We Need an Indian Civilian Surge

The United States is still struggling to bring stability to Afghanistan. Why not ask India to help?

BY RICHARD FONTAINE | NOVEMBER 4, 2010

President Barack Obama visits India this weekend amid high expectations for the future of the U.S.-India relationship. Yet of the many issues that will be on his plate -- civil nuclear cooperation, counterterrorism, China, Pakistan, and all the rest -- one that has received very little attention is the foreign-policy issue that today transfixes Washington: the war in Afghanistan.

That needs to change. With the clock ticking down on the war and with the Afghan government and security forces plainly unable to handle matters on their own, the United States should take a new look at what India could contribute to stability in Afghanistan. Obama should use his visit to talk specifics with the Indians about leveraging their support in pursuit of success there. Such a conversation must begin, however, with the understanding that, though the United States and India share nearly identical interests in Afghanistan, they remain opposed on the best way to achieve those interests.

Both the United States and India wish to avoid the re-emergence of a sanctuary in Afghanistan for terrorists with international reach. Both want to stem the destabilizing effect that insurgent success in Afghanistan would have on Pakistan and the wider region. And neither would like to see a superpower defeated at the hands of Islamist extremists, which would provide a major boost in recruitment and financing for the global jihadi movement. These shared interests translate into a series of mutual objectives -- to defeat the Taliban, help build the capacity and legitimacy of the Afghan government, and aid the country's reconstruction.

But then the differences emerge. India has generally believed that embracing Afghan President Hamid Karzai is best; the Americans have blown hot and cold. Obama's policy is to begin withdrawing U.S. troops in July 2011; Indian officials have decried the existence of a public withdrawal timetable. Washington sees Pakistan, despite its many complications, as an inevitable piece of the solution in Afghanistan; India invariably views Pakistan as a part of the problem. Indian policymakers think that talks with the Taliban are pointless at best and dangerous at worst; U.S. officials appear willing to test the idea in order to hasten an acceptable conclusion to the war in Afghanistan. And so on.

That's not to say that India is standing by idly. New Delhi has committed more than $1.2 billion in aid to Afghanistan since 2001, making it the sixth-largest donor to the country, and has provided funds for education, health, power, telecommunications, infrastructure, and food aid. It has constructed Afghanistan's new parliament building, built roads, and is erecting a dam in Herat. Several thousand Indians are on the ground in Afghanistan engaged in development activities, and India maintains four consulates (in Herat, Jalalabad, Kandahar, and Mazar-e-Sharif) in addition to its embassy in Kabul. It is developing Iran's Chabahar port, which could provide a sea outlet for Indian trade with Afghanistan, and an air base across the border in Tajikistan.

 

Richard Fontaine is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and co-author of the CNAS report "Natural Allies: A Blueprint for the Future of U.S.-India Relations."

KIESELGUHR KID

6:43 PM ET

November 4, 2010

Better than soldiers, but...

While it's surely less provocative than sending Indian military forces, I think the author has not convinced me that a substantial Indian civilian presence in Afghanistan -- with the suggestion of future warm Afghan/Indian relations -- would not cause the Pakistanis to sh*t glass.

 

NORBOOSE

9:08 PM ET

November 4, 2010

Well Said

Well Said

 

CO.DEX

6:21 PM ET

November 5, 2010

AfPak

Pashtunistan unites Afghanistan and Pakistan. To deal with one, you must deal with the other. Pakistani's may sh*t glass, but in order to win in either state of AfPak you must win in both. There's a solution for that;

China wants to flex it's muscle and India needs the Pakistan problem dealt with. Having the two cooperate in a mutually beneficial annexation of Pakistan would be the best way to deal with terrorism and the India-China conflict.

Baluchistan and NWFP can go to China. Punjab, Sindh and Kashmir to India. Through the partnership the dispute between Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh could be resolved, possibly exchanging Pakistani Kashmir for Arunachal Pradesh.

There is, of course, the threat of nukes. If Pakistan makes use of them, it will only be a rallying cry to further unite India, China and rest of the world against rogue nations. Both India and China have the manpower, the incentive to normalize their gender disparity, and the desire to be seen as superpowers.

By spending significant military resources in Pashtunistan, China would be much less of a threat, and in a great position to pressure Iran. It would be a victory for China, India, and NATO. It would be a loss for extremism, terrorism and rogue states.

 

LAHORIJERRY

4:03 AM ET

November 6, 2010

hehehe some of the comments

hehehe some of the comments here are just plain hilarious....Pakistan is not a cake that india can carve out and consume or distribute parts of to another country...if that was the case it would have done so by now...if anything there's a better chance of China and Pakistan getting together and deciding which states of India to annex when India's dozens of insurgencies tear it apart...not that i think this will happen but given the dynamics in the region chances of this happening are much more probable than the one envisaged by codex...As for the US, well in this region theres only been one real ally the US has had for over 60 years, reliable or not(btw this reliability issue kind of runs both ways), like it or not that countrys been Pakistan...India looks nice and attractive right now...your experiences with us will look like a honeymoon once the Indians are done with the US....finally afghan solution goes through Pakistan, sooner everyone understands that, the sooner this war will end...

 

XMASTER4000

9:52 PM ET

November 4, 2010

The Pakistanis will be thrilled

Yeah, that's gonna play real well with the most radicalized members of the ISI.

 

JAYDEE001

10:17 AM ET

November 5, 2010

This really is a silly suggestion

The Pakistani surely do not want more Indian involvement in Afghanistan. One of the reasons they have supported the Taliban there is because they need them at least as a buffer against India. Pakistan wants a friendly ally in Afghanistan, but more preferably one that is hostile to India. There is no way they are going to accept any Indian involvement in Afghanistan - they already are concerned about civilian organisations from India doing civil engineering work there.

