Donald Trump's lack of understanding of India and Pakistan risks destabilising the region

[Varun]

If Donald Trump had read this anecdote from a book by a former British Army Officer, the Afghan strategy he laid out on Monday might have been different.

In 2011, an American general in Helmand –a province in southern Afghanistan – brought together a group of village elders to win them over to the coalition cause. After the elders voiced their concerns, it was time for him to respond. He stood up and said: “Over the last thirty years, Afghanistan has been plagued by terrorists and Mujahedin... I am here to clear them from the country.”

At this point the mood in the room changed and a frenzied chatter broke out. Why?

Many of the village elders, the very people the general was so keen to win over, were the ex-Mujahedin. A similar ignorance of local dynamics was on display again in Trump’s speech.

There were at least two clear changes in the new Trump strategy for Afghanistan. First, Trump put all tact aside and rebuked Pakistan in the most stinging terms, saying the US would no longer allow it to provide a “safe havens for terrorists.” The second change was a surprising call for India to do more in Afghanistan. On this he said, “...we want [India] to help us more with Afghanistan.”

President Trump may not have realised this, but these two policies directly contradict each other. In fact, applying both policies in the same strategy shows a dangerous lack of awareness of why Pakistan has been playing both sides by supporting Nato while simultaneously harbouring militant groups, including the Taliban’s powerful Haqqani network.

A key reason Pakistan harbours Afghan terrorists is to protect itself from India. The two nuclear-powered neighbours have been in three major wars since independence and their relationship is perpetually charged. Some see instability in Afghanistan as creating an essential space to retreat and regroup if the more powerful Indian Army attacks.

Pakistan is also wary of Indian influence in Afghanistan –military or otherwise – because it could leave them exposed on two borders. So, asking India to increase its involvement in Afghanistan was about the best way of making sure Pakistan continues its policy of abetting terrorists. It amounts to calling for calm while also setting the house on fire.

There were two other problems with this approach of talking to both Pakistan and India. First, Pakistan is a recalcitrant yet critical ally in the “War on Terror” and critical Nato supply routes go through the country. Pakistani leaders must have been left fuming when Trump asked their nuclear nemesis to intervene in their backyard.

Antagonising it may backfire, because what Islamabad is likely to do now is grow even closer to China. China is already planning to spend $55bn as part of a new infrastructure project and its growing military partnership is underlined by a Pentagon report suggesting it wants to open a military base in Pakistan. The speech threatens to push Pakistan further into China’s arms.

Finally, calling on India to do more simply will not work. India does not share a border with Afghanistan and their relationship is quite sour. They signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement in 2011, but India has sometimes refused to even schedule bilateral meetings; it feels the current president, Ashraf Ghani, has been too close to Pakistan for its taste. If India had the will to do more in Afghanistan, it would have already done so. It’s a game India has chosen not to play and Trump’s invitation will not change that.

So, calling for India to do more in Afghanistan was an error with high costs and no benefits. It angered Pakistan and is unlikely to move India into action. Clausewitz, the Prussian general and military thinker once said: “The supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgement that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish…the kind of war on which they are embarking.” Trump does not seem to know the war he is fighting. The US and its allies will pay a steep price for his ignorance.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...intervene-in-afghanistan-unwise-a7912336.html

Thoughts?

 

[Markhor]

The article is spot on - the fundamental root of this issue is the Pakistan-India conflict which successive US administrations have failed to grasp the importance of.

If you resolve that, the Afghan issue will be resolved as there will be no need for Pakistan or India to be mutually suspicious of each other's intentions in Afghanistan and Pakistan's "strategic depth" policy they've pursued for the last 40 years will become moot.

If the Pakistani security establishment want strategic depth, the ultimate solution is to mend bridges with the governments of Afghanistan and India. Funding proxies and various militant outfits has only led to international isolation and Talibanisation of Pakistani society which has led to disasterous consequences.

Now, obviously it will take two hands to clap with a need for those governments to reciprocate and in this climate of hyper-nationalism that's not happening any time soon.

 

[Madplayer]

How is it Trump's lack of understanding? Doesn't he get advised by people?

