Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Admiral Fallon on Afghanistan, Pakistan and India

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Admiral Fallon on Afghanistan, Pakistan and India

    Admiral William J Fallon, a former commander of the US Central Command and a key player in Afghanistan, tells Jyoti Malhotra what the country looks like to him today

    How do you look back at Afghanistan since you resigned nearly three years ago?

    It is particularly important to recognise that in the last ten years the US has been in Afghanistan, there has not been a continuum of focus, activity and objectives. There has been an interesting mix of missions, in the business of nation-building, training and helping establish Afghan security forces in counter-terrorism, and as things began to get more and more unsettled, a third mission responsible for counter-insurgency. Slowly, we began to have cooperation between the Pakistanis, the Afghans and US troops. But if Afghanistan has to become a viable entity, it needs to have a functioning economy. Unfortunately, it continues to live on donations. In my experience, you have to get off that as soon as you can.


    I also felt that Afghanistan would not do particularly well if there was a large troop infusion, the history isn’t good (in this regard). Unlike in Iraq, there aren’t many big urban areas, except Kabul, and the problem is that putting a heavy footprint in terms of security forces has not sat very well with the local population. On the other hand, we have to work with people to create trust and stability. This is not science, this is an art, and it is art in a dangerous situation. When you have more people, you have more people who can be attacked. Its no surprise that the casualty rates went up.


    What role does India play in the Afghan puzzle?
    In recent years, even as several insurgent leaders have shifted base to Pakistan, the country has been through a lot of turmoil, which has distracted it from the efforts to fight the Al Qaeda and the Taliban. India can play a much more positive role in this situation than Pakistan, for a number of reasons. First, the turmoil within Pakistan is exacerbated by a weak government and supposedly-democratic institutions. The security threat today, I believe, is not the Pakistan army, however large it is, but the continued insurgent, terrorist activity, where you have different groups with different agendas, but the same connections. They help each other. This is the biggest problem for Pakistan, and it is the biggest threat to India.

    To really have a change in Pakistan, you need the Pakistanis to believe that there really is no threat from India, no intention from India to attack Pakistan or the insurgents in Pakistan. And the upshot of the history of massing forces on the border is that it perpetuates a mindset of preparing for war tomorrow, and that is not helpful in the current situation. Second, it is extremely wasteful in resources.

    The point is that the threat is from terrorist, insidious activity, small, agile groups who can infiltrate (into India). You have to deal with them differently than putting a million men on the border with armour. This is not the easiest thing to accept, not only by populations who have come to accept this over the decades, but by the armies themselves.

    What would you suggest, especially in the wake of the Mumbai attacks?
    I would say, try thinning out the army from your border. Some of it has been done of course, but not enough. You need to convey the message that we believe that we have no intention of attacking you across the border…you have to inspire trust in Pakistan. The problem is, somebody has to take the first step, and as I look at conflicts around the world, there are some typical positions, and the most common is, I know my position and I’m sticking to it, you know yours and you’re sticking to it.

    People who arrived in a rubber dinghy in Mumbai, well, they’re not going to be stopped by forces on the border. You can flip a coin all day long, and say you should go first, but it is the bigger dog, the bigger country, the one that is better resourced, that should go first.

    Some years ago, I was invited to Kashmir to take a look at the situation, there was some “de-tensioning,” small steps that were welcomed by the people. But that’s not enough, I believe you have to do the big things too.

    The Indian government believes that the Pakistani army is also mixed up with these terrorists.
    Even if this is true, how do you deal with it? Not by half a million men on the border! My experience is that the best way to deal with terrorists and insurgents is through human intelligence and information, by building trust and confidence with the people and exchanging that information in the right way. That would enable you to react in real time.

    So how does Afghanistan become a piece of the India-Pakistan puzzle?

    As I look at India-Pakistan, there is no comparison in population, size, economic prowess, military prowess. India has all these advantages. So in any kind of conflict, you’re going to be very dominant. So take the first step.

    Now how will this be helpful? This could encourage the Pakistanis to see that they are not in imminent danger of being over-run by the Indian army, so with all the problems that they have within the country why would they need to keep the army on the eastern border? The problems are out there, on the western side on the Afghan border. And by the way, there are going to be people like me reminding them, constantly, hey look guys, the problem is not in the east, but in the west.

    The problem is that the Pakistani army is running the show in Pakistan…
    You are the same people, the cultures are the same…you have to show leadership, take the first step. If Afghanistan has to be settled down, it cannot have more terrorists, more insurgents, more arms and more money coming through the open border with Pakistan, and nobody is doing anything about it. Everything is related, there is no independent variable here. The Pakistanis are paranoid about you, you’re so big, as if you’re just waiting for the whole thing to collapse the country and take them over. So how do you get rid of this paranoia? Not easy, you have to take small steps, show them you’re not interested in a fight.

    You get involved in the economics of the region, connecting all the way from India to Central Asia.

