US asks India to close Consulates in Afghanistan

[Skeptic]

U.S. General admits rising Indian influence in Afghanistan
WASHINGTON: U. S. General Stanley A. McChrystal has warned that the rising Indian influence in Afghanistan could exacerbate regional tensions in the region and harm the U.S. interest.

In the clearest statement to date of Washington’s reservations about the rising Indian economic and political profile in Afghanistan, the top American general in charge of the war against the Taliban and other insurgents there has said India’s increasing influence in the insurgency-wracked country “is likely to exacerbate regional tensions”.

“Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian”, the McChrystal report notes.

General Stanley said that the Indian ongoing activities would exacerbate the tensions in the region and this could heighten the anxieties of Pakistan. U.S. General said that the tense situation in the region could result harming the U.S. interest.

Yeah right. Enough ping pong yellow journalism. Simply omitting the parts going against your stance. Try reading the complete report or for that matter the ralevant excrept quoted here:

washingtonpost.com

India. Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.

And while you are at it please go through the Pakistan Section as well:

Pakistan. Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI.

All in all a piece of yellow journalism drawing from a in-comprehensive and unprofessional / vague report.

 

[Developereo]

The good general evidently does not know it, but the US neocon plan is to have an Indian client state in Afghanistan. It helps prop up India as a regional power to counter China, which is the neocons' main concern this century.

 

[EvoluXon]

The US has been asking Bharat (aka India) to scale back its operations in Afghanistan. US to Delhi: Shut down Indian “Consulates” in Afghanistan– aftermath of RAW bombing of Peshawar hotel. A news story in the Hindu is now reporting the fact that General McChrystal is scared that Bharat’s increasing involvement in Kabul is jeopardising the US war in Afghanistan.

The latest US polls are reflecting the American mood. Any impediment to a speedy end to the war will be seen as contrary to US interests. Bharat is now seen as a nuisance in Afghanistan which creates Pakistani countermeasures–anathema to peace in the Hindu Kush.

In the clearest statement to date of Washington’s reservations about the rising Indian economic and political profile in Afghanistan, the top American general in charge of the war against the Taliban and other insurgents there has said India’s increasing influence in the insurgency-wracked country “is likely to exacerbate regional tensions”.

In his ‘Commander’s Initial Assessment’ on the war in Afghanistan dated August 30, made public on Sunday, General Stanley A. McChrystal said the situation there is “serious” and “deteriorating”. Though a significant section of his report emphasises the need for a change in U.S. strategy and the way U.S. forces deployed there “think and operate”, the section on “external influences” is likely to grate on New Delhi’s ears because of its implication that India ought to scale back its presence in order to placate Pakistani fears about growing Indian influence.

“Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian”, the McChrystal report notes. But it adds: “While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India”.

However, in its section on Pakistan, the report only says that insurgent and violent extremist groups based in that country “are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan’s ISI”, an assessment far less categorical than what U.S. officials and military commanders have said before in public and private. The report zeroes in on Al-Qaeda’s links to the Haqqani network (HQN) inside Pakistan and says “expanded HQN control could create a favourable environment for AQAM to re-establish safe-havens in Afghanistan”.

The HQN is believed to be behind the bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul in 2007 and the recent assassination of Afghanistan’s deputy chief of intelligence, Abdullah Laghmani, and is widely suspected of enjoying the patronage of the ISI.

INDIA

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What a load of hogwash - Indian economic development and investments, even when increasing Indian influence, don't automatically exacerbate tensions regionally and specifically with Pakistan - Indian influence in Afghanistan and the utilization of that influence in supporting terrorism and destabilization in Pakistan does exacerbate tensions.

McChrystal is either a fool if he actually believes this nonsense, or the unclassified version is missing the details on why rising Indian influence in Afghanistan would exacerbate tensions regionally because the US continues to place potential economic and strategic gains from India above preventing terrorism and occupation from India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI.

