become difficult to tell a Pakistani Pashtun from an Afghan Taliban in many parts of FATA because of the “Talibanisation” which has picked up while President Musharraf was busy catching the “real Afghan Taliban” and “Arab Al Qaeda”. [/COLOR]In fact, the last time there was news from Waziristan the local Taliban were shutting video shops and trying to proclaim a mini-state of their own there. Needless to say, the MMA government in Peshawar led by the JUI fully supports the Talibanisation going on in territories contiguous to the province and makes no bones about hero-worshipping both Mullah Umar and Osama bin Laden. In recent times the lawlessness of the “buffer zone” has spread to areas under normal municipal administration. Worse, the MMA and PMLQ politicians who support President Musharraf do not find too much wrong with this development.

Does General Musharraf have the political support he needs to corner the Taliban and prevent Pakistan itself from going under their fanatic rule? The short answer, as he is inclined to say, is “no”. But as General (r) Talat Masood wrote recently, “In Pakistan, the political parties and the people do not take the campaign against terror seriously. Ironically, the ruling party, the PML, is least enthusiastic about fighting extremism and does not seem to share President Musharraf’s vision.”

Most Pakistanis want General Musharraf to succeed in projects that are palpably for the good of the state of Pakistan in the long run. But his failures are steadily mounting against his rostrum of success. One has to concede that even for good policies to find support it is important for them to succeed. He couldn’t tackle the madrassa issue and gave up when the clergy defied him; he couldn’t resolve the textbooks issue after he found that the ruling PML was not keen on it — in the Northern Areas two federal ministers dealing with education and religious affairs have let the textbook crisis remain on the boil — and his Balochistan operation and his Kalabagh Dam project have either withered on the vine or led to bigger crises.

We must credit President Musharraf with trying to cope under a form of democracy. But it is because of democracy that he needs political support. Having chosen a batch of particularly conservative political partners, he now finds diminishing approval for his enlightened “national interest” projects. Meanwhile, the politicians against him are following the same rule he did when he formed his alliance with his ideological opposites: they are in bed with all sorts of unlikely allies in order to oust him. Sniffing the air for votes in 2007, the ruling party thinks his policies are a distraction, as we saw in the case of the Hudood laws. Therefore any attempt to extend his agenda must begin with a revision of his alliances with a view to enlarging his support base. *
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...4-9-2006_pg3_1

.

lemontree
25 Sep 06,, 13:12
Lt,
The deal is between GoP/PA and the tribal leaders of Waziristan to curb taliban influence and to prevent cross border insurgencies from these area's.
The deal was signed between a Taliban militant leader Azad Khan and the govt representative, and not between the Waziri tribal jirgha.

Its a win-win situation for Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nato.
How does it become a win win situation when militants are provided a safe sanctury and troops are withdrawn.
It surprising that PA troops who generally are better than the Taliban in training, have been repeatedly at the recieving end, that the the army GHQ decided to make peace. What would they do if they had to withstand it for 16 years as the Indian Army has?
Musharraf has just tried to save his 'presidentship' by appeasing the crooks. In time you will see the damage caused by this appeasement.

Anoop C
25 Sep 06,, 13:14
There is more than one reason for Islamabad's amnesty for the Taliban in FATA.

After Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti's assassination, the PA expects Balochistan to become even more restive. Already, the Khan of Kalat has convened a jirga that announced that a case would be filed at the International Court of Justice against the illegal occupation and exploitation of Balochistan by the Govt. of Pakistan.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/09/22/top4.htm

The PA will need more troops in Balochistan for their peculiar brand of pacification.

Musharraf is going for re-election as a Presidential candidate in 2007. The last time around, the horse-trading left the MMA as the second largest Opposition party and they have been most vociferous in demanding Musharraf step down as Army Chief. The withdrawal of the PA from FATA and the amnesty for the Taliban is meant to take the wind out of the MMA's sails come election time, by pointing to the fact that Islamabad is indeed defying the American edict and expressing solidarity with the Islamists right wing sentiment.

The PA's experience in FATA has been less than pleasant and Musharraf is feeling the resentment of the PA brass for putting them in an unenviable position. Given that Musharraf the President derives his authority from Musharraf the COAS, he cannot ignore the assessment of his Corps Commanders.