 

[Syed1]

The article is spot on - the fundamental root of this issue is the Pakistan-India conflict which successive US administrations have failed to grasp the importance of.

If you resolve that, the Afghan issue will be resolved as there will be no need for Pakistan or India to be mutually suspicious of each other's intentions in Afghanistan and Pakistan's "strategic depth" policy they've pursued for the last 40 years will become moot.

If the Pakistani security establishment want strategic depth, the ultimate solution is to mend bridges with the governments of Afghanistan and India. Funding proxies and various militant outfits has only led to international isolation and Talibanisation of Pakistani society which has led to disasterous consequences.

Now, obviously it will take two hands to clap with a need for those governments to reciprocate and in this climate of hyper-nationalism that's not happening any time soon.

So it's Pakistan's fault the US aided and armed the Taliban and created a warrior class right on our next door?


It's also Pakistan's fault that India is funding their proxies in Afghanistan to hurt Pakistan? What's the use of India having so many embassies right near the Pak-Afghan border?


I'm sure the big bad Pakistan Army is to blame for that too, amirite?

 

[Eagle_Eye]

The article is spot on - the fundamental root of this issue is the Pakistan-India conflict which successive US administrations have failed to grasp the importance of.

If you resolve that, the Afghan issue will be resolved as there will be no need for Pakistan or India to be mutually suspicious of each other's intentions in Afghanistan and Pakistan's "strategic depth" policy they've pursued for the last 40 years will become moot.

If the Pakistani security establishment want strategic depth, the ultimate solution is to mend bridges with the governments of Afghanistan and India. Funding proxies and various militant outfits has only led to international isolation and Talibanisation of Pakistani society which has led to disasterous consequences.

Now, obviously it will take two hands to clap with a need for those governments to reciprocate and in this climate of hyper-nationalism that's not happening any time soon.

Just out of interest .... when was the last time you visited Pakistan?

 

[Markhor]

So it's Pakistan's fault the US aided and armed the Taliban and created a warrior class right on our next door?

It's also Pakistan's fault that India is funding their proxies in Afghanistan to hurt Pakistan? What's the use of India having so many embassies right near the Pak-Afghan border?

Why did we have to fight America's war in the 80s ?

Please don't tell me you think the Soviets would've invaded Pakistan. Why did we have to create a Frankenstein's monster next door after the Soviets left in the shape of Afghan Taliban which then sprang TTP ? Why did Pakistan not prepare for the blowback in form of heroin, spread of illegal arms, refugees and effects of radicalisation on its own population ?

Tell me one single achievement of Pakistan's foreign policy agenda in Afghanistan since the 1970s. Is Kabul any more under the thumb of Islamabad than before ? What about 50,000+ dead Pakistanis killed as a result of the blowback from instability in Afghanistan ?

If the objective of 40 years of Pakistani foreign policy in Afghanistan was to create a pro-Islamabad government in Kabul - then don't you think Kabul's closer ties with Delhi and all these Indian embassies is a sign of Pakistan's security establishment's ABJECT failure in pursuing its goals in Afghanistan ?

I'm sure the big bad Pakistan Army is to blame for that too, amirite?

If the Army was as practical as they claim to be, then why haven't they achieved their objectives in Afghanistan ? Have the generals liberated one inch of Kashmir with these militias ? Some of these militias have turned their guns onto Pakistani citizens but these so-called "strategic assets" have never been touched. When will we get Zarb-e-Azb on LEJ and the sectarian goons that are allowed to roam free and contest elections despite having blood of thousands of Pakistanis on their hands ?

Its only recently that Pakistan is trying to pursue political reconciliation amongst all factions in Afghanistan but the damage has been done.

Just out of interest .... when was the last time you visited Pakistan?

Ah that old chestnut. I've read into the subject since the late 1990s, I'm more informed to speak objectively on the matter than any armchair patriot who parrots whatever comes out of the ISPR.

I'll ask you the same question - what Pakistani strategic goals have been achieved in Afghanistan since the 1970s ? Is Kabul any more under the thumb of Islamabad than before ?