Skeptic:

That's an extremely vague statement, as pointed out in the thread related to those comments on Iran and Pakistan - 'reportedly'? By whom? Bill Roggio?

 

[gubbi]

What a load of hogwash - Indian economic development and investments, even when increasing Indian influence, don't automatically exacerbate tensions regionally and specifically with Pakistan - Indian influence in Afghanistan and the utilization of that influence in supporting terrorism and destabilization in Pakistan does exacerbate tensions.

McChrystal is either a fool if he actually believes this nonsense, or the unclassified version is missing the details on why rising Indian influence in Afghanistan would exacerbate tensions regionally.

I disagree. Pakistan considered and still considers Afghanistan as its backyard, 'strategic depth' if you may! Why do you want to interfere in Afghanistan's matters and you all complain when India meddles in Nepal, BD or Bhutan or Sri Lanka? How very hypocritical?
India and Afghanistan relations predate Soviet invasion in the 70's. SO its only but natural for India to support Afghans in whichever way possible. As to the consequences of "encouraging Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India" its going to backfire on Pakistan, if it increases those misadventures. Pakistan doesnt want a stable Afghanistan, for such stability would give rise to a demand for Pashtunistan for the Durrand Line does not exist for those tribes people! No wonder any attempt at stabilizing Afghanistan with a non-Pak influenced group of politicians is regarded as an attack on Pakistan itself.
As to your comment on McChrystal, he's in that high position not because of his idiocy, but for his capabilities which are far greater than you or I can ever possess. He's got better knowledge of things happening than either of us sitting in front of computer screens typing away! I would take his word any day over your/anyone else's pov. Calling everyone a fool, especially those in high decision making positions, just because their comment does not agree with your/our skewed view of the world doesnt mean that they are fools, they would have been in our shoes! If we had those capabilities, we would be in their positions!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I disagree. Pakistan considered and still considers Afghanistan as its backyard, 'strategic depth' if you may! Why do you want to interfere in Afghanistan's matters and you all complain when India meddles in Nepal, BD or Bhutan or Sri Lanka? How very hypocritical?

I assume you made the comments above in the context of Pakistan's historic interventions in Afghanistan. However, you are ignoring the fact that those interventions occurred because Afghanistan had attempted multiple times to destabilize Pakistan - going all the way back to Pakistan's independence - through supporting the various Baluch insurgencies and trying to spark a Pashtun insurgency. The Soviet invasion and massive atrocities against the population again forced Pakistani intervention (and US) because of how it impacted the Pashtun in Afghanistan (and therefore in Pakistan)and the dangers it posed to Pakistan in terms of Soviet designs on Pakistan, possibly in conjunction with India.

The intervention post Soviet withdrawal was once more a result of minimizing the extremely negative impact on Pakistan from the instability and chaos resulting from civil war in Afghanistan - millions of refugees, drugs, crime violence, as well as reducing the chances of of brutal warlords affiliated with Russia and India gaining power and reverting to the days of the past when insurgencies and violence in Pakistan were supported out of Afghanistan. Additionally, there was the desire to expand trade with the CAR"s and tap into their energy potential via Afghanistan, which would have also immensely benefited the Afghans due to transit fees and the investment from the infrastructure that had to be set up.

The motivation behind Pakistani intervention has little to do with considering Afghanistan a 'backyard', and everything to do with ensuring that Pakistan's security and stability is not compromised by regimes in Afghanistan supporting irredentist goals and violence in Pakistan, as they have done in the past.

India and Afghanistan relations predate Soviet invasion in the 70's. SO its only but natural for India to support Afghans in whichever way possible. As to the consequences of "encouraging Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India" its going to backfire on Pakistan, if it increases those misadventures. Pakistan doesnt want a stable Afghanistan, for such stability would give rise to a demand for Pashtunistan for the Durrand Line does not exist for those tribes people! No wonder any attempt at stabilizing Afghanistan with a non-Pak influenced group of politicians is regarded as an attack on Pakistan itself.