Pakistan has proven to be an unreliable ally, if not a duplicitous one. Much of the financial aid we have given them will be diverted to miltary resources to be committed against India. Their ISI has nurtured terrorist actions against India and harbored the forces of international terrorism.

The only action likely to lead to a cessation of hostilities in Afghanistan is for the US and it allies to leave. We have done all we can to reduce the al Qaeda footprint there and our presence only draws in more recruits for the war against us. We are fighting an enemy there that has actually been operating from Pakistan since 2002. We really do not need to expand this pointless effort into Pakistan or the FATA. The taliban will eventually rule Afghanistan, and they are not likely to invite al Qaeda back for another visit - they know we can send in the drones. The hope for anything resembling a modern democracy in that god-forsaken wasteland is foolishness. Let them stay firmly anchored in the 13th century where they will be content to fight their tribal wars for another hundred years or more.

The only money we should offer Pakistan is a bounty for the head of Osama bin Laden. Between Pakistan and India, we should chose India - they are a natural ally in that part of the world: they have a growing economy and an improving educational system; we need them to counterbalance China they have a better economy than Pakistan; they also have a history of democratically elected governments, all things Pakistan lacks. India has no groups plotting against the West.

Give India all the military aid we are sending to Pakistan, where we might find it being used against us at some point. Let India and Pakistan sort out their differences if they can - our involvement will simply get us in the middle of another nasty backyard spat.

 

ARJUN SHARMA

2:17 AM ET

November 8, 2010

Need for a more bipartisan/collective approach

Labeling Pakistan as a victim or perpetrator and India as covetous or progressive is counterproductive. There are groups in all four countries (US, India, Pak and Afghanistan) that can further or hamper the stability of the region. The issue as I see it is that the U.S. has not made an adequate effort to identify the progressive (i.e. non-radical) elements and get them on the table to chalk out a unified strategy. Any solution to the "Afghan problem" will lie in a co-ordinated and concerted effort by all the concerned parties. Working and thinking in silos is only going to fuel mistrust and exacerbate the problem.

 

CO.DEX

6:14 PM ET

November 5, 2010

What about China?

China wants to flex it's muscle and India wants the Pakistan problem dealt with. Having the two cooperate in a mutually beneficial annexation of Pakistan would be the best way to deal with terrorism and the India-China conflict.

Baluchistan and NWFP can go to China. Punjab, Sindh and Kashmir to India. Through the partnership the dispute between Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh could be resolved, possibly exchanging Pakistani Kashmir for Arunachal Pradesh.

There is, of course, the threat of nukes. If Pakistan makes use of them, it will only be a rallying cry to further unite India, China and rest of the world against rogue nations. Both India and China have the manpower and the incentive to normalize their gender disparity.

By spending significant military resources in Pashtunistan, China would be much less of a threat, and in a great position to pressure Iran. It would be a victory for China, India, and NATO. It would be a loss for extremism, terrorism and rogue states.

 

YKNOT

12:02 PM ET

November 6, 2010

yes civilian surge indeed

Afghanistan has to reach a level of local governance that can ensure that it does not return to being a haven for terror organisations after the US forces leave the country. the civilian and the police machinery has to be improved and they need help. India has been helping the afghans towards this end. everyone knows that more of this shud happen and at a faster pace. Pakistan will play spoil sport as the only lever they have with the US is the bogey of threat from India. The world knows that pakistan's claim is indeed false but given that the supply routes for NATO in afghanistan are thru pakistan, they are, for now, playing along and seemingly acceding to pakistan's pleas about reducing Indian involvement in afghanistan...the situation is very similar to drone attacks - pakistani politicians can shout out loud that US cannot bomb locations within pakistan and that its totally unacceptable - but the drone atatcks continue increasing in frequency with every month and there is nothing that pakistan can do..so i agree that there is a need for an indian civilian surge in afghanistan

 

LIBERTAS

2:30 PM ET

November 7, 2010

it's PakAf not Afpak!

I keep reading about India and Pakistan's contributions to Afghanistan's future as though there's some equivocation possible. By this author's own admission, India has been involved in developmental projects and strategic improvements that are most certainly beneficial to Afghanistan as well as India. On the other hand, Pakistan has nurtured the insurgency there lock stock and barrel. If anything US must give Pakistan an ultimatum: either give up your support for terrorists or we end the billions of dollars of aid that your military outfit practically subsists on. India and America are natural allies given their secular history and shared value systems. Pakistan, to put it bluntly, has no value system to speak of. While accepting funding from the US in the name of countering terror it simultaneously develops new ways and means to cripple the American war effort in Afghanistan. If US is seriously interested in developing Afghanistan, such allies are worse than its most insidious enemies.

 

KEVINJ

8:06 AM ET

November 13, 2010

It's good that Obama has visited India

It's good that Obama has visited India, it is necessary to strengthen the relationship, but do not forget about the problems in their country. The country should withdraw from the crisis. Kevin from buy slim fast online

 

SAIF UR REHMAN

4:04 PM ET

November 30, 2010

An Indian surge, either military or civil is counter productive

Pakistan will never accept Indian involvement in anyway on its western border. It will further escalate tensions and Pakistan will consider it a means of interference and encirclement.

This will cause a Afghan dominance competition, which Pakistan will certainly win keeping in view of the same Pushtun tribes across the border, Afghanistan being a muslim country and Pushtuns having more acceptance towards Pakistan.

Therefore a surge at any form will be counter productive to the peace and stability of the region.