India-US Strategic News and Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Dec 2011 21:56

RamaY wrote:^ Western enlightenment is more out of fashion than principle. The core is still Abrahamic.

To put it in Rajiv Mlahotra's terms
The Abramhamic Tiger has digested the Egyptian, Greek, Roman and even the Enlightenment deer and thus remains a tiger still, not a deer.

Or in Old Testament terms it has put on a multi-colored coat in order to appeal to different fools.

Thats all the core/vore all about.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 17 Dec 2011 14:56

Obama names new ambassador to India

The Obama administration on Friday nominated Nancy J Powell as the next ambassador to India. She is diplomat who has held several postings in South Asia, one of them as ambassador to Pakistan.
If confirmed by the US senate, she will take over from Tim Roemer who left some months ago. Peter Burleigh has been the officiating ambassador since then.

Her appointment to India, if confirmed, will be her fifth ambassadorial assignments -- the previous four being to Pakistan, Nepal, Uganda and Ghana.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 18 Dec 2011 01:50

Here's the ToI take:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 148913.cms

"
Roemer, in fact, resigned after only two years in New Delhi so as to be back in the U.S well in time for the 2012 polls. He was also said to be hugely disappointed by New Delhi's decision not to pick either of the two American companies (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) in the fray for the $ 10 billion fighter jet deal on which he had staked a lot. Other setbacks included the U.S-India nuclear deal not being consummated to Washington's expectations.

The scuttlebutt in Washington was that Obama and his key principals were so disappointed with India on multiple fronts that they had put the New Delhi appointment on ice and instead deployed an experienced and highly-regarded stand-in in the form of Peter Burleigh, who also kept the seat warm for Roemer after the departure of David Mulford."

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 18 Dec 2011 02:47

Pakistan, Nepal, Uganda and Ghana. Is it just me or is this a slap in the face for India. Not exactly a high powered group of countries to be bracketed with.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 18 Dec 2011 03:04

Would guess India's H&D is not tied to appointment of a babu from unkilland. India should have by now seen it all. But it could signify the type of relationship that unkil land is open to.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Dec 2011 03:44

Massa worried about TSP collapse. Needs TSP hand nearby to coordinate.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Dec 2011 05:47

My take is that Unkil needs a TSP hand, so this appointment actually has nothing to do with India. It tells you how much India is taken for granted.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 18 Dec 2011 20:36

America has a right to choose its ambassador. Instead of a political appointee, we are seeing a professional being appointed. That is good. What matters to us, is how much weight will this ambassador be carrying back in Washington DC. Let us see how good she is.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Dec 2011 20:53

Really!!

The sly blighters.

How the US Planned to Destroy Britain Just a Few Years Before World War II

How the US Planned to Destroy Britain Just a Few Years Before World War II
Invasion of Canada. Bombing raids on British industrial interests. Naval blockade. Chemical weapons. Six million troops fighting on the Eastern seaboard. This wasn't a crazy Nazi plan. It was the United States' strategy to destroy Britain as a world superpower.
It was very real. Its name was War Plan Red. Developed during the 1920s, it was approved by the US Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy in May 1930. In fact, it was active until Hitler decided to invade Poland with his bloody pal Stalin. The plan wasn't declassified until 1974. Now, a new documentary by Channel 5 America's Planned War On Britain: Revealed, shows how this plan became to be alongside other plans that called for war against Mexico (War Plan Green), Japan (Orange), China (Yellow) and even domestic uprising (White).

Unlike the other color-coded plans, however, the US Congress approved $57 million for War Plan Red. This money was used to build three military airfields disguised as civilian airports on the Canadian border, which would be used to launch pre-emptive surprise strikes against Canadian air forces and defenses.

The plan also included a detailed land invasion strategy—devised with the help of transatlantic flight hero Charles Lindbergh—the bombing of industries in Canada, the use of chemical weapons—which was designed by Army General Douglas MacArthur himself—and a naval blockade that would have kept the British Navy out of the conflict.