The question is not of India supporting the Afghans, the question revolves around the regime and warlords in Afghanistan allowing their state to be used as a proxy and launching pad for terrorism and destabilization in Pakistan, as is occurring now and has in the past. If you could do the former without the latter that would be ideal - but as of right not that is not the consensus in Pakistani circles, and even some Western analysts.

Your argument that a stable Afghanistan would allow the demand for 'Pashtunistan' to arise is valid in the context I mentioned in my initial comments - the Afghan government covertly supported that move, it had no legs on its own, and even with Afghan support, the 'Pashtunistan' movement never caught on and died out.

So yes, going by history, there is a legitimate concern that an Afghan government influenced by India will seek to push the same kind of covert means of destabilizing Pakistan that it has in the past.

As to your comment on McChrystal, he's in that high position not because of his idiocy, but for his capabilities which are far greater than you or I can ever possess. He's got better knowledge of things happening than either of us sitting in front of computer screens typing away! I would take his word any day over your/anyone else's pov. Calling everyone a fool, especially those in high decision making positions, just because their comment does not agree with your/our skewed view of the world doesnt mean that they are fools, they would have been in our shoes! If we had those capabilities, we would be in their positions!

There were lots of people in high positions who went along perfectly well with the distorted and fabricated case for war against Iraq - just as there were many who went in war into Afghanistan without giving negotiations and dialog a good chance. So 'high positions' on their own do not mandate 'good sense' or 'accuracy' - you have two major wars started by the US and hundreds of thousands dead, and possibly trillions lost and spent (by the US and the economies that have had to suffer as a consequence) to illustrate my point.

 

[gubbi]

However, you are ignoring the fact that those interventions occurred because Afghanistan had attempted multiple times to destabilize Pakistan - going all the way back to Pakistan's independence - through supporting the various Baluch insurgencies and trying to spark a Pashtun insurgency. The Soviet invasion and massive atrocities against the population again forced Pakistani intervention (and US) because of how it impacted the Pashtun in Afghanistan (and therefore in Pakistan)and the dangers it posed to Pakistan in terms of Soviet designs on Pakistan, possibly in conjunction with India.

You've got a point there. But, after the partition in '47 the Afghans more specifically the Pashtuns didn't want to recognize the Durrand line as IB. I guess that led to whatever they did there.

The intervention post Soviet withdrawal was once more a result of minimizing the extremely negative impact on Pakistan from the instability and chaos resulting from civil war in Afghanistan - millions of refugees, drugs, crime violence, as well as reducing the chances of of brutal warlords affiliated with Russia and India gaining power and reverting to the days of the past when insurgencies and violence in Pakistan were supported out of Afghanistan. Additionally, there was the desire to expand trade with the CAR"s and tap into their energy potential via Afghanistan, which would have also immensely benefited the Afghans due to transit fees and the investment from the infrastructure that had to be set up.

Afghanistan, post SU withdrawal was relatively stable under Dr Najubullah, with a few Mujaheedin (supported by the CIA and Pakistan) fomenting trouble. The fact that the secular govt of Najibullah lasted for such a long time says a lot about Afghans. However the fundamentalist (read Islamic) remnants of the struggle against the SU occupation didn't want a commie govt at the helm and along with support from Pakistan (werent those Mujaheedin told that a Godless govt was in power and a threat to Islam?) kept up their fight against the secular govt in power ultimately driving them from the center. India was a supporter of Dr Najubullah and after his ouster, only then did India start supporting some of the factions among whom were the Lion of Panjshir! It was Pakistan who was supporting the various Mujaheedin who later trained their guns on each other in the greed for power dragging the country into chaos. Not that India was an angel, but India had to safeguard her interests as well and did/does what has to be done, just like Pakistan.

The motivation behind Pakistani intervention has little to do with considering Afghanistan a 'backyard', and everything to do with ensuring that Pakistan's security and stability is not compromised by regimes in Afghanistan supporting irredentist goals and violence in Pakistan, as they have done in the past.

