While the United States has focused on the role of Pakistan in Afghanistan, the role of India has remained largely overlooked. Since 2001, India has restored diplomatic relations with Afghanistan, invested heavily in reconstruction projects, and increased bilateral trade. As a result, Pakistani-based terrorist groups who initially planned attacks on Indian soil, now also increasingly target Indian workers and diplomats in Afghanistan. How can the United States better work with its fellow democratic ally? What opportunities can Afghanistan pursue with India?
Please join the Center for Naval Analyses for a workshop on India's role in Afghanistan: Security, Politics, and Trade, on Monday, 12 July, from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.
Panelists include: Ashley Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (confirmed); Steve Coll, President of the New America Foundation (confirmed); Ali Jalali, Distinguished Professor at NDU's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies (invited), S. Frederick Starr, Chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center (confirmed); and moderator Dr. Jerry Meyerle, Research Analyst at CNA (confirmed).
The workshop will be held in the Gold Room of the 2168 Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill. Please RSVP to [email protected] or 703.824.2436 by Friday, 9 July.
Comments
The recent election has left…
The recent election has left many people feeling pretty down about the future. It’s true that Trump is certainly not a model of good behavior, and he may well be a disaster for our country. Click on https://best-casino24.com/ and get all the technology about sports and games.But it’s also true that many of us were already in a bad mood before November 8th. The world is full of problems, and we’re going to have to work hard to solve them.
Bill C.
I don't think that's exactly true. You may be generalizing a strain of thought found in many parts of the muslim world to Afghanistan. The fact is, India has always treated Afghanistan as its backyard. For Indians, it has always been part of the subcontinent, not Central Asia. The Afghans don't view Indian culture as a threat to them. The most popular professional sport in Afghanistan is cricket. The most popular form of entertainment are Bollywood movies. The most popular music is Indian pop music. Indian pop culture is penetrating Afghan culture faster than the Taliban can handle. I think the ordinary Afghan understands the special bond between the two countries dating back to the times when Afghanistan was just another state in various Indian empires.
If the US enables India to establish a strong presence in Afghanistan, we will have enabled perceptions in Pakistan that they are now in a two-front situation. No good can come from this. Such perceptions could lead to "mistakes" of judgement; resulting in India thinking they have the advantage, and to strike to defeat Pakistan; or for Pakistan to think that India thinks this, and to strike peremptively. This is the balancing game of deterrence.
We have already upset this balance with our AFPAK operations in ways we don't fully appreciate. To enable this Indian infiltration into Pakistan's rear out of our desperation for support in our efforts in Afghanistan is I believe, both dangerous and misguided.
Robert C. Jones:
I wonder if we are in so strong a position as to "enable" or prevent India from doing anything in Afghanistan. They have their own game. And anyway probably the best way to keep their interest in Afghanistan low is to keep the Taliban out, which the Pak Army won't tolerate which makes the Indians more interested which...there's no stopping this.
As far as Pak Army perceptions, I also wonder if it is in our best long term interests to make their stomach flutters a primary consideration in what we do or don't do.
The "balancing game of deterrence" between India and Pakistan is going to be decided by them, not us.
Although not the entire picture, the following perspective, I believe, is important:
Today, the United States, India, etc., largely see the world through the lense of global economics, international trade and international commerce.
Thus, the common cause of the United States and India to change Afghanistan from (1) an obsticle to international trade into (2) a condient for it. Thus, the concept of the Modern Silk Road endorsed by GEN. Petraeus.
In stark contrast, many of the indigenious people in Afghanistan/the Muslim World feel threatened by this vision. They see such foreign nations as the United States and India using global economics as an excuse to (1) intervene in their affairs and (2) alter their societies and their ways of life (so as to better provide for the global economy).
Generally, the "modus operendi" that the foreign nations seem to use is (1) install and support "local" governments to act as their "agents of change," (2) build new institutions and infrastructure to administer, accommodate and facilitate change and (3) build up military and police forces to adequately deal with any resistance to the change initiative. (Not necessarily in this order).
Thus, from the perspective of those who are opposed to change for the sake of the global economy, the clash is between (1) the desires and interests of foreign nations (for example: those of the United States and India re: the global economy) and (2) the desires and interests of the indigenous populations (at least those who are opposed to change).