pakistani342
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,485
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Frank talk by Yossef Bodansky. I took out the first question and its corresponding answer as it was not directly related to Afghanistan.
I honestly was a bit surprised at Bodansky's answers.
Original article here
...
Yossef Bodansky, former director of the United States Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare at the US House of Representatives, is an old South Asia hand, who had first warned of the Pakistan-China nexus in the 1990s.
He was also the first analyst to warn the world about Osama bin Laden and the Islamist terrorist network. Bodansky, who has written extensively on India and interacted with senior Indian officials over the years, believes that India has failed to take the strategic initiative that the post-Cold War period opened up and hence has witnessed a failure of its Afghan policy among others.
Bodansky has been the director of research at the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), as well as a senior editor for the Defense & Foreign Affairs group of publications, since 1983. He stayed on as a special adviser to Congress until January 2009. In the mid 1980s, he acted as a senior consultant for the US department of defense and the department of state. He is the author of 11 books including Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America (New York Times No.1 bestseller & Washington Post No.1 bestseller), The Secret History of the Iraq War (New York Times bestseller & Foreign Affairs Magazine bestseller), and Chechen Jihad: Al Qaedas Training Ground and the Next Wave of Terror and hundreds of articles, book chapters and Congressional reports. Mr Bodansky is a director at the Prague Society for International Cooperation, and serves on the Board of the Global Panel Foundation and several other institutions worldwide.
Here he talks about Indias Afghan policy and geopolitical issues with Indranil Banerjie.
Q: Where does Afghanistan fit into this equation?
A: India needs to look at Afghanistan in terms of its grand strategic vision. Pakistan is a small country; it is an army with a failed state. One reason why Pakistan survives is because of Chinas investments in its nuclear capabilities and its economy both aimed at stifling India. China can constantly divert Indias attention by making Pakistan do something or other like border firing, infiltrating terrorists or carrying out a spectacular terrorist strike.
Indias fixation on a zero sum game with Pakistan is meaningless. India needs to look at its policies with its western neighbours in terms of its grand strategy and not by being reactive. A lot of Indian activities in Afghanistan are aimed to give Pakistan a hard time. Nothing wrong with this but strategically it is meaningless.
On the other hand, if India can work out a larger posture in Central Asia, Iran and the Middle East, preferably in conjunction with Russia, and also dominate the Indian Ocean till the tip of Africa, then it would also have a say in what is happening to the west of Pakistan.
The key question is: Will India be stifled by Pakistan, a subcontractor of China, which is the current situation, or will India stifle Pakistan at land and sea because India is the regional power that is stifling China and not just its agent Pakistan?
It is high time that India starts thinking of where it is going as a global and not regional power or just another Third World country. Once it does that then its policies vis-à-vis Pakistan and Afghanistan should be adapted into its lager overall policy.
Q: Does Washington accept Islamabads view that New Delhi is using Afghanistan to de-stabilise Pakistan?
A: Yes. Obamas Washington is even more hostile to New Delhi than Islamabad. Today, India is using Afghanistan to get at Pakistan. But that is not strategy; it is just another pissing match. It is irrelevant in global terms. From the US point of view, Indias insistence in being in Afghanistan interferes with its aims to hand over Afghanistan to Pakistan and China.
Q: But why would the United States want to do this?
A: Why not? If we make a deal with Pakistan, the Taliban will not shoot at our troops and we can leave peacefully. India, on the other hand, does not play a role as a global power so why should we take it seriously.
Q: A number of US commentators in recent times have suggested that Pakistans obsession with Afghanistan can be resolved if the Kashmir issue is sorted out once and for all with India. Do you believe that a Kashmir solution will end Pakistans preoccupation with Afghanistan?
A: Obamas Washington wants Kashmir resolved in Pakistans favour Afghanistan or no Afghanistan.
India is so passive that the United States feels it can pressure India to make concessions in Kashmir so that the US can get a better deal with Pakistan. Kashmir should not be on the menu but it is. Large swathes of Siberian territory owned by Russia are claimed by China but the United States never dares to tell Russia to cede any territory to China so that the US gets a better economic deal with China. But the state department does think that India can be pressured to compromise on Kashmir and thereby secure a better deal for Washington with the Pakistanis. Such a thing would be inconceivable if India was a world power.