I disgree with security excuse of Pakistan. After the Su withdrew, Pakistan intoxicated with what it considered a victory over the mighty godless SU (days of Zia and Islamization of Pakistan, and India's supporter), became heady and started considering Afghanistan as its sphere of influence. They supported the Mujaheedin and when chaos broke out with India getting herself embroiled into the mess, Pakistan started looking for options. Thats when Mullah Omar popped up and led to the creation of Taliban and as they say, the rest is history!

The question is not of India supporting the Afghans, the question revolves around the regime and warlords in Afghanistan allowing their state to be used as a proxy and launching pad for terrorism and destabilization in Pakistan, as is occurring now and has in the past. If you could do the former without the latter that would be ideal - but as of right not that is not the consensus in Pakistani circles, and even some Western analysts.

Agree with a part of your point here. I cannot comment on the intricate interplay and rivalries of those various factions and which ones were involved in creating unrest in Pakistan and which ones were not. However, you do realize that with such a huge refugee population, various warring factions commanded loyalties even with the refugees causing many problems in Pakistan.

So yes, going by history, there is a legitimate concern that an Afghan government influenced by India will seek to push the same kind of covert means of destabilizing Pakistan that it has in the past.

India has no interest in seeing Pakistan fail. Just like an unstable Afghanistan is a headache for Pakistan, an unstable, chaotic Pakistan is a headache for India. At this point of time, when the Indian economic interests are on the rise, India doesnt want to see an unstable neighborhood, least of all an unstable Pakistan. It would hit our interests very badly. Why dont you realize that?

There were lots of people in high positions who went along perfectly well with the distorted and fabricated case for war against Iraq - just as there were many who went in war into Afghanistan without giving negotiations and dialog a good chance. So 'high positions' on their own do not mandate 'good sense' or 'accuracy' - you have two major wars started by the US and hundreds of thousands dead, and possibly trillions lost and spent (by the US and the economies that have had to suffer as a consequence) to illustrate my point.

Iraq war = unnecessary and wrong! But they all might have had an ulterior motive or rather it was a result of the military-industrial complex who wanted a massive influx of funds for many projects.
Afghan war - rightly so. Taliban deserved to be thrown out. The Kandahar hijacking where ISI (so claims India) instead of trying to help to negotiate the release of passengers, apparently told the taliban to demand release of Pakistani terrorists from Indian jail, and secondly when US demanded OBL, he told the taliban to sit it out! What had Pakistani terrorists cooling heels in an Indian jail and a Saudi persona non grata got to do with Afghan interests? Not to mention the way Afghan people were treated like animals! Taliban had to go. Period.

 

[Skeptic]

Skeptic:

That's an extremely vague statement, as pointed out in the thread related to those comments on Iran and Pakistan - 'reportedly'? By whom? Bill Roggio?

Exactly what I pointed out:

All in all a piece of yellow journalism drawing from a in-comprehensive and unprofessional / vague report.

Even used the same term to describe the report.

Indian economic development and investments, even when increasing Indian influence, don't automatically exacerbate tensions regionally and specifically with Pakistan - Indian influence in Afghanistan and the utilization of that influence in supporting terrorism and destabilization in Pakistan does exacerbate tensions.

This is the part that I do have an objection to. This has so far been a baseless and unprovoked accusation. I have been through several threads on forum, gone through various media reports. Nowhere is the accusation substantiated.

There was a storm in the teacup by the handing over of dossier report which has been "officially debunked" and no proof has emerged till date to substatiate the claim apart from some pictures suitable for a snuff magazine - which you have yourself declined to accept and claims of obtaining some "Indian weapons" - which even if true actually proves nothing.

why rising Indian influence in Afghanistan would exacerbate tensions regionally

Beause
a) The anti India propaganda helps in strengthening the political hold of Army
b) By exhibiting and exhagerating Indian threat Eases American pressure
c) deep rooted India centric paranoia in Pakistani ruling classes
d) Justifies diversion of aid money to anti India activities
and finally since Pakistan has generally preferred insurgents to conventional warfare, it expects a similar response from India.

and yes... India having good reltions with afghanistan creates a possibility of an additional front for Pakistan in case of any conventional war with India,

 

[hack]

The good general evidently does not know it, but the US neocon plan is to have an Indian client state in Afghanistan. It helps prop up India as a regional power to counter China, which is the neocons' main concern this century.