Would you not agree the devastating blowback from our Afghan policies in form of illegal arms, refugees, heroin, cross-border militancy and radicalisation has done more harm than good ? Or do you think this has been a price worth paying ?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Finally, calling on India to do more simply will not work. India does not share a border with Afghanistan and their relationship is quite sour. They signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement in 2011, but India has sometimes refused to even schedule bilateral meetings; it feels the current president, Ashraf Ghani, has been too close to Pakistan for its taste. If India had the will to do more in Afghanistan, it would have already done so. It’s a game India has chosen not to play and Trump’s invitation will not change that.

On of the reasons I am not a fan of partition 1.0. If it weren't for the creation of Pakistan India would have to share a border with Afghanistan and by extension the responsibilities that come with it.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Why did we have to fight America's war in the 80s ?

Please don't tell me you think the Soviets would've invaded Pakistan. Why did we have to create a Frankenstein's monster next door after the Soviets left in the shape of Afghan Taliban which then sprang TTP ? Why did Pakistan not prepare for the blowback in form of heroin, spread of illegal arms, refugees and effects of radicalisation on its own population ?

Tell me one single achievement of Pakistan's foreign policy agenda in Afghanistan since the 1970s. Is Kabul any more under the thumb of Islamabad than before ? What about 50,000+ dead Pakistanis killed as a result of the blowback from instability in Afghanistan ?

If the objective of 40 years of Pakistani foreign policy in Afghanistan was to create a pro-Islamabad government in Kabul - then don't you think Kabul's closer ties with Delhi and all these Indian embassies is a sign of Pakistan's security establishment's ABJECT failure in pursuing its goals in Afghanistan ?



If the Army was as practical as they claim to be, then why haven't they achieved their objectives in Afghanistan ? Have the generals liberated one inch of Kashmir with these militias ? Some of these militias have turned their guns onto Pakistani citizens but these so-called "strategic assets" have never been touched. When will we get Zarb-e-Azb on LEJ and the sectarian goons that are allowed to roam free and contest elections despite having blood of thousands of Pakistanis on their hands ?

Its only recently that Pakistan is trying to pursue political reconciliation amongst all factions in Afghanistan but the damage has been done.


Ah that old chestnut. I've read into the subject since the late 1990s, I'm more informed to speak objectively on the matter than any armchair patriot who parrots whatever comes out of the ISPR.

I'll ask you the same question - what Pakistani strategic goals have been achieved in Afghanistan since the 1970s ? Is Kabul any more under the thumb of Islamabad than before ?

Would you not agree the devastating blowback from our Afghan policies in form of illegal arms, refugees, heroin, cross-border militancy and radicalisation has done more harm than good ? Or do you think this has been a price worth paying ?

No need to go all defensive, I asked a very straight forward question..... when was the last time you visited Pakistan.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The article is spot on - the fundamental root of this issue is the Pakistan-India conflict which successive US administrations have failed to grasp the importance of.

If you resolve that, the Afghan issue will be resolved as there will be no need for Pakistan or India to be mutually suspicious of each other's intentions in Afghanistan and Pakistan's "strategic depth" policy they've pursued for the last 40 years will become moot.

If the Pakistani security establishment want strategic depth, the ultimate solution is to mend bridges with the governments of Afghanistan and India. Funding proxies and various militant outfits has only led to international isolation and Talibanisation of Pakistani society which has led to disasterous consequences.

Now, obviously it will take two hands to clap with a need for those governments to reciprocate and in this climate of hyper-nationalism that's not happening any time soon.

The US administrations in the past and present aren't idiots. You're looking at it from the wrong perspective, the US wants conflict in Afghanistan and it wants Pak-India to be at each others throats. This alone brings in billions of dollars for the military industrial complex.

Same point goes for the article.

 

[Markhor]

No need to go all defensive, I asked a very straight forward question..... when was the last time you visited Pakistan.

None of your business whatsoever and unrelated related to the topic.

Now spare me your crap Paxman routine and make your counterarguments if you have any.

 

[big_gamer007]

The article is spot on - the fundamental root of this issue is the Pakistan-India conflict which successive US administrations have failed to grasp the importance of.