    But what about today? What about the US, which leans towards Pakistan and doesn’t want India to play a role in Afghanistan?

    We do and we don’t. Personally, I would be delighted if you could play a major, long-term role, but in the near term every increase in your visibility creates more paranoia in Pakistan. The challenge is to help Afghanistan without appearing to be a threat to Pakistan. So my sense is that you should go quietly and slowly, while you try and change the mindset. Get more and more involved in improving infrastructure, building electricity lines and power stations. But training security forces? No, I don’t think so.

    Q&A: Admiral William J Fallon,

    ====

    Fallon's comments on India thinning out her forces and 'taking the first step' are in consonance with much of what Pakistani commentators have argued.
    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

  • #2
    A.M. Reply

    "Fallon's comments on India thinning out her forces and 'taking the first step' are in consonance with much of what Pakistani commentators have argued."

    Is it surprising that Pakistani commentators might argue such?

    I believe India might be able to do so in the Punjab but it would be very difficult along the LOC further north. Those forces, however, aren't configured for offensive operations. I'm sure you agree with that.

    What then were India to do so? India doesn't really fear a conventional attack from Pakistan. That's long ceased to be a serious concern. I agree, therefore, that Indian conventional forces represent no viable leverage against Pakistan.

    Nonetheless, A.M., India IS threatened by Pakistan below the nuclear threshold.

    "...To really have a change in Pakistan, you need the Pakistanis to believe that there really is no threat from India, no intention from India to attack Pakistan or the insurgents in Pakistan..."

    This is difficult. Mumbai is a reality. Fallon believes you've insurgents within Pakistan which operate against India. What would Pakistan do to assure India's concerns?
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
      Fallon's comments on India thinning out her forces and 'taking the first step' are in consonance with much of what Pakistani commentators have argued.
      AM,

      As much as I would want to agree with Fallon, tell me what have the Pakistani commentators opined about the illegit support(State sponsored or whatever) that the Pakistani terrorists enjoy in your Sovereign Republic?
      AM, it is your land, as asserted by 180 Million Pakistanis, not part of Akhand Bharat and if you can not reign in those scums there, then THAT piece of land is a legit military target for my sovereign republic.
      sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by S-2 View Post
        This is difficult. Mumbai is a reality. Fallon believes you've insurgents within Pakistan which operate against India. What would Pakistan do to assure India's concerns?
        This is critical; no contract can work unless there is a penalty clause for punishing a party breaking it. The Admiral argues that Indian forces should be thinned out because India's security is supposedly better served by HUMINT from Pakistanis and small unit action by Indian security forces. I agree in principle, but I have a few practical questions: What is the penalty for Pakistanis not providing the intelligence? And what is the mechanism for its enforcement?

        Comment


        • #5
          Cactus Reply

          "I have a few practical questions..."

          I don't. "...practical..." isn't the issue. It is a philosophical issue reaching to Pakistan's commitment to a non-violent resolution of border disputes.

          Pakistan's security apparatus isn't perfect and the climate is conducive to the formation of religious-based violent activists. That will take time and pain to reverse but the impetus to do so must be forthrightly obvious within the highest levels of the Pakistani leadership.

          India can help, of course, by re-opening discussions regarding a final resolution of the LOC and Kashmir status. That will, in turn, require a philosophical shift at the highest levels of Indian leadership. Both Pakistan and India, to do so, must successfully broach their respective internal political resistance to such. Nothing is guaranteed there so long as players exist in either camp prepared to actively resist such an approach.

          A "thousand cuts" must be rejected in favor of non-violent resolution. To do so, Pakistan must see that it's entirely possible to achieve a satisfactory pathway to an acceptable end-game. The end-game itself must accomodate Indian perspectives that, too, must be amended so that Pakistan's pursuit isn't fruitless.

          Likely, the middle ground is where some agreement exists. Likely, the internal resistance to such on either side is near-overwhelming. It'll take stronger leadership on both sides of the border than I've witnessed to shift public opinion internally toward my perspective.
          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cactus View Post
            What is the penalty for Pakistanis not providing the intelligence? And what is the mechanism for its enforcement?
            What is the penalty for Pakistan with the current Indian Military deployments?

            Nor does the current Indian troop deployment on the IB and LoC, with respect to engaging the Pakistani Military, serve Indian security (WRT attacks from terrorists such as in Mumbai), or provide an 'enforcement mechanism'.

            The suggestions made by Admiral Fallon do however allow greater flexibility to the Pakistani military in expanding/initiating operations against insurgent/terrorist groups, which is a direct benefit to India in terms of 'better serving her security' from a terrorist threat.