The objective of War Plan Red was to neutralize Britain as a worldwide imperial power, blocking their trading routes. The US government truly believed that the war with the British was possible, even after they briefly fought as allies during World War I. The US population wasn't very fond of their former 1776 oppressors either. This was the time of the Great Depression and, after WWI, Britain owed the United States $14 billion. As a result of the dramatic economic situation, the anti-British sentiment in the US was quite strong at the time.

Fortunately—and unfortunately—a crazy dude by the name of Adolf Hitler decided to declare war on the world, and the US became best pals with the Brits shortly thereafter—even while they still hated each other. A little bit. On the inside. Especially Patton and Eisenhower, actually, who couldn't stand that snotty good-for-nothing Field Marshal that was Monty. Not as much as they hated the Germans, though. Or the French, for that matter. [Channel 5, War Plan Red (Wikipedia)]

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Dec 2011 20:57

Of course, nobody is saying US does not have a right to nominate whoever it pleases as ambassador. But the choice says a lot about US policies towards the said country. In this case, what it says is that India is largely irrelevant in US's strategic calculations. Especially so with MMS/Sonia as US's auto-pilots ruling India, and not rocking the boat with respect to TSP and the the post 26/11 surrender continues as per the script in DC.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Dec 2011 21:00

Christopher Sidor wrote:America has a right to choose its ambassador. Instead of a political appointee, we are seeing a professional being appointed. That is good. What matters to us, is how much weight will this ambassador be carrying back in Washington DC. Let us see how good she is.

Disappointing.

Thought that they were all set to send us a gay personality to keep our political hijdas company.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Dec 2011 21:08

chetak wrote:
Thought that they were all set to send us a gay personality to keep our political hijdas company.

I thought the stand in guy, Peter whatever, was just that. But just as I predicted way back, did you notice U.S. to Aid Gay Rights Abroad, Obama and Clinton Say?

So expect NancyJi will be delivering lectures to the fawning Delhi elite on the virtues of homosexual rights who will then dutifully do the job on undy be demonizing Baba Ramdev for his stance on gays; not that I want gays harassed or anything, but it would be another stick to beat India with or divert attention from the pivotal issues that plagues Indo-US relations: TSP use of Islamic pigLeTs as an instrument of state policy against India, and US aiding and abetting that abhorrent policy through military aid to TSP, and conferring diplomatic == with India.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 18 Dec 2011 22:39

What is disappointing is that the new ambassador does not have a background in business and finance. She is a career diplomat and I suspect will be gone in 3 years.
In any case it doesn't matter, the following link explains what is happening with US-India relations quite well:

Trade in Goods with India

As of the end of Oct. 2011, US-India trade in goods was about $49 billion. At this time, India is not a top 10 trading partner with the US, and relations will only begin to approve if India is in the top 10 and moves to the top 5.
Top Ten Countries with which the U.S. Trades

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Dec 2011 00:56

chetak wrote:Really!!

The sly blighters.

How the US Planned to Destroy Britain Just a Few Years Before World War II

How the US Planned to Destroy Britain Just a Few Years Before World War II
Invasion of Canada. Bombing raids on British industrial interests. Naval blockade. Chemical weapons. Six million troops fighting on the Eastern seaboard. This wasn't a crazy Nazi plan. It was the United States' strategy to destroy Britain as a world superpower.
It was very real. Its name was War Plan Red. Developed during the 1920s, it was approved by the US Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy in May 1930. In fact, it was active until Hitler decided to invade Poland with his bloody pal Stalin. The plan wasn't declassified until 1974. Now, a new documentary by Channel 5 America's Planned War On Britain: Revealed, shows how this plan became to be alongside other plans that called for war against Mexico (War Plan Green), Japan (Orange), China (Yellow) and even domestic uprising (White).

Unlike the other color-coded plans, however, the US Congress approved $57 million for War Plan Red. This money was used to build three military airfields disguised as civilian airports on the Canadian border, which would be used to launch pre-emptive surprise strikes against Canadian air forces and defenses.

The plan also included a detailed land invasion strategy—devised with the help of transatlantic flight hero Charles Lindbergh—the bombing of industries in Canada, the use of chemical weapons—which was designed by Army General Douglas MacArthur himself—and a naval blockade that would have kept the British Navy out of the conflict.