If you resolve that, the Afghan issue will be resolved as there will be no need for Pakistan or India to be mutually suspicious of each other's intentions in Afghanistan and Pakistan's "strategic depth" policy they've pursued for the last 40 years will become moot.

If the Pakistani security establishment want strategic depth, the ultimate solution is to mend bridges with the governments of Afghanistan and India. Funding proxies and various militant outfits has only led to international isolation and Talibanisation of Pakistani society which has led to disasterous consequences.

Now, obviously it will take two hands to clap with a need for those governments to reciprocate and in this climate of hyper-nationalism that's not happening any time soon.

Great post for people who counter you by saying Indian government sponsors proxies need to understand the use of proxy warfare was started by Pakistani army/ISI first and now reciprocation will occur..

 

[KingKhanWC]

Great post for people who counter you by saying Indian government sponsors proxies need to understand the use of proxy warfare was started by Pakistani army/ISI first and now reciprocation will occur..

Pakistan used proxy warfare against the Soviets in the 80's not against India. India supported the Northern Alliance and once the Taliban lost control after the invasion of 2001, India along with the CIA created the likes of the TTP to kill thousands of innocent people in Pakistan. Pakistan has responded mainly by using it's proxies in Afghanistan to attack Indians and their puppets in Kabul as a response.

 

[big_gamer007]

Pakistan used proxy warfare against the Soviets in the 80's not against India. India supported the Northern Alliance and once the Taliban lost control after the invasion of 2001, India along with the CIA created the likes of the TTP to kill thousands of innocent people in Pakistan. Pakistan has responded mainly by using it's proxies in Afghanistan to attack Indians and their puppets in Kabul as a response.

So you mean to say Pakistani army/ISI did not support proxies either monetary wise or by sending proxies across the border throughout 90's in Kashmir?

 

[KingKhanWC]

So you mean to say Pakistani army/ISI did not support proxies either monetary wise or by sending proxies across the border throughout 90's in Kashmir?

Kashmiri's have been resisting what they believe is occupation and thus have a right. Nothing wrong with helping people who are fighting for freedom against tyranny and oppression.

 

[Saeed]

If our leadership had any wisdom they would exploit his ignorance to Pakistan’s favor. Unfortunately our leaders are incompetent, they will miss an amazing opportunity.

 

[English August]

Nothing wrong with helping people who are fighting for freedom against tyranny and oppression.

Assuming these noble ideals are also applicable to India presumably supporting the Baloch struggle against the Pakistani tyranny and oppression?

 

[big_gamer007]

Kashmiri's have been resisting what they believe is occupation and thus have a right. Nothing wrong with helping people who are fighting for freedom against tyranny and oppression.

Doesn't give another country a right to interfere in another countries internal matter.. Surely you don't agree with USA invasion or Iraq or Afghanistan?

 

[the Great Khan]

Great post for people who counter you by saying Indian government sponsors proxies need to understand the use of proxy warfare was started by Pakistani army/ISI first and now reciprocation will occur..

no it was started in the 1950's. I suggest you look it up. You also broke Pakistan in two using proxies. We a were late entrants into this game.

 

[the Great Khan]

[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] has a point and so do some others. However I believe everyone is missing the real point and the United states real objective. Trump does not write his speeches. He has nothing to do with them. His foreign policy is not created by him. It is created by others. Therefore to simply dump it all on Trumps shoulders exhibits a significant degree of naivety.

The US wants the India Pakistan conflict to continue. It cannot afford it not to. It wants the afghan war to continue indefinatley, till the end of time if it needs it to. There is a reason the US is here so far from home. They will not be going unless they are defeated so decisively that the american public clamours for a major shift in foreign policy. That will not happen any time soon.

so why are they here? well in my opinion and this is purely based on monitoring events over the years, reading about past interventions, and also understanding the long term intentions of the US, they are here for the following:

1) to contain the "military" rise of China. They have no problem with a strong economic China but with a weak armed forces.
2) To prevent the Russians from concluding an eventual full military alliance with Iran, Pakistan, (potentially) Turkey.
3) To scupper internal trade between the countries of the subcontinent
4) To scupper trade from the south asian bloc to central asia
5) denuclearise Pakistan which is deemed a threat to Isreal and other middle eastern allied states.
6) To mire the final three capable Muslim majority militaries in local proxy conflicts thus weakening them over the long term so they can be defeated and destroyed.
7) To maintain hedgemony over asian trade
8) The protection of Isreal
9) creating India as a bulwark against China
10) The maintenance of the military industrial complex.
11) To maintain the hedgemony of the petro dollar and current world financial system.