Samudra
25 Sep 06,, 16:20
Gentlemen.

Do we have enough men to send ?
Would the IA be over-stretched from the NE to Kashmir to Afghanistan?

There are some 8,000 Indian peacekeepers with the UN.Perhaps we could cut down there...?

Bill
25 Sep 06,, 17:26
What will they do that they already hav'nt done in Afghanistan?
Invade it?

Christ, i dunno, that place is a boiling teakettle with a loosely fitting lid named Musahrrof.

LORD KNOWS what Pakistan would do...

Ray
25 Sep 06,, 19:53
Armitage has already said what is to be done to Pakistan if it gets perky.

Musharraf is getting vocal against the US so that his book sells and he can hightail it out of Pakistan.

You don't require Tarot cards to read what is happening and what will happen.

Musharraf is selling out Pakistan.

With the statements and revelation in his book, while it will be a runaway best seller, it will surely get Bush's and America's goat!

And whatever little one has seen of Bush, he does not like disloyal elements.

Jay
25 Sep 06,, 19:53
Invade it?
With American and NATO troops in Afghanistan?? May be they'll try a stunt like they did for Kashmir in 1947 or like in Kargil, send tribal militia under PA's command and blame it on the people.


Christ, i dunno, that place is a boiling teakettle with a loosely fitting lid named Musahrrof.
Agreed, except this kettle has the biggest mouth of all :biggrin:


LORD KNOWS what Pakistan would do...
I for one, would love to see it, remember the map that the Army Journal published, that would be for real, if Pakistan did something stupid. Infact a Punjab Pakistan would stabilize the entire region, atleast in Indian POV.

Neo
25 Sep 06,, 20:07
The deal was signed between a Taliban militant leader Azad Khan and the govt representative, and not between the Waziri tribal jirgha.

How does it become a win win situation when militants are provided a safe sanctury and troops are withdrawn.
It surprising that PA troops who generally are better than the Taliban in training, have been repeatedly at the recieving end, that the the army GHQ decided to make peace. What would they do if they had to withstand it for 16 years as the Indian Army has?
Musharraf has just tried to save his 'presidentship' by appeasing the crooks. In time you will see the damage caused by this appeasement.

LT,

The deal is widely misunderstood and blown out of proportion by anti Pakistan elements.
From today's news:

Musharraf says every one 'on board' on pact with tribal elders NEW YORK, Sept 25 (APP):

President General Pervez Musharraf said Sunday he has been able to remove some misperceptions about the peace deal in North Waziristan, and every one was now "on board." "We have to understand the new environment and then finalize a strategy and take it to the implementation stage," he told reporters after his return to New York from Texas. He said the environment was not properly understood on the other side of the border. "We needs brains rather than brawn," he said. "If there is no understanding of the environment, no strategy can be successful." He said he had fully briefed the US leadership on the new environment. What Pakistan had done in in North Waziristan - the accord with tribal leaders - was the correct path and, if successful, could be emulated elsewhere and even in Afghanistan. "We feel we're on the right path," he added. Replying to a question about his talks with President George W. Bush, Musharraf said "we have had complete understanding, we trust each other and have confidence in each other." About reports that Osama bin Laden had died, he said: "I do not know whether he is alive or dead and, therefore, I won't comment." (Posted @ 18:30 PST)

ainspiron
25 Sep 06,, 21:02
Omar role in truce reinforces fears that Pakistan 'caved in' to Taliban (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/24/wafg24.xml)

Anoop C
25 Sep 06,, 23:56
From today's news:

President General Pervez Musharraf said Sunday he has been able to remove some misperceptions about the peace deal in North Waziristan, and every one was now "on board." "We have to understand the new environment and then finalize a strategy and take it to the implementation stage," he told reporters after his return to New York from Texas. He said the environment was not properly understood on the other side of the border. "We needs brains rather than brawn," he said. "If there is no understanding of the environment, no strategy can be successful." He said he had fully briefed the US leadership on the new environment. What Pakistan had done in in North Waziristan - the accord with tribal leaders - was the correct path and, if successful, could be emulated elsewhere and even in Afghanistan. "We feel we're on the right path," he added. Replying to a question about his talks with President George W. Bush, Musharraf said "we have had complete understanding, we trust each other and have confidence in each other." About reports that Osama bin Laden had died, he said: "I do not know whether he is alive or dead and, therefore, I won't comment." (Posted @ 18:30 PST)

I read this closely to understand what has been clarified and what could allay fears of a sell-out, but I'm still mistified. Musharraf has merely repeated his claim that this is not a sell-out and is claimed to speak on behalf of the USG. Let's wait to hear the USG's comments on what they think.