The objective of War Plan Red was to neutralize Britain as a worldwide imperial power, blocking their trading routes. The US government truly believed that the war with the British was possible, even after they briefly fought as allies during World War I. The US population wasn't very fond of their former 1776 oppressors either. This was the time of the Great Depression and, after WWI, Britain owed the United States $14 billion. As a result of the dramatic economic situation, the anti-British sentiment in the US was quite strong at the time.

Fortunately—and unfortunately—a crazy dude by the name of Adolf Hitler decided to declare war on the world, and the US became best pals with the Brits shortly thereafter—even while they still hated each other. A little bit. On the inside. Especially Patton and Eisenhower, actually, who couldn't stand that snotty good-for-nothing Field Marshal that was Monty. Not as much as they hated the Germans, though. Or the French, for that matter. [Channel 5, War Plan Red (Wikipedia)]

What is not mentioned in this article is that US relied on the revolt against UK by INA - Netaji and non-cooperation by Gandhi and Nehru in India against the British Empire which would weaken Churchill and UK govt and make them vulnerable. Hence US plan was to exploit this weakness and emerge as a savior of the humanity and savior of India and Indian independence. Large population under the great British Empire was already revolting and simmering from 1930 to 1942. Burma, South east Asia, East African countries such as Kenya etc were already under unrest and British govt was suppressing it and also not let rest of the world know about it. This led Churchill to work with the rich Indian princes and get them to loan the troops for the Imperial British Army to fight in the European sector and the Indo China sector.

The target of the US strategy and Patton and Eisenhower was to cripple British power and then help all the colonial subjects to gain independence and become the global leader by default earning the gratitude of millions of the subjects of the British throne. Hence they gave extensive media coverage to Mahatma Gandhi and his civil dis obedience movement so that British were always under the backfoot and vulnerable. Under pressure British yielded to Gandhi and INC with all the promises about self rule and departure while having a sinister plan for partition of the sub continent.

Hence successive US govt feels that they got independence to all the British colonial subjects and the greatest of them all India and the 'creation' of Mahatma Gandhi. They feel 'cheated' out the greatest opportunity in the manifest destiny in the American history.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Dec 2011 00:59

Mort Walker wrote:
As of the end of Oct. 2011, US-India trade in goods was about $49 billion. At this time, India is not a top 10 trading partner with the US, and relations will only begin to approve if India is in the top 10 and moves to the top 5.
Top Ten Countries with which the U.S. Trades

But US has the largest concentration of US military around India and large US military budget of more than $500 B spent in the region. It has two military command in the south asia region with highest budget. What does that tell you.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 19 Dec 2011 02:31

the article about the American War Plan on Britain isn't that surprising. the bonhomie between America and Britain only resulted after WWII. until that point, the two were mutually suspicious and distrustful of each other. IMVHO, the greatest feat of British forward thinking and intelligence networks is the engineering of Anglo-American "friendship". they gave covert support to Hitler in his early days. then they had their financial elites to sponsor and fund Hitler's rise all through the 30's. they also incubated the early "socialists" and "commies" and allowed them to build up an "intellectual" network that was heavily involved in communist propaganda in Eastern Europe.

Britain figured out that the days of Empire were fast coming to an end. their only way to a graceful "decline" was the hope that America would take up their mantle and be deluded into thinking British as allies. this could only be achieved if there was an "eastern" enemy who threatening the "West". Their early support to both Hitler and the socialists and commies were all geared toward manufacturing this "threat". I don't think they realized that eventually these forces would eat their empire away.

but all in all, in the supreme objective of having America jump on the bandwagon and think of British as "friends" and "greatest allies" has worked spectacularly. this social engineering of shift in attitudes over the period of a generation was the greatest achievement of the British. America has yet to even realize this...

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Dec 2011 02:35

devesh wrote: America has yet to even realize this...

