Posted on 09/07/2011 11:29:03 AM PDT by ravager
The United States has been in Afghanistan for too long, 10 years, lost too many lives, 1,700, and at too great a cost, nearly half a trillion dollars. Current U.S. policy of a gradual troop draw down as security responsibility is turned over to the corrupt, inefficient government of Hamid Karzai seems to us likely to leave a vacuum ripe for future terrorist trouble. Something new needs to be injected into Afghan policy.
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), just back from a two-week trip to Afghanistan, has an idea worthy of consideration: End U.S. reliance on Pakistan and “tilt” U.S. policy in the region toward India, encouraging it to increase its financial support of Afghanistan.
Kirk’s position is based on two assumptions. First, it’s an open secret — one no one in authority previously has wanted to state publicly — that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency protects and supports our enemy, mainly through a powerful terrorist organization known as the Haqqani network. Pakistan plays a double game of letting us kill a couple of dozen top al-Qaida terrorists a year on its territory while the Haqqanis bog down 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, inflicting grievous casualties every year. All the while, Washington pours billions of dollars in aid into Pakistan. It’s a bad deal.
Second, Kirk assumes, with reason, that India has big stakes in the outcome in Afghanistan. It has grievances with both Pakistan and Islamist terror. The 1948 partition of the British colony of India produced Muslim Pakistan and India, a nation with a Hindi majority and a huge Muslim population. India and Pakistan have fought three major wars, and small-scale military clashes persist, particularly over the disputed Kashmir region.
India also has suffered deadly terrorist attacks. It had its 9/11 in the 2008 shootings and bombings in Mumbai. These attacks, which had some assistance — the only question is how much — from the Pakistani ISI, left hundreds of dead and wounded.
Given an enmity with Pakistan that won’t abate soon and the threat of terrorism, India has as big a stake — probably a bigger one — than the U.S. in preventing Afghanistan from collapsing into a terror state under the influence of Pakistan. So it’s not unreasonable to think New Delhi would be interested in building on the economic and political investment it already is making in Kabul — one reason, no doubt, for Islamabad being a bad actor in Afghanistan. India would profit, and Pakistan be discomfited, by having an anti-terror, democratic, India-friendly government in Kabul.
India, as the world’s biggest democracy en route to being an economic superpower, is both a natural ally for America and a natural leader for the region.
Kirk’s proposal to change U.S. policy has its own hazards. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) blasted it on Tuesday as having the potential for a “cataclysmic” confrontation between two nuclear-armed nations. We worry about that too, but the two nations already have known decades of hostility. Another issue is that reducing U.S. aid to Pakistan could drive it deeper into extremism. But Kirk argues that a broad-based Pushtun middle class mitigates against that.
It’s also possible that Kirk is proposing India bite off more than it’s willing to chew.
Kirk said he proposed his idea after “talking to many, many, many people in government.” Still, it’s based on a best-case scenario. That means there’s plenty of room for something to go wrong. But Afghan policy needs fresh thinking and until someone comes up with a better idea, we’d like to see Kirk’s program get serious consideration.
“Does anyone think that Pakistan would be happy with....”
Who cares what Pakistan think? Are we doing this for Pakistan?
” Secondly, what type of help could India give? “
Certainly a LOT MORE then what Pakistan could give. India already has a small armed presence in Afghanistan, that has been kept at a minimum on Pakistan's insistence. India is already involved in a big way in reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Instead of using our military to protect Saudi Arabia (source of the 9/11 hijackers), we should have allied with India against Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Pakistan is India’s border and India’s headache regardless of anything our state department says or does.
We don’t have to give India an “ok”. They already know they have a problem.
Nukes: they both have had them for some time. If Paki is dumb enough to use them, then they’ll pay the price.
Outsource the war? I like it!
India would also be an excellent counter weight to China.
Yes. Its worth considering.
OBL is dead. Pakistan protected him, thus lengthening the war.
The only obstacle I see is the geography. Its tough to get to Afghanistan without crossing territory oocupied by India’s enemies (Iran, Pakistan, China)
Before Colin Powell lost his mind he once said something important: “If you break it, you own it.” The fact is that, when one country invades and conquers another country the conquered country becomes the property, the colony, of the imperial power — part of its territory. At this point, the imperial power becomes responsible for the new colony's defense because by the very act of conquest, the colony has been rendered incapable of defending itself.
Is Afghanistan worth defending? Was it worth invading? Go back and re-read Powell's quote. This argument is moot. Afghanistan may as well be Missouri. The invasion and conquest did occur, therefore the colony's defense must occur.