I read a report that quoted a US diplomat admonishing Pakistan for releasing Taliban prisoners.

Anoop C
25 Sep 06,, 23:58
Invade it?...LORD KNOWS what Pakistan would do...

Umm, haven't they already done it? What was the Taliban? What is the resurgent Taliban, if not Pakistan's proxy?

lemontree
26 Sep 06,, 05:19
Gentlemen.
Do we have enough men to send ?
Would the IA be over-stretched from the NE to Kashmir to Afghanistan?

There are some 8,000 Indian peacekeepers with the UN.Perhaps we could cut down there...?
We have to address our strategic concerns. The Taliban actively assisted in the IC-814 hijacking, and you are worried about being over stretched. Untill an unless one has the will to reachout and punish those who harmed India and Indians, nations and groups will keep taking advantage of us.

There are enough troops, if the frigging IPS chaps handle the SRPs and CRPFs to do the jobs for which they were raised.

lemontree
26 Sep 06,, 05:23
Invade it?

How has Taliban become resurgent?
What else is the Taliban doing, if not invading?

Beyond that they have no capability.

lemontree
26 Sep 06,, 05:27
LT,
The deal is widely misunderstood and blown out of proportion by anti Pakistan elements.
Neo,
Who is Azad Khan?
Why are Taliban prisoners being released?
Why are captured weapons being handed back?

Don't blame the world for mis-understanding.

troung
26 Sep 06,, 05:51
With American and NATO troops in Afghanistan?? May be they'll try a stunt like they did for Kashmir in 1947 or like in Kargil, send tribal militia under PA's command and blame it on the people.

Good, hopefully that happens.

NATO support, American support, Taliban out in the open again, Pakistani prisoners taken, hmm.... sounds great...


Invade it? Christ, i dunno, that place is a boiling teakettle with a loosely fitting lid named Musahrrof. LORD KNOWS what Pakistan would do...

Pakistani proxies already leveled Kabul and that was before they switched horses to the Taliban who conducted ethnic cleansing and shelled the ruins of Kabul.

YellowFever
26 Sep 06,, 06:40
Invade it?

Christ, i dunno, that place is a boiling teakettle with a loosely fitting lid named Musahrrof.

LORD KNOWS what Pakistan would do...


If NATO offers the Indians an invitation into Afghanistan, they should jump at the chance.

It'll give the Indians what they always wanted: a chance to become a major player in world politics and it'll tweak the nose of Musharraf, which isn't a bad thing.

I say let's blow the lid named Musharraf and see what kind of slime comes out of the teakettle.

bull
26 Sep 06,, 07:27
Lt,
Though I'm no longer following the SA or International politics section, I'd like to add something to your post..

I dont know why?No one has beef with you over here.I feel we /the board misses your contributions here.

bull
26 Sep 06,, 07:29
I think the chances of india sending troops is less than 10% as we dont have enough troops to do that.We have around 300- 500K soldiers incl army and paramilitary alone in kashmir, and also elsewhere in NE, we just sinple dnt have that luxury.

Comeone we cant even man our boundaries properly with bangladesh and nepal properly.If there are extra troops lets use them to guard those borders.

Ray
26 Sep 06,, 07:46
The disclosure that Mullah Omar personally backed the deal will come as a fresh embarrassment to Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, who met President Bush in Washington on Friday to discuss security in the region........

Tribal elders in south Waziristan said that Mullah Omar had sent one of his most trusted and feared commanders, Mullah Dadullah, to ask local militants to sign the truce. Dadullah, a one-legged fighter known for his fondness for beheading his enemies, is believed to be the man leading the campaign in southern Afghanistan in which 18 British troops have been killed.

