Why India should send troops to Afghanistan

It’s about strategy, not popularity

There is often a negative correlation between popularity and good policy: what is popular is often not good policy, and vice versa. This is especially true when it comes to foreign policy. For instance, the Times of India thinks nothing of publishing an op-ed article titled “Call Pakistan’s bluff”, in other words, “Let’s attack them and see if they respond with nuclear weapons”. It seems unimportant to consider the question of “what if they press the red button first”.

Since no political leader will accept such a policy recommendation, perhaps writing and publishing it just serves the purpose of playing to the galleries. (Forget newspaper columns, even the FICCI task force report on national security & terrorism identifies surgical strikes, all-out war and ‘leveraging the water issue’ as among the hard options for the Indian government’s consideration.)

Now there is every reason for India to invest in capabilities to carry out a number of military missions across its borders, including for conventional warfare under the shadow of nuclear weapons. But any recommendation that India ought to carry out a direct military retaliation in response to a future terrorist attack is not only so irresponsible as to make it a non-serious option. It is also strategically unsound, because nothing serves the interests of the Pakistani military-jihadi complex more than an old-fashioned war with India.

Despite all its shortcomings, the “let’s strike Pakistan” option is popular, at least among some pundits, in college canteens and in most middle-class drawing rooms. But you have only to mention the idea of sending Indian troops to Afghanistan that suddenly you end up on the other end of the popularity-policy correlation. You begin to hear “What if the Pakistanis retaliate with more terror attacks?”, “What will the ‘Muslim world’ say?”, “It won’t be popular with Indian Muslims”, “Remember IPKF!” and “Why should we become footsoldiers of the Americans?”. [Some of which were reflected in the very interesting open discussion thread on this blog last week]

The proposal to deploy Indian troops in Afghanistan is based on the simple logic of force fungibility. That since it is not feasible for Indian troops to directly attack Pakistan’s military-jihadi complex, India should ensure that US troops do so. Since it is in India’s interests that as many US soldiers are committed to operations ‘along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border’, it is sensible to relieve US troops of duties in areas where they are not actually fighting the taliban—especially in Western and Northern Afghanistan.

India has the capacity to equip, station and supply several divisions of its troops in Afghanistan. Many Afghan political leaders—from President Hamid Karzai to the Northern Alliance—are highly likely to welcome India’s decision. Neighbouring countries, including Iran and Tajikistan, will support an Indian military presence in Afghanistan provided their interests are taken into account. And not least, the United States will welcome it—for even if Indian troops do not eventually deploy, the very possibility of their deployment will change Washington’s bargaining terms with Kayani & Co.

What if the Pakistanis retaliate with more terror attacks? This is the most serious question. It is highly likely that the military-jihadi complex will escalate the proxy war against India. While the impact of this escalation is less significant compared to what the Pakistani army might do in response to a ‘surgical strike’ it is must be accepted as the cost of the option. The cost can be mitigated—but not eliminated totally—through better intelligence co-operation with the United States and intensification of the internal security mechanisms put in place after 26/11.

But let’s not forget that the Pakistani military-jihadi complex might escalate the proxy war against India even if India doesn’t send troops to Afghanistan. If you think otherwise, you haven’t been reading the news since the 1980s. (You should make up for it by reading Praveen Swami’s book).

In fact, ensuring that the United States stays committed to the objectives outlined by President Barack Obama is ultimately in India’s interests—for the US cannot succeed in that mission unless it transforms the Pakistani state. Now, it can be argued that the US will pack up and leave if the situation gets too hairy, but if India doesn’t do anything to keep the US focused, such arguments are gratuitous, sanctimonious and ultimately, self-fulfilling.

The real options are to do nothing, and allow the United States and Pakistan to work out a solution and hope that the outcome of that bargaining will secure India’s interests. Or to eschew both pusillanimity and grandstanding and indirectly crush the Pakistani military-jihadi complex. As for popularity, it’s a question of timing. If the Indian government had announced that “we will go to Afghanistan” on November 28th, 2008, few would have raised their hands in objection. For that reason, it is imperative that India’s military planners develop and have on the ready a comprehensive, well-thought out policy option involving the stationing of Indian troops in Afghanistan.

54 thoughts on “Why India should send troops to Afghanistan”

  1. @sr murthy:
    1. “How do you know you are at the worst possible case?..” — you don’t know, and don’t need to. When the worst case becomes so bad that the proposal under consideration is unacceptable, you just stop. In other words, even worse cases make no difference to your analysis at that point. (infinity + 1 –> infinity. eg: what if a meteor strikes the earth after a global nuclear war? — do you really care..?)

    2. Mostly true. Though i have no idea what this has got to do with india v pak wrt the topic of the post (ie afghanistan)

    “Intuitively, the worst case is less likely than the average case..” — You are making the mistake of assigning equal weights to all scenarios. You are free to plan as you wish, but i would assign much higher weights to worst case scenarios (because if they manifest, they will cause much bigger impact than the average case scenario). So even though worst case is less likely to occur, it deserves a lot more attention. Secondly, you are also making the mistake of analysing the problem on a one time-step scale. A series of highly likely ‘bad’ (though much better than ‘worst’) scenarios can lead into a catastrophic scenario (whose ex-ante probability might be miniscule) — ie what they call a death spiral. (sort of what’s happening to the BJP right now!!)

  2. @gbz:
    “Intuitively, the worst case is less likely than the average case..” — You are making the mistake of assigning equal weights to all scenarios. ”

    All of these scenarios are themselves largely a matter of how real-world information and trends are put together, so we are not talking an exact science here. There is usually too much information to handle in big lump, and so things need to be broken down. I was just stating that, typically, the “average case” is the most-likely case, and hence handling this needs to be considered in greater detail than problems that are not all that likely.

  3. ” you are also making the mistake of analysing the problem on a one time-step scale. A series of highly likely ‘bad’ (though much better than ‘worst’) scenarios can lead into a catastrophic scenario ”

    Yes, but that is not relevant if you understand the breakdown and the premise of the breakdown. If you read the post again, the context was deliberately at some future point in time, so all your “series of bad intermediate scenarios” will already be considered when you draw up the worst case for that one event of interest at the future point in time.

    As for things between “bad” and “worse”, the analysis stopped at 3: best, medium, and worst to keep it manageable, but if you can handle the analysis (and you have sufficient facts in hand), nothing stops you from breaking down the analysis to 6-7 slots between “best” and “worst”, if you can actually come up with significantly different states of the world that are all likely, and handle the resulting matrix of madness. Good luck with that.

  4. i think we should send troops to Afghanistan.
    Taliban is our enemy as they hijacked ic 814 and we have done nothing but to release terrorists.
    if we want to become a superpower than we should involved in global issue and forget world they are our enemy.
    we should not shy or fear about anything and just needs to send at least some troops to afgh. and if we cant do it than just forget that we will become superpower because its not our cup of tea.

Comments are closed.