nangyale
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 31, 2010
- Messages
- 2,251
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Drones won't fly without bases in India
By M K Bhadrakumar – February 9, 2014
When the news item first appeared last May, it seemed far-fetched — that the Pentagon could be eyeing India’s Andaman & Nicobar Islands for basing its drone aircraft. It seemed unthinkable that India would provide a base for the American drones on its soil.
Nonetheless, the study titled Overseas Basing of US Military Forces undertaken by the Rand Corporation, which is seen usually as a veritable ‘brains trust’ of the Pentagon, merits a good look. Three factors come into play, which would have a bearing on the geopolitics of the US’ ‘pivot’ to Asia:
A) The US’ failure to persuade Afghan President Hamid Karzai to agree to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement, which would put a question mark on the CIA’s ability to keep the drone bases in Afghanistan.
B) The US’ failure to persuade Bishkek to allow access to the air base at Manas beyond July 2014, even as Bishkek has moved distinctly close to Moscow.
C) The US’ decision to involve itself militarily in Japan’s maritime disputes with China.
Clearly, the crunch time has come for the US Asian ‘pivot’ to be given underpinning in South and Central Asia, without which the rebalance strategy will remain incomplete. The US Defence Decretary Chuck Hagel faced some uncomfortable questions regarding this at a press briefing at the Pentagon on Friday.
The briefing was meant to flag the new line-up at the Defence Department that Obama announced last week with Robert Work as the next deputy secretary of defense. But the Q&A session began wandering toward the topic of post-2014 Afghan scenario.
The media persons drew Hagel’s attention to the ground reality that contrary to the apocalyptic vision the US commentators and officials in Washington have been disseminating for months to the effect that the US troops stand between deluge and stability in the Hindu Kush, the Afghan armed forces have been creditably performing so far (although NATO forces have already pulled out of the combat role.)
Hagel reluctantly agreed. The media then began taunting him as to what purpose will be served by keeping US troops beyond 2014: “I wonder if you could explain to us, given all — how well the Afghans are doing, why does there have to be any troops, US troops in Afghanistan after 2014? Most Americans are against this. Why can’t all US troops just leave at the end of the year?”
Good question. Hagel lamely began explaining that “it’s clearly in our [US] interest.” Then came a follow-up question: “What would happen to that country if — if there were no US troops going into 2015, do you think?”
Hagel didn’t have an answer. That was when the question on drone base came up: “But would you consider, if you don’t have an option of a drone base in Pakistan, if you don’t have troops allowed to stay, you don’t have a BSA, would you consider basing drones in India, for instance?” [Emphasis added.]
Hagel replied: “Well, we have to consider everything, as we are… you’re constantly updating and changing and looking at possibilities, strategic interests, where you posture those assets… where do you have allies that are willing to work with you, capacity-building of allies. You’re in a constant review process on all those things. And so if that would be the case, we — we would have to be — and we are looking at different options for everything.”
Hagel was evasive. He didn’t mention India, nor did he rule out India. Suffice to say, the precise timing of the remarks made by the US National Security Advisor Susan Rice in Washington on Friday, giving much hype to the US-Indian partnership, is also to be noted.
Ironically, Hagel’s press briefing underscored that Karzai is justified in exuding confidence over the capacity of the Afghan armed forces. What emerges is that while the Afghan scenario causes concern, it is nowhere near as apocalyptic as the American commentators and officials make it out to be. At the end of the day, the Obama administration’s priority it is to somehow ensure an open-ended US military presence in the highly strategic region of Afghanistan. (See my article US torpedoes Karzai’s contacts with Taliban.)
Of course, it will be downright stupid on the part of the Indian policymakers to consider allowing American drones to undertake operations from its soil against Pakistan or China.
To be sure, it is against a complex backdrop that External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid is heading for Kabul. The right thing to do will be for Delhi to view the Afghan prism in terms of its legitimate security interests.
India’s concerns are similar to the concerns of regional powers like China, Russia and Iran — a stable and secure Afghanistan, which is strong and independent. Indeed, the meeting between the Chinese and Afghan presidents in Sochi on Friday highlighted the shared concerns of regional powers.