"Had they been not asked by Mullah Omar, none of them were willing to sign an agreement," said Lateef Afridi, a tribal elder and former national assembly member. "This is no peace agreement, it is accepting Taliban rule in Pakistan's territory."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/24/wafg24.xml

Yellow Fever,

Musharraf tweaked or otherwise is not the concern.

It is that strategic interest which is paramount.

Pakistan boxed in, Balochistan and Northern Areas burning, Altaf Hussein also straining at the leash is an opportunity that is like a ripe plum for the US and India to end the menace of terrorism that is plaguing the world.

And Musharraf is acting as the Indian and US agent in nosediving the reputation of Pakistan in the dung heap.

If I were a Pakistani I would be hopping mad at Musharraf for repeatedly putting Pakistani repuation in the doghouse every time he visits the US.

If he sold out the Taliban, I have an uncomfortable feeling he has sold out himself and in the bargain Pakistan!

.

starsiege
26 Sep 06,, 07:55
We have to address our strategic concerns. The Taliban actively assisted in the IC-814 hijacking, and you are worried about being over stretched. Untill an unless one has the will to reachout and punish those who harmed India and Indians, nations and groups will keep taking advantage of us.

There are enough troops, if the frigging IPS chaps handle the SRPs and CRPFs to do the jobs for which they were raised.

well said! india has to show the world that it has a long arm and would reach out to get those who have gone agasint it. much like the isralies did after the munich killings

lemontree
26 Sep 06,, 07:58
I think the chances of india sending troops is less than 10% as we dont have enough troops to do that.We have around 300- 500K soldiers incl army and paramilitary alone in kashmir, and also elsewhere in NE, we just sinple dnt have that luxury.
Please justify the 300-500k number of troops in J&K?...Don't pull out numbers from biased media sources. There are 3 corps in J&K that barely number 105,000 at any given time, most of which are in the LOC with Pakistan and China. The COIN ops are conducted by some troops from the 3 formations and the RRs 30 odd battalions (roughly 28,000 - 30,000).

All the above are part of the so called "holding formations", we have 3 strike corps. 1 x divison can easily be sent on 2 year tenures.

Comeone we cant even man our boundaries properly with bangladesh and nepal properly.If there are extra troops lets use them to guard those borders.
Ask the BSF/ ITBP/ SSB to do their jobs instead of making money from smugglers. That what they were raised for. Besides our borders are too large and porus to depend only on passive measures. We need to actively undertake active measures to hit at the nerve centres.

YellowFever
26 Sep 06,, 08:00
Yellow Fever,

Musharraf tweaked or otherwise is not the concern.

It is that strategic interest which is paramount.

Pakistan boxed in, Balochistan and Northern Areas burning, Altaf Hussein also straining at the leash is an opportunity that is like a ripe plum for the US and India to end the menace of terrorism that is plaguing the world.

And Musharraf is acting as the Indian and US agent in nosediving the reputation of Pakistan in the dung heap.

If I were a Pakistani I would be hopping mad at Musharraf for repeatedly putting Pakistani repuation in the doghouse every time he visits the US.

If he sold out the Taliban, I have an uncomfortable feeling he has sold out himself and in the bargain Pakistan!

.

As you know that part of the world much better than I, General, I shall defer to your judgement.

However, your quote:
"If I were a Pakistani I would be hopping mad at Musharraf for repeatedly putting Pakistani repuation in the doghouse every time he visits the US."

What exactly do you mean?

Samudra
26 Sep 06,, 08:02
Comeone we cant even man our boundaries properly with bangladesh and nepal properly.If there are extra troops lets use them to guard those borders.

The BSF should be the one looking after the boundaries.

I'm worried about the insurgencies.There seems to be efforts to hand over CI duties to CRPF which is into a massive expansion programme.They've proved themselves when Dec'13 and Ayodhya attack happened.


There are enough troops, if the frigging IPS chaps handle the SRPs and CRPFs to do the jobs for which they were raised.

