Posted on 08/29/2005 6:42:00 AM PDT by Srirangan
29 August 2005: India will commit troops to Afghanistan to cover the two-thirds US withdrawal, but only if Afghan president Hamid Karzai sends a request letter, although he made clear in the recent meeting with prime minister Manmohan Singh that “Afghanistan’s security is India’s security”.
But still India wants a formal request, although the US first broached for Indian deployment when its defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, met the Indian defence minister, Pranab Mukherjee, earlier to the PM’s visit, seeking a form commitment, and Afghanistan separately spoke the same issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at india-defence.com ...
Military age - 16 years of age
Availability - 287,551,111 (2005 estimate)
Fit for military service - 219,471,999 (2005 estimate) Reaching military age annually - 11,446,452 (2005 estimate)
Active troops - 1,325,000 (Ranked 3rd)
Source: Military of India
btt
I’ll tell you the same thing I keep trying to convince my wife of. Size is of virtually no importance in accomplishing the mission. It’s a matter of training, experience, conditioning, finesse, and if necessary aided by technology.
Are you implying the Indian army can't do the job? It is pretty well trained and equipped, surrounded by Islamofacists and Communists it has to be.
Most of that was a joke (about penis size) but it retains an element of truth. The size of the Indian army is not of primary relevance. Absent other factors, their ability to project effective forces into a foreign environment could succeed or fail even if they only had a fraction of their current forces. I’m not qualified to make an accurate assessment beyond stating it’s a rare circumstance when any nation can replace our forces on a one for one basis.
Pakis should not have a say in what the afghan people need. They needto cleanup their own country first.
Afghanistan needs Indian help and India needs a peaceful Afghanistan... Miya biwi raazi to kya karega kaazi :)
Why is this not getting played in the US?? Why are the marjor news sources quiet on this? Pathetic!
Looks like there's a new sheriff in town.
This is astonishing.
I expected this news to be announced in a few months, or at best, perhaps weeks, but to see it only one day after the visit of India's PM to Afghanistan is amazing.
The commitment of troops outside India's borders is a major step forward in India's commitment to world peace.
India's armed forces will be a powerful force against terror in S. Asia. They are well trained, equipped, and motivated. When combined with their vast experience in fighting terror - from Pakistan, China, and the rest of the loony communist and Islamist states - there's hope now in S. Asia.
India stands a lot taller these days, and it's good to see. India is a great nation, with great people, and now with a new resolve to stabilize world peace.
Where's that UNSC application? Here's a nation that deserves to be on the Council.
Hail India!
Are non-Islamist Afghans in general hostile toward Americans? I thought that our enemy was a combination of various groups trying to overthrow the government and thwart its administration over remote regions. I don’t know why Indians would be less vulnerable.
I’m not qualified to make an accurate assessment beyond stating it’s a rare circumstance when any nation can replace our forces on a one for one basis.
I wouldn’t have guess at the irony without reading some of your bio.
Following the fall of Baghdad, a US field commander said something to the effect of, “We could have beaten them if they had our equipment and we had theirs. They had some nice pieces, but they usually deployed and used it poorly.”
In fact Indians are the ones that can handle the Agghnistan better... Remember that even after US withdrew from Somalia Indians stayed in Somalia for 3 more years and had less casualties that US.....They know the culture and terrain better....And another brown skinned person is more likely to received better.....
“We could have beaten them if they had our equipment and we had theirs. They had some nice pieces, but they usually deployed and used it poorly.”
Nothing against India’s military, but I’m sure the reduction in casualties was due to radically different missions and scope rather than skin color and cultural similarities. And if they are to replace the US in Afghanistan, it will probably be in areas where the same has occurred.
Who told you India cannot project power?
Do you know what India did to help other countries in the tsunami crisis?
Are you aware Indian su30 jets flew all the way to France to participate in exercises?
Are you aware Indian troops fight in more geographically hostile terrain in Kashmir than anything the US troops have seen in afghanistan?
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39088ef86f44.htm
You are correct when you say that Indian troops fight in more geographically hostile terrain in Kashmir than anything the US troops have seen in afghanistan, I would add North East which in mine and many of my relatives who have served in both the regions is a much tougher terrain.
Point here is projecting power which means deploying armed personales where they are neaded. Army cannot be flown in Su-30's can it. we need aircraft carriers with ability to carry our army(incidently one of the biggest in the world) to where it is needed and we don't have necissary nos of aircraft carriers and other vessels.
Once there probably we will do a better job of maintaining relations with afghans due to our exposure to their customs and their to our movies.
Let me emphassis one point which probably I missed in my last post in Afghanistan the ability to project ourself is not the most important thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.