When Pakistani terrorists attacked the India parliament, the United States told India that it dare not attack Pakistan. India has brought this upon itself by being passive. It is fighting for crumbs in Afghanistan.
Q: Why has the US been reluctant to accept a greater Indian role in Afghanistan?
A: We want China (that can help with Iran) and its proxy Pakistan.
Q: Is the view that Washington is prepared to cut a deal with Pakistan and the Quetta Shura at any cost credible?
A: Yes.
Q: Despite being aware that Pakistan has directly or indirectly aided the insurgency in Afghanistan, Washington seems to be going out of its way to cede control of south and eastern Afghanistan to Pakistan. What precisely is the strategic thinking behind these moves? And do you believe that such a move will stabilise Afghanistan and Pakistan?
A: This is what Pakistan wants and this is what will make China happy.
Q: Do you believe that Washington will pull out all troops from Afghanistan by 2014 if the Bilateral Security Agreement with Kabul is not signed within the next few months?
A: Obama wants Zero Troops. Hell withdraw if he can whatever the excuse.
Q: Would a small contingent of about 10,000 US troops and air force elements be able to stabilise Afghanistan with the help of the Afghan security forces post 2014?
A: Well over 1,00,000 troops failed. So why should 10,000 have any impact? If any soldier remains it will be a symbolic gesture.
Q: The Pakistan government despite promising all help to President Karzai to re-start the peace process have decided not to release pro-talk Taliban leaders such as Mullah Baradar. They have released a total of about 26 low level Taliban and claim they have done their bit to facilitate talks. Do you believe that the Pakistani establishment will allow direct talks between the Taliban and the Kabul regime?
A: Karzai is a nobody that everybodyincluding Obamas Washington knows by now. Who cares what Karzai was told or promised? Pakistan (the ISI) is building a regional network based on tribal and Taliban chiefs that will control most of Afghanistan. The ISI already does so for all intent and purpose.
Q: India has helped Afghanistan with a number of developmental projects but has publicly espoused a keep our heads down policy in Afghanistan. Do you think this policy has worked?
A: No. The Afghans are not masters of their own destiny. Indias efforts failed to convince the US that it has a legitimate role in Afghanistan. It has been a near total waste.
I honestly was a bit surprised at Bodansky's answers.
Original article here
...
Yossef Bodansky, former director of the United States Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare at the US House of Representatives, is an old South Asia hand, who had first warned of the Pakistan-China nexus in the 1990s.
He was also the first analyst to warn the world about Osama bin Laden and the Islamist terrorist network. Bodansky, who has written extensively on India and interacted with senior Indian officials over the years, believes that India has failed to take the strategic initiative that the post-Cold War period opened up and hence has witnessed a failure of its Afghan policy among others.
Bodansky has been the director of research at the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), as well as a senior editor for the Defense & Foreign Affairs group of publications, since 1983. He stayed on as a special adviser to Congress until January 2009. In the mid 1980s, he acted as a senior consultant for the US department of defense and the department of state. He is the author of 11 books including Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America (New York Times No.1 bestseller & Washington Post No.1 bestseller), The Secret History of the Iraq War (New York Times bestseller & Foreign Affairs Magazine bestseller), and Chechen Jihad: Al Qaedas Training Ground and the Next Wave of Terror and hundreds of articles, book chapters and Congressional reports. Mr Bodansky is a director at the Prague Society for International Cooperation, and serves on the Board of the Global Panel Foundation and several other institutions worldwide.
Here he talks about Indias Afghan policy and geopolitical issues with Indranil Banerjie.
Q: Where does Afghanistan fit into this equation?
A: India needs to look at Afghanistan in terms of its grand strategic vision. Pakistan is a small country; it is an army with a failed state. One reason why Pakistan survives is because of Chinas investments in its nuclear capabilities and its economy both aimed at stifling India. China can constantly divert Indias attention by making Pakistan do something or other like border firing, infiltrating terrorists or carrying out a spectacular terrorist strike.
Indias fixation on a zero sum game with Pakistan is meaningless. India needs to look at its policies with its western neighbours in terms of its grand strategy and not by being reactive. A lot of Indian activities in Afghanistan are aimed to give Pakistan a hard time. Nothing wrong with this but strategically it is meaningless.