Point taken, Captain.

sujan
27 Sep 06,, 07:12
Thought you should be able to read the full story. Here it is:

FROM SUJAN DUTTA

The Telegraph,Calcutta,India/September 23 2006/ www.telegraphindia.com


NATO HEADQUARTERS, BRUSSELS, Sept 22 : The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation – NATO – wants Indian troops for its missions in some of the most volatile regions of the world including Afghanistan and Kosovo, diplomats and officials of the military alliance told a group of South Asian journalists here on Thursday and Friday.

Indian “boots on the ground” would be part of a wider engagement that NATO envisages with non-member states and the 26-member grouping of mostly North American and Western European nations.

NATO’s engagement with India – that is currently referred to by the diplomats as a “contact country” – to demarcate it from more intense relations connotated by the phrase “partner country” – is a thought-through process. The alliance does not expect Indian troops for its missions overnight but as a consequence of a protracted engagement that will drive policy change in New Delhi and reforms within NATO itself.

“Indian boots on the ground is one of the options – not the only one – in our relations”, a senior diplomat said.

The beginnings of a NATO-India relations have been made at two levels. First, NATO headquarters has conducted two briefings for Indian diplomats in Brussels. The briefings were described as “preliminary”. Second, the NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Schaffer met Indian defence minister Pranab Mukherjee on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Tuesday. The NATO secretary general was said to have discussed Afghanistan and the security situation in South Asia. The meeting was one of several that Schaffer held with leaders from other countries.

Speaking for NATO headquarters, Simone de Manso said “the (Schaffer-Mukherjee) discussions were good”.

For New Delhi, the beginning of an active engagement with NATO drives foreign policy into a super-charged environment.

First, India is a founder country of the Non Aligned Mission. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh returned from its latest summit in Havana, Cuba, only last week. The Non Aligned Mission was so called to distinguish itself from the NATO and Warsaw Pact (Soviet Bloc) countries. But with the Cold War now history, NATO itself has transformed into an alliance with global linkages that span across continents.

Second, in 2004, US Preseident George Bush identified Pakistan as a “major non NATO ally” to the chagrin of New Delhi here now are the stirrings of a NATO relationship with India.

Third, New Delhi will also have to consider a rewriting of its policy under which Indian troops deploy overseas only under UN mandates and as part of UN peace missions. But NATO diplomats say mechanisms have been evolved to allow for non-member states to associate with NATO by marrying NATO deployments to UN mandates (Afghanistan and Kosovo, for example).

De Manso said the NATO secretary general’s meeting with defence minister Mukherjee was one of several bilateral meetingson the sidelines of the UNGA. But the significance is that it was held as NATO prepares for its summit meeting in Riga on November 28 and November 29. Ministerial meetings leading to the summit are drafting an agenda in which associations with partner countries are likely to figure majorly.

Over Thursday and Friday, NATO diplomats at headquarters in Brussels and military officials at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) – NATO’s military headquarters an hour’s drive from the Belgian capital – briefed a team of journalists, including The Telegraph correspondent, from South Asia. The diplomats were from the US and Dutch delegations and the NATO secretariat. SHAPE officials were from the UK, the US and Hungary. The officials requested not to be identified.

Options envisaging Indian participation in NATO missions that figured during the briefings incuded:

# Straight-forward deployment of an Indian military element alongside or as part of the International Stabilisation and Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

# Provision of assents – such as transport aircraft and troop carriers – for NATO deployments with K-FOR, the NATO force in Kosovo, to relieve some of the pressure on NATO member states whose militaries are overstretched with multiple expeditionary missions


The officials and diplomats emphasized that in both Afghanistan and Kosovo NATO military contingents were acting under UN-mandated missions. They cited the examples of Australia, South Korea and Japan and Central Asian countries that were not NATO members but were engaged with the alliance with boots on the ground.

The stirrings of a NATO-Indian involvement come in the wake of frequent military interactions between India and the US over the last four years through joint exercises, reciprocal visits and dialogue. In 2003, India rejected a US request to participate in stabilization forces in Iraq (where NATO is involved only with a small military training contingent).

Indian and US military officials have often described the bilateral military engagements as drills in “inter-operability” – a keyword that echoes at NATO headquarters – and means the ability of militaries of different nations to act in consonance.

The interest in India also comes when NATO’s military leaders are worried about force-generation. In Afghanistan right now, for example, NATO is looking for a task force, a reserve of upto 2500 troops, as ISAF contingents deploy in the volatile south around Kandahar.