By M K Bhadrakumar – February 9, 2014
When the news item first appeared last May, it seemed far-fetched — that the Pentagon could be eyeing India’s Andaman & Nicobar Islands for basing its drone aircraft. It seemed unthinkable that India would provide a base for the American drones on its soil.
Nonetheless, the study titled Overseas Basing of US Military Forces undertaken by the Rand Corporation, which is seen usually as a veritable ‘brains trust’ of the Pentagon, merits a good look. Three factors come into play, which would have a bearing on the geopolitics of the US’ ‘pivot’ to Asia:
A) The US’ failure to persuade Afghan President Hamid Karzai to agree to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement, which would put a question mark on the CIA’s ability to keep the drone bases in Afghanistan.
B) The US’ failure to persuade Bishkek to allow access to the air base at Manas beyond July 2014, even as Bishkek has moved distinctly close to Moscow.
C) The US’ decision to involve itself militarily in Japan’s maritime disputes with China.
Clearly, the crunch time has come for the US Asian ‘pivot’ to be given underpinning in South and Central Asia, without which the rebalance strategy will remain incomplete. The US Defence Decretary Chuck Hagel faced some uncomfortable questions regarding this at a press briefing at the Pentagon on Friday.
The briefing was meant to flag the new line-up at the Defence Department that Obama announced last week with Robert Work as the next deputy secretary of defense. But the Q&A session began wandering toward the topic of post-2014 Afghan scenario.
The media persons drew Hagel’s attention to the ground reality that contrary to the apocalyptic vision the US commentators and officials in Washington have been disseminating for months to the effect that the US troops stand between deluge and stability in the Hindu Kush, the Afghan armed forces have been creditably performing so far (although NATO forces have already pulled out of the combat role.)
Hagel reluctantly agreed. The media then began taunting him as to what purpose will be served by keeping US troops beyond 2014: “I wonder if you could explain to us, given all — how well the Afghans are doing, why does there have to be any troops, US troops in Afghanistan after 2014? Most Americans are against this. Why can’t all US troops just leave at the end of the year?”
Good question. Hagel lamely began explaining that “it’s clearly in our [US] interest.” Then came a follow-up question: “What would happen to that country if — if there were no US troops going into 2015, do you think?”
Hagel didn’t have an answer. That was when the question on drone base came up: “But would you consider, if you don’t have an option of a drone base in Pakistan, if you don’t have troops allowed to stay, you don’t have a BSA, would you consider basing drones in India, for instance?” [Emphasis added.]
Hagel replied: “Well, we have to consider everything, as we are… you’re constantly updating and changing and looking at possibilities, strategic interests, where you posture those assets… where do you have allies that are willing to work with you, capacity-building of allies. You’re in a constant review process on all those things. And so if that would be the case, we — we would have to be — and we are looking at different options for everything.”
Hagel was evasive. He didn’t mention India, nor did he rule out India. Suffice to say, the precise timing of the remarks made by the US National Security Advisor Susan Rice in Washington on Friday, giving much hype to the US-Indian partnership, is also to be noted.
Ironically, Hagel’s press briefing underscored that Karzai is justified in exuding confidence over the capacity of the Afghan armed forces. What emerges is that while the Afghan scenario causes concern, it is nowhere near as apocalyptic as the American commentators and officials make it out to be. At the end of the day, the Obama administration’s priority it is to somehow ensure an open-ended US military presence in the highly strategic region of Afghanistan. (See my article US torpedoes Karzai’s contacts with Taliban.)
Of course, it will be downright stupid on the part of the Indian policymakers to consider allowing American drones to undertake operations from its soil against Pakistan or China.
To be sure, it is against a complex backdrop that External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid is heading for Kabul. The right thing to do will be for Delhi to view the Afghan prism in terms of its legitimate security interests.
India’s concerns are similar to the concerns of regional powers like China, Russia and Iran — a stable and secure Afghanistan, which is strong and independent. Indeed, the meeting between the Chinese and Afghan presidents in Sochi on Friday highlighted the shared concerns of regional powers.