I never have understood what exactly India wants in Afghanistan. IMO it is a bloody waste of Indian money there,might as well use it in India.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

I never have understood what exactly India wants in Afghanistan. IMO it is a bloody waste of Indian money there,might as well use it in India.

Its not just the Indian Money , infact money comes from many differet channels

 

[EjazR]

I never have understood what exactly India wants in Afghanistan. IMO it is a bloody waste of Indian money there,might as well use it in India.

There are number of importatn reasons

(1) Stability of Aghanistan is directly linked to stability in SAARC and India. You don't want Afghanistan to turn into a safe haven for AQ and Taliban again.

(2) Economic imperatives like Afghanistan being an corridor for energy and mineral resources in CAR republic. Moreover, no resouce mapping has been done within Afghanistan and a joint development and exploration would be an added benefit to both countries. Afghanistan will get jobs and industry development in this regard

(3) Developing traditional relations with a country that has been friendly at least till the late 70s. As well the obvious strategic relationship vis a vis China.

All this is not possible without helping the Afghan people in a difficult time and getting their good will first. That requires money and a Billion US$ is a step in the right direction. Infact, Indian NGOs should also be involved to act as a multiplier effect.

Indian NGOs can work with less of security risk as compared to western NGOs as Indians can better understand the conservative culture and help accodingly

 

[R.A.W.]

There are number of importatn reasons

(1) Stability of Aghanistan is directly linked to stability in SAARC and India. You don't want Afghanistan to turn into a safe haven for AQ and Taliban again.

(2) Economic imperatives like Afghanistan being an corridor for energy and mineral resources in CAR republic. Moreover, no resouce mapping has been done within Afghanistan and a joint development and exploration would be an added benefit to both countries. Afghanistan will get jobs and industry development in this regard

(3) Developing traditional relations with a country that has been friendly at least till the late 70s. As well the obvious strategic relationship vis a vis China.

All this is not possible without helping the Afghan people in a difficult time and getting their good will first. That requires money and a Billion US$ is a step in the right direction. Infact, Indian NGOs should also be involved to act as a multiplier effect.

Indian NGOs can work with less of security risk as compared to western NGOs as Indians can better understand the conservative culture and help accodingly

Along with that who can forget the added leverages for the following

1) Afghan market so Indians can have enough industries over there.
2) Indian manufacturing units in Afghan can very well serve as a base for serving into the european and middle east market.
3) Potential for the HR industry cannot be neglected also.

 

[idune]

This is more reason why Pakistan should not grant any land or rail access for india to Afghanistan. Without direct access through Pakistan there is very little india can do in long run.

In historic context indian interferance will not be sustainable in Afghanistan. India just riding US protection and exploiting anti Muslim/Pakistani propaganda wave. Once US leaves Afghanistan, which will happen sooner or later, indian presense will come under fire.

Pakistan should keep its pressure and point out to US that in long run indian motive and hemonic goal goes against US interest in the region. There are plenty of evidence of that and Pakistan media and govt should bring these facts in light.

 

[Goodperson]

I never have understood what exactly India wants in Afghanistan. IMO it is a bloody waste of Indian money there,might as well use it in India.

AFAIK India was requested to contribute personnel to coalition forces in Afghanistan but India refused and agreed to contribute in development, India has deployed around 380 commandos from the Indo-Tibetan Border Police to protect members of India's Border Roads Organization from attacks by the Taliban. The BRO is working on the 218-km Zaranj-Delaram highway, a strategic road that will connect Kandahar to Iran border. India does have few consulates in Afghanistan
This is what Pakistan does not like as in its backyard.