By Dave Anderson:
My fellow 'Hoggers and I have been pounding on the idea that Pakistan's military and political elites are primarily focused on their India security issues, and that almost all issues are warped by the massive gravitational lensing of being an inferior power with a weaker economy and major population centers within two or three days of armored forces that could easily mass on the disputed border region. These basic facts will warp and anchor perceptions. For this reason, Pakistan has long sought strategic depth in Afghanistan by supporting its clients and allies there.
Pakistan's primary focus is India. So why would it be unusual for India to have some of its focus on Pakistan with the intent of denying Pakistan strategic depth?
Pakistan supported the Taliban during the civil war in the 1990s and supported the Taliban after the civil war was mostly over. India on the other hand was one of the major suppliers for the Northern Alliance during the 90s. The Northern Alliance and associated warlords were one of the prime benefeciaries of the United States toppling the Talbian in 2001. Therefore India was also a benefeciary as Pakistan lost an ally and strategic depth.
Using this lens, I have a hard time seeing the strength of the argument that James Joyner is making as he notes that India is more than happy with the United States propping up one of their allies and weakening one of India's major regional competitors:
India's new ambassador to the United States, Meera Shankar, told the Atlantic Council that her government believes it is "imperative that the United States stay the course" in Afghanistan even while conceding that "stability will require a sustained engagement..."
it is not regional opposition that threatens to prematurely end the ISAF mission in Afghanistan but rather faltering commitment in the United States, Europe, and other Coalition countries....
and the realization that the "sustained engagement" Shankar spoke of likely means decades, not years, is making it extraordinarily difficult to sustain public support for expending more blood and treasure in a war that has already gone on far longer than most expected when launching it in retaliation for the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Is it in our interests to do India's dirty work? Where is the division or two of Indian infantry in Kabul? Or is this just a way for India to deny Pakistan a major long term objective at minimal cost to themselves while further wedging the long standing Pakistani-American security ties?
No comments:
Post a Comment