But they have no choice. The pedigree comes from the mother country

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 19 Dec 2011 04:50

^^^
they chose to accept that choice. Andrew Jackson laid a good foundation for them to form their own pedigree and institutions. the turn of the century Roosevelt era elites forgot those lessons. that's when the social engineering began with bodies like the CFR and Trilateral Commission coming into existence.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Dec 2011 07:02

And don't forget Rhodes scholars!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 19 Dec 2011 07:09

What is not mentioned in this article is that US relied on the revolt against UK by INA - Netaji and non-cooperation by Gandhi and Nehru in India against the British Empire which would weaken Churchill and UK govt and make them vulnerable. Hence US plan was to exploit this weakness and emerge as a savior of the humanity and savior of India and Indian independence. Large population under the great British Empire was already revolting and simmering from 1930 to 1942. Burma, South east Asia, East African countries such as Kenya etc were already under unrest and British govt was suppressing it and also not let rest of the world know about it. This led Churchill to work with the rich Indian princes and get them to loan the troops for the Imperial British Army to fight in the European sector and the Indo China sector.
The target of the US strategy and Patton and Eisenhower was to cripple British power and then help all the colonial subjects to gain independence and become the global leader by default earning the gratitude of millions of the subjects of the British throne. Hence they gave extensive media coverage to Mahatma Gandhi and his civil dis obedience movement so that British were always under the backfoot and vulnerable. Under pressure British yielded to Gandhi and INC with all the promises about self rule and departure while having a sinister plan for partition of the sub continent.

Is this what led to the rise of JLN?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 19 Dec 2011 08:17

chetak wrote:Really!!

The sly blighters.

How the US Planned to Destroy Britain Just a Few Years Before World War II

This was never a serious possibility. Both US and UK have been dominated by the same elites since the mid-1800's.

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House (handler of President Wilson) (link)

It can be said, however, that the complete subjugation of the US was achieved only in 1913, with the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 21 Dec 2011 03:59

Regarding the Ambassador, political appointees do not typically happen so late in the Presidential tenures, especially when the 2nd term is clearly uncertain.

On a different issue, I think Obama may might as well win the 2nd term. The Republican field lacks heavy weights. Thrice married Gingrich carries too much baggage, and the Right Wing does not like Mormons. OTOH, with OWS and other sundry class-warfare movements, the Dem base is gradually becoming active. The crisis in Europe is also deflecting the attention, as more Americans realize that it is not Obama that is responsible for the mess but the entire debt binge of the past two decades. Bloomberg has an article about Obama rising...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-2 ... -poll.html

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Dec 2011 12:53

There is no choice. For world peace Obama is required.
US is enslaved.
In the water cooler chat the people keep saying that he will not be elected. But the global stability including financial stability needs a known hand.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Dec 2011 13:00

RamaY wrote:
Is this what led to the rise of JLN?

How?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Dec 2011 13:01

devesh wrote:^^^
they chose to accept that choice. Andrew Jackson laid a good foundation for them to form their own pedigree and institutions. the turn of the century Roosevelt era elites forgot those lessons. that's when the social engineering began with bodies like the CFR and Trilateral Commission coming into existence.

Ambition of the american elite was shown by President Woodrow Wilson who pushed for the larger global role for Americans even though Americans are not prepared for it.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 22 Dec 2011 16:25

Pranav wrote:
chetak wrote:Really!!

The sly blighters.

How the US Planned to Destroy Britain Just a Few Years Before World War II

This was never a serious possibility. Both US and UK have been dominated by the same elites since the mid-1800's.
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House (handler of President Wilson) (link)
It can be said, however, that the complete subjugation of the US was achieved only in 1913, with the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

Actually, if you want to look through that angle, US subjugation happened in 1929. Fed Reserve setup was the hole in which the collapsing US economy fell into in 1929. 1913 was just the digging of the hole.

James Blonde · Post by **James Blonde** » 22 Dec 2011 17:02

chetak wrote:Really!!

The sly blighters.