NATO missions are vastly different in nature from the UN peace missions that the Indian military is habituated to. One NATO diplomat said “we are much more robust” – meaning more aggressive in comparision to UN peacekeeping and observation assignments. Also – and this will weight heavily with Indian diplomats as they engage with NATO – NATO member-states and troop contributors fund and train their own contingents in military deployments. This is vastly different from UN missions for which troop contributors such as India are fully-funded by the world body.

Ray
27 Sep 06,, 08:11
Colonel,

What is your comment?

Anoop C
28 Sep 06,, 01:06
A somewhat tangential item:

Report on Aus Spec Forces in Afghanistan (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/special-forces-may-face-total-recall/2006/09/27/1159337222421.html)


Special forces may face total recall

Craig Skehan
September 28, 2006

COUNTER-INSURGENCY operations in Afghanistan would be needed for up to another decade and Australian special forces - being withdrawn after a year of intense battles - may need to be sent back, the Defence Force Chief, Angus Houston, said yesterday.

Air Chief Marshal Houston said while the situation had improved in the north, insurgents were "throwing down a challenge" in the south as a new Australian reconstruction task force of more than 400 personnel is being deployed.

The Australians will be working directly with Dutch forces amid a push to convince European nations to send more troops in the face of an upsurge in violence.

Air Chief Marshal Houston and the commander of Australian special forces, Major General Mike Hindmarsh, yesterday gave a briefing on the role of the returning troops, but many details remain secret.

Their withdrawal has been criticised, but Air Chief Marshal Houston said yesterday it was "not beyond the realm of possibility" that the Federal Government could send them back. "At this point, they need a rest," he said.

The briefing was told that a tally had not been kept of how many insurgents were killed by the Australians, but it had been confirmed that the toll included a number of rebel leaders.

The defence chief was asked how long it would be necessary to combat insurgents with a "hearts and minds" campaign as well as offensive operations.

"It is probably going to take in the order of 10 years," Air Chief Marshal Houston said.

Afghanistan is often described as one of the fronts against global terrorism, particularly because of the presence there of non-Afghan al-Qaeda members.

But the people Australians are fighting in Oruzgan province are mostly young, poor tribesmen, often resentful of outsiders and open to becoming guns for hire by warlords in the drugs trade.

"They are tough and courageous fighters," Major General Hindmarsh said yesterday.

There were graphic descriptions of the difficult environment in which the special forces operated, with temperatures soaring to 54 degrees in summer and plummeting to below zero with heavy snow in winter.

When one Australian patrol entered a remote village, the locals knew so little of contemporary events that they mistook them for Russian troops, even though they were driven out of the country 17 years ago. Major General Hindmarsh said there was hardly a day when the Australian forces were not involved in "some sort of contact with the enemy".

"Constant vigilance and attention to detail, along with a highly disciplined application of basic fieldcraft and fighting skills, was imperative for survival," he said.

There were no Australian battle fatalities and the 11 people who sustained serious injuries had all recovered and remained under his command.

Major General Hindmarsh told of one episode late in the deployment in which Australian commandos from 4RAR worked with Australian SAS forces in an offensive operation against an insurgent leader.

"The Australian commandos and Australian CH-47 helicopters ultimately played a pivotal role in ensuring the mission did not end in a complete disaster, which at one stage appeared likely," he said.

The attacking force received "heavy fire from all directions" sustaining casualties and were under threat of being overwhelmed, he said.

The Australian commandos, located nearby in vehicles as a quick reaction force, fought their way into blocking positions to allow an extraction through to a helicopter landing pad.

While the Australian deployment in Oruzgan province had been highly professional and successful, in response to questions Air Chief Marshal Houston said that "re-infiltration" was always a possibility.

The relation to this thread is: If there is such a shortage of troops in Afghanistan that the special forces have to be recalled to duty soon, then the request for Indian forces assumes greater importance than just a straw in the wind.

Knaur Amarsh
16 Feb 08,, 18:40
There are enough troops, if the frigging IPS chaps handle the SRPs and CRPFs to do the jobs for which they were raised.

Come on Captain,then who will guard Behen Mayawati and the sort?:))