            I agree with S-2 last post, and have argued similarly before myself, that a comprehensive dismantling of Kashmir focussed/driven insurgent groups will only be possible with movement/compromise on territorial disputes between India and Pakistan - otherwise Pakistan risks turning the Kashmiri groups against itself.
            Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
            https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

            Comment


            • #7
              Come to think of it, I am not sure I agree with the Admiral's assessment of the Indian calculus of the problem even in principle. Japan, South Korea, maybe even China, serve as useful templates to think this problem through (In spirit of the "Look East" Policy? )

              Comment


              • #8
                Cactus, et al,

                I'm not sure that I entirely agree with the Admiral's assessment; if we are talking about partitioned territory of Kashmir.
                Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                Come to think of it, I am not sure I agree with the Admiral's assessment of the Indian calculus of the problem even in principle. Japan, South Korea, maybe even China, serve as useful templates to think this problem through (In spirit of the "Look East" Policy? )
                (COMMENT)

                The unspoken elephant in the room is the "water." That is what (in my assessment) makes Kashmir worth the effort and the fight/struggle. By addressing this aspect, the dispute may be softened to a point that both sides can come to the table with acceptable terms.

                Most Respectfully,
                R

                Comment


                • #9
                  Nor does the current Indian troop deployment on the IB and LoC, with respect to engaging the Pakistani Military, serve Indian security (WRT attacks from terrorists such as in Mumbai), or provide an 'enforcement mechanism'.
                  deja vu........ remember 1999? wat if the IA pulls back a fair share of its forces and we have a repeat of kargil....?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I can't help but think that all this begs the question: How did Pakistan's western border become the real threat? From Pakistan's POV it was the US toppling of the Taliban regime 10 years ago. Pakistan then had the Taliban in hand. That memory seems to be still in play in Pakistan's strategy. By not fully going along with US urgings to do more in the west, Pakistan hopes the US will tire of the war and pull out. Then Pakistan can return to something more like its former relationship with Afghanistan. In other words, elements in Pakistan seem to favor playing a waiting game. Success depends on what the US does in the future, but IMO the train has left station and Pakistan has yet to understand it.
                    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                      By not fully going along with US urgings to do more in the west, Pakistan hopes the US will tire of the war and pull out.
                      I disagree. By not 'fully going along with US urgings to do more in the West' Pakistan is keeping its options open in case the US tires of the war and pulls out, and not hoping for the latter scenario. Pakistan has significant economic and security interests in a stable Afghanistan, and does not really have the resources (nor likely the financial backing of the Saudis and Emiratis this time around) to return to full scale civil war in Afghanistan and support the Taliban.

                      At the same time, if civil war is inevitable with the US tiring out and withdrawing before the Taliban threat is eliminated (either militarily or through reconciliation), Pakistan has strong interests in 'having a horse in the race'.
                      Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                      https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by classical1939 View Post
                        deja vu........ remember 1999? wat if the IA pulls back a fair share of its forces and we have a repeat of kargil....?
                        Kargil was not the result of any 'thinning out of the Indian military' along the LoC, rather the result of a seasonal abandonment of posts by the IA.

                        In addition, Pakistan never really fought Kargil as an actual military to military conflict, and maintained during the conflict that it was led by insurgents.

                        As such, it is hard to imagine what the goal of Kargil was, given that 'insurgents' without the complete backing of the Pakistani military would never be able to hold on to territory in the face of a full scale air and ground assault by the Indian military. If the goal was in fact to hold on to territory, then it was out of hubris that the Indian military would not retaliate as it did.

                        But hubris or not, Kargil would have made clear to the PA that incursions into Indian controlled territory along the LoC would likely result in a full scale war, so I doubt that effort will be repeated unless the PA wants war.
                        Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                        https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                          I disagree. By not 'fully going along with US urgings to do more in the West' Pakistan is keeping its options open in case the US tires of the war and pulls out, and not hoping for the latter scenario. Pakistan has significant economic and security interests in a stable Afghanistan, and does not really have the resources (nor likely the financial backing of the Saudis and Emiratis this time around) to return to full scale civil war in Afghanistan and support the Taliban.

                          At the same time, if civil war is inevitable with the US tiring out and withdrawing before the Taliban threat is eliminated (either militarily or through reconciliation), Pakistan has strong interests in 'having a horse in the race'.
                          I can see why you disagree. Nevertheless, preparing options in case the US will tire and leave amounts to the same thing: it still means using less force than called for.
                          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                            I can see why you disagree. Nevertheless, preparing options in case the US will tire and leave amounts to the same thing: it still means using less force than called for.
                            "Less force than called for", but still a significant amount of force when you consider the fact that it is essentially only one agency in FATA, North Waziristan, that is currently a threat to ISAF troops.

                            “We need them to do more. We’re going to encourage them to do more because that makes it easier on what we’re doing. But I think it’s still doable, without them decreasing what they’ve been doing, which is significant,” he said.
                            Afghan war winnable without Pakistan help on border: US – The Express Tribune

                            From the Pakistani perspective, given our security concerns and interests, and the fact that 'home' isn't thousands of miles away, the policy is understandable.
                            Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                            https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "Pakistan has strong interests in 'having a horse in the race'."

                              Very strong interests. Abetting interests (pun intended).
                              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X