To those who espouse a cut-and-run “strategy” I ask, are there no innocent people in Afghanistan? Do they not deserve to be defended? If the Taliban returns, who will be to blame for the piles of severed heads in the streets?
We've been here before, in southeast Asia. Do we now celebrate the killing fields that appeared there after our glorious retreat? Is John Kerry now hailed as a national hero for his support of the savages there?
Kerry and the rest of the treasonous left escape the worst of their deserved vilification only because of the public ignorance of their crimes. This time, though, there is an Internet and the headless corpses will be proudly displayed to the world.
“The way out” of Afghanistan is the same way the British pulled out of their empire: by making the commitment to standing the colony up on it own feet, no matter how long it takes, and giving it back its independence in a responsible manner.
Another famous RINO once said another famous truth: “We may be there for a hundred years.” Wishing this was not true will not make it go away. The only way not to have to face up to this truth is to avoid it in the first place. I hope the next time we debate an invasion, if there is a next time, we do so with a more realistic appreciation of the consequences of our actions.
Pakistan cannot do anything to anyone but herself. Afghanistan is not Pakistani territory. It is a sovereign territory, there is no question of Pakistan “needing to win” in Afghanistan or they will go nuclear. The nuclear blackmail has been a very clever and profitable boogieman for Pakistan because American government was too stupid to call their bluff.
Beside... what you refer to as “Pakistan” is nothing but Pakistani ISI that is trying to gain control of Afghanistan. Not the nation or the people. Pakistan ISI winning in Afghanistan is akin to Taliban winning in Afghanistan. That's is absolutely not why US is fighting in Afghanistan.
Thirdly India will have a huge influence in Afghanistan regardless of US or Pakistan. India is a big country and Afghanistan is culturally as closer to India then Pakistan. India will have a huge influence over Afghanistan regardless what US does or wants. I would be much more beneficial for the US to align her interest in Afghanistan with India rather then Pakistan simply because India has a lot more to offer and a positive influence in the region. Pakistan is NOT.... by any stretch of imagination.
“Why do you think that is?”
Why do I think what is? I am sorry I didn't get your question.
“In the real world, we have to make certain concessions to Pakistan in this region and work with them for better or worse.”
That's not real world. That is classic democrat garbage.
Let see for a second how your “real world” fantasy actually turned out.... US is stuck in an unwinnable situation in Afghanistan and is bleeding men and money. America's only ally in the region is a backstabbing Pakistan that is more and enemy then an ally. Pakistan is the reason why Taliban is still alive and strong. And by many media accounts it is well known how Pakistan used American aid money to directly fund the Taliban to fight American soldiers in Afghanistan .
I think Kirk’s suggestion is more wishful thinking than reality if his assumption is that India with its small contingency in Afghanistan will rush a buildup to displace US troops there should we leave. Pakistan which at least has paid some lip service to restraining the Taliban on their side will unleash them wholesale if they have an opportunity for payback against their enemy India in Afghanistan.
Because India has a stake in the stability of the region and a far greater stake in securing her own borders. Stability of Afghanistan is much more crucial to India then even the US. This is not just me saying this. This is India's officially STATED position. India has already in part assumed a larger responsibility of reconstruction of Afghanistan. What India lacks is a military role to stabilize the region.
Kirks’s suggestion is anything but wishful thinking. In fact his suggestion is THE most sensible suggestion any American politician has ever made on Afghanistan.
“Pakistan which at least has paid some lip service to restraining the Taliban on their side will unleash them wholesale if they have an opportunity for payback against their enemy India in Afghanistan.”
Totally based on false premise. Firstly India has a small contingency in Afghanistan only because US caved in on Pakistani pressure. India can actually provide much larger contingent then all of NATO.
Secondly Pakistan didn't just pay lip service... they back stabbed US repeatedly. They openly used American aid to fund the Taliban to fight US soldiers. They didn't hold back anything.
Thirdly we are talking about a joint India-NATO coalition in Afghanistan. Pakistan would never be so stupid as to go whole hog against the combined strength of NATO and India. If they want to give India payback whether on eastern front or western front, India is not entirely defenseless. In fact far from it.
But again, India did not invade and conquer Afghanistan -- we did.
Rebuild? Sure, why not. We’ve got pleny of money, after all. (Not to mention all the Constitutional authority we can make up).
You got better idea?
And ....so?
How exactly does that diminish the fact that India has a stake in Afghan stability?
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.