On the other hand, if India can work out a larger posture in Central Asia, Iran and the Middle East, preferably in conjunction with Russia, and also dominate the Indian Ocean till the tip of Africa, then it would also have a say in what is happening to the west of Pakistan.
The key question is: Will India be stifled by Pakistan, a subcontractor of China, which is the current situation, or will India stifle Pakistan at land and sea because India is the regional power that is stifling China and not just its agent Pakistan?
It is high time that India starts thinking of where it is going as a global and not regional power or just another Third World country. Once it does that then its policies vis-à-vis Pakistan and Afghanistan should be adapted into its lager overall policy.
Q: Does Washington accept Islamabads view that New Delhi is using Afghanistan to de-stabilise Pakistan?
A: Yes. Obamas Washington is even more hostile to New Delhi than Islamabad. Today, India is using Afghanistan to get at Pakistan. But that is not strategy; it is just another pissing match. It is irrelevant in global terms. From the US point of view, Indias insistence in being in Afghanistan interferes with its aims to hand over Afghanistan to Pakistan and China.
Q: But why would the United States want to do this?
A: Why not? If we make a deal with Pakistan, the Taliban will not shoot at our troops and we can leave peacefully. India, on the other hand, does not play a role as a global power so why should we take it seriously.
Q: A number of US commentators in recent times have suggested that Pakistans obsession with Afghanistan can be resolved if the Kashmir issue is sorted out once and for all with India. Do you believe that a Kashmir solution will end Pakistans preoccupation with Afghanistan?
A: Obamas Washington wants Kashmir resolved in Pakistans favour Afghanistan or no Afghanistan.
India is so passive that the United States feels it can pressure India to make concessions in Kashmir so that the US can get a better deal with Pakistan. Kashmir should not be on the menu but it is. Large swathes of Siberian territory owned by Russia are claimed by China but the United States never dares to tell Russia to cede any territory to China so that the US gets a better economic deal with China. But the state department does think that India can be pressured to compromise on Kashmir and thereby secure a better deal for Washington with the Pakistanis. Such a thing would be inconceivable if India was a world power.
When Pakistani terrorists attacked the India parliament, the United States told India that it dare not attack Pakistan. India has brought this upon itself by being passive. It is fighting for crumbs in Afghanistan.
Q: Why has the US been reluctant to accept a greater Indian role in Afghanistan?
A: We want China (that can help with Iran) and its proxy Pakistan.
Q: Is the view that Washington is prepared to cut a deal with Pakistan and the Quetta Shura at any cost credible?
A: Yes.
Q: Despite being aware that Pakistan has directly or indirectly aided the insurgency in Afghanistan, Washington seems to be going out of its way to cede control of south and eastern Afghanistan to Pakistan. What precisely is the strategic thinking behind these moves? And do you believe that such a move will stabilise Afghanistan and Pakistan?
A: This is what Pakistan wants and this is what will make China happy.
Q: Do you believe that Washington will pull out all troops from Afghanistan by 2014 if the Bilateral Security Agreement with Kabul is not signed within the next few months?
A: Obama wants Zero Troops. Hell withdraw if he can whatever the excuse.
Q: Would a small contingent of about 10,000 US troops and air force elements be able to stabilise Afghanistan with the help of the Afghan security forces post 2014?
A: Well over 1,00,000 troops failed. So why should 10,000 have any impact? If any soldier remains it will be a symbolic gesture.
Q: The Pakistan government despite promising all help to President Karzai to re-start the peace process have decided not to release pro-talk Taliban leaders such as Mullah Baradar. They have released a total of about 26 low level Taliban and claim they have done their bit to facilitate talks. Do you believe that the Pakistani establishment will allow direct talks between the Taliban and the Kabul regime?
A: Karzai is a nobody that everybodyincluding Obamas Washington knows by now. Who cares what Karzai was told or promised? Pakistan (the ISI) is building a regional network based on tribal and Taliban chiefs that will control most of Afghanistan. The ISI already does so for all intent and purpose.
Q: India has helped Afghanistan with a number of developmental projects but has publicly espoused a keep our heads down policy in Afghanistan. Do you think this policy has worked?
A: No. The Afghans are not masters of their own destiny. Indias efforts failed to convince the US that it has a legitimate role in Afghanistan. It has been a near total waste.
