India steps up in Afghanistan

Although Pakistan has long believed that Afghanistan was in their sphere of influence, their arch-rival India is preparing to step into the breach when US forces leave:

plans are already in the final stages of receiving Indian government clearance for an extensive training schedule for the fledgling Afghan National Army (ANA) at training institutions across the country.

The program is the first concrete follow-up on military-to-military cooperation under the umbrella of the Strategic Partnership Agreement that was signed between Kabul and New Delhi in October, when Afghan President Hamid Karzai was given a grand reception in India.

Under the agreement, India, which has the world’s third-largest army, agreed to train, equip and build the capacity of the Afghan forces.

Sources in the Indian security establishment familiar with the contours of the detailed schedule say Kabul and New Delhi have identified three areas to focus on, namely increasing the intake of officers in India’s premier training institutes; providing specialized training to middle and higher level officers already operating in the Afghan National Army (ANA); and training soldiers in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist operations by seconding them to various regimental centers across India.

 

 

Has the US been defeated in Afghanistan by Pakistan?

Rajeev Srinivasan presents in this article a very harsh and stinging analysis of the US adventure in Afghanistan from an Indian point of view.  The author claims that the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, has mastered “the fine art of running with the hares while hunting with the hounds” and has twisted the US to its own strategic goals (while bamboozling successive US administrations into paying for its own defeat).  Srinivasan writes:

In effect, the only ones who have benefited from the collapse of American clout are the Arabs, the Pakistanis and the Chinese. The Arabs, especially the oil-exporting dictatorships (with the sole exception of Libya) have managed to maintain their status quo ante, and they have parlayed the billions from an oil-addicted world into radicalised millions everywhere through insistent propaganda.

The Pakistanis have achieved their coveted ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan which is, in effect, their colony. True, there has been some cost to them in civilian casualties and the Frankenstein monster of internal terrorism, but that is collateral damage the Army is willing to accept in the pursuit of their strategic goals.

The unkindest cut is perhaps that China has won against the Americans. Again. This is the third military conflict where China has had the better of the Americans. In Korea, they fought to a standstill. In Vietnam, a then-Chinese ally defeated the Americans. In Afghanistan, Chinese ally Pakistan is doing this. This must be China’s dream come true: they are beating the Americans militarily and economically.

Srinivasan, again, is writing from the Indian point of view and ponders the question of what India should do going forward.   If I might interject my American point of view, I believe that India and the US have deeply shared interests not only in Central, South and Southwest Asia, but globally as well.  I believe that India, because of its democratic heritage, relatively open society, and latent power (both hard and soft) is destined to succeed the US as global hegemon, if not at the end of the current cycle, then certainly by the end of this century when the sixth cycle closes.   Just as the British handed off hegemony to the US during the last century, the United States should build deep ties with India, begin a strategy of “graceful decline,” and prepare to hand off global leadership to India.  The US can play a supporting role to Indian hegemony not unlike the one that Great Britain played for the US.  It is the current world system of open markets and democratic nations that best provides security and prosperity, and this is the best means of maintaining that system.

Bing West sums up the Afghanistan campaign

Another must-read from West at Foreign Affairs:

Regardless of how the war turns out, the military lessons learned will be negative; the conflict has dragged on far too long to be considered a strategic success. Unlike in the years after World War II, the generals of this day will not gain in historical stature. The popularity of the idea of counterinsurgency as nation building reached its zenith when Iraq was stabilized in 2008. At the time, the U.S. military’s counterinsurgency warriorintellectuals were in vogue. As happened to their predecessors after the Vietnam War, however, their concepts of war fighting will come to be rejected by the younger generation of company-grade officers who had to execute a flawed doctrine. No matter their skills and good intentions, foreign troops cannot persuade the people of another nation to reject insurgents in their midst. The people must convince themselves — and be willing to sacrifice for that conviction.

As always, read the whole thing.

Libya a new model for war?

John Hockenberry and Gideon Rose discuss the successful campaign to dislodge Ghaddafi in Libya and wonder whether this particular mix of forces – NATO airpower, intelligence and special forces leavening the mass of local forces – is the model for successful interventions.  Of course, this is exactly the mix that was also successful in Afghanistan 10 years ago.  Sometimes we forget how successful the initial toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan was because we are still tied down in trying to stabilize the nation a decade later.   Such could well be the case in Libya, as well.  If we really want this model to be new and different, we should just leave Libya to the Libyans.  We can topple oppressive regimes for the locals, but building a new nation in the aftermath is their own work.    That would be a different approach.  It is also highly unlikely.  We Americans are too attached to our messianic approach to democratization.

US troops in Afghanistan until 2024?

So claims Ben Farmer in a report in the Daily Telegraph.  According to Farmer, US and Afghani leaders are close to signing a strategic defense pact that will allow US trainers to remain in the nation to build and advise the Afghan army, plus allow US special forces and air power to continue to run operations from Afghan bases.

This is a real turnabout from the widely anticipated slow but total withdrawal.