The war will never end and the US doesnt want it to end.

 

[R0H1T]

On of the reasons I am not a fan of partition 1.0. If it weren't for the creation of Pakistan India would have to share a border with Afghanistan and by extension the responsibilities that come with it.

Not sure what you mean by that? A unified India would rival China if not overtake in terms of the preeminent power in Central & south Asia, there's no way China would dare start a conventional war with us or even think about it. There's also very little chance we;d see the ethnic cleaning like the one which led to the 1971 war, or the 84 Sikh riots, 92/93 riots after Babri masjid demolition or indeed the 2002 Godhra riots. Sure there's be riots but not large scale or wide spread ones, the influence of India would've enormous in the Islamic world, the west & the East.

A truly secular & united India would be the envy of the whole world, could stand on its own without having to align itself with the US or the USSR. So tell me then, why do you think sharing just an Afghan border would be such a big deal?

Just to clarify I;m not saying Pak could've avoided the blowback after it did the US' bidding in the Soviet invasion, I;m just saying that a united India could easily reject US or indeed Soviet meddling In Afghanistan, if it decided to go that route. Maybe Pak couldn;t say no to the US back then, for whatever the reason, I can give them the benefit of doubt only so far as having the inability to reject the most powerful nation on earth is concerned.

[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] has a point and so do some others. However I believe everyone is missing the real point and the United states real objective. Trump does not write his speeches. He has nothing to do with them. His foreign policy is not created by him. It is created by others. Therefore to simply dump it all on Trumps shoulders exhibits a significant degree of naivety.

The US wants the India Pakistan conflict to continue. It cannot afford it not to. It wants the afghan war to continue indefinatley, till the end of time if it needs it to. There is a reason the US is here so far from home. They will not be going unless they are defeated so decisively that the american public clamours for a major shift in foreign policy. That will not happen any time soon.

so why are they here? well in my opinion and this is purely based on monitoring events over the years, reading about past interventions, and also understanding the long term intentions of the US, they are here for the following:

1) to contain the "military" rise of China. They have no problem with a strong economic China but with a weak armed forces.
2) To prevent the Russians from concluding an eventual full military alliance with Iran, Pakistan, (potentially) Turkey.
3) To scupper internal trade between the countries of the subcontinent
4) To scupper trade from the south asian bloc to central asia
5) denuclearise Pakistan which is deemed a threat to Isreal and other middle eastern allied states.
6) To mire the final three capable Muslim majority militaries in local proxy conflicts thus weakening them over the long term so they can be defeated and destroyed.
7) To maintain hedgemony over asian trade
8) The protection of Isreal
9) creating India as a bulwark against China
10) The maintenance of the military industrial complex.
11) To maintain the hedgemony of the petro dollar and current world financial system.

The war will never end and the US doesnt want it to end.

I'd say the US is a red herring, the war ends when our political leaders, & the rulers in Kashmir, want it to end.

 

[R0H1T]

^You can blame a third party only for so long, ultimately the blame lies with our polity, to a lesser extent the people as well. If the leaders were serious enough, almost all outstanding issues could be solved, the same goes for Pak military & Kashmir valley based parties.

 

[the Great Khan]

Pakistan used proxy warfare against the Soviets in the 80's not against India. India supported the Northern Alliance and once the Taliban lost control after the invasion of 2001, India along with the CIA created the likes of the TTP to kill thousands of innocent people in Pakistan. Pakistan has responded mainly by using it's proxies in Afghanistan to attack Indians and their puppets in Kabul as a response.

India supported the Soviet union and was a major ally. They also supported anti state activities by KHAD and the KGB in balochistan. Also terrorism in NWFP and other areas. They were also supporters of the puktoonistan movement in the 50's and the attempted invasion of Pakistan by Afghanistan.