How the US Planned to Destroy Britain Just a Few Years Before World War II

They did it anyway
Canadians have been reduced to jokers (holly wood imports them ex mike myers John Candy etc)
Britain a poodle

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Dec 2011 05:27

James Blonde wrote: How the US Planned to Destroy Britain Just a Few Years Before World War II

They did it anyway
Canadians have been reduced to jokers (holly wood imports them ex mike myers John Candy etc)
Britain a poodle

Materially they have destroyed the poodle but they are still the 'derived pedigree' and hence cannot claim an original pedigree to gain legitimacy

arun · Post by **arun** » 25 Dec 2011 10:22

Article titled “A media plan for the US: the Indian media's coverage of the US-India defence relationship” by Col. (Retd) Ajai Shukla:

Summary

• The Indian media admires and favourably covers socio-cultural aspects of the US; but is negative in its coverage of US strategy and defence policy.

• The Indian media’s coverage of defence and strategy is strongly influenced by inputs from the Indian government.

• The Indian media tends to portray the US as fickle and unreliable.

• A narrative of continuing technology denial to India by the US generates negative media coverage of the US-India defence partnership.

• Washington’s defence relationship with Pakistan is another key driver of unfavourable media coverage in India

• The US has not evolved a suitable strategy for dealing with India. It tends to treat New Delhi the same way as it deals with traditional allies.

• The media sees CISMOA, BECA and an LSA as instruments for railroading India into a US-led alliance through the back door.

• There is a need for the US embassy in New Delhi to be more pro-active in regularly engaging with defence correspondents in India

• The US embassy needs to make a concerted effort to educate Indian defence correspondents on the regulatory frameworks that govern US defence.

* * * *

The weblink is below:

Clicky

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Dec 2011 23:03

The 8th and 9th points by Col.AS,about the need for the US embassy in "engaging and educating" Indian media def. correspondents,is nothing more than the need to "make them an offer they cannot refuse"! The US tactic worldwide is to build up pro-US vibes in the media,either by using media entities wholly under its control,or when not so,to "buy" the key correspondents who matter.The number of Indian media entities who have fallen under the spell of the US is growing,but thanks to the US's own asinine policies in the region,the incomprehensible "mollycuddling" of Pak,even after it has been found to be a disloyal ally,when it should be imposing military and eco. sanctions against the TSP,only reinforces in the minds of the Indian establishment its unreliability and duplicitous attitude.

Manipulating the media is what AS advises the US to do.That is a poor substitute for the real medicine that needs to be administered to Pak,which will make Indian decision-makers look more favourably towards the Yanquis.

1.A total ban/suspension on military aid to Pak.

2.A total economic ban along with the military ban.

3.Listing the top Paki military leaders as war criminals/terrorist supporters (Osama safe house,etc.).

4.Freezing accounts abroad of all Paki establishment figures who matter,ISI officers,etc. and "red flag" interpol notices.

5.Immediate arrest of Gen.Bandicoot Musharat,in luxurious exile in the UK,as he has been exposed as being behind the hiding of Osama,and his trial in the Intl.Court at the Hague on terrorism and other charges (Bibi's assassination).

6.Demand that Pak suspend its N-weapons programmes and begin dismantling its stockplie of N-material and warheads,as they are very unsafe in the TSP and can easily fall into terrorist hands (already a fact,if one lists the TSP as a terrorist entity).establishment off a naval blockade if it does not submit.

7.Arms sales to India without "strings attached".The same methodology as used by the EU,Russia,etc. to be adopted.

8.India to join the NSG ek thum.No conditions.

9.India to be given a UNSC seat with veto when the UN is reorganised. The world's largest democracy India, must be treated as "equal in status with the world's largest Communist dictatorship,China"

These are just some points that I find would be most useful in turning Indian opinion positive about the US

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 26 Dec 2011 00:52

^^^
+1
Couldn't have said it better. Those are the really important ones. Especially point 9. Manipulating media will backfire as it has done wrt US public and GWOT for the past 11 years.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Dec 2011 00:54

US is still carrying on the NSG war on India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Dec 2011 12:52

In 2004, the US and many of the later day stalwarts of UPA met in Goa to talk about terrorism and how they both can prevent it. The papers were published by NIAS Bangalore and NAS US.
Yet four years later, Mumbai attack happened!
BTW eminent expert on terrorism was part of the group.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 26 Dec 2011 13:24

Phillip ji all your points are good and ideally should be. But frankly it's wishful thinking.

2.A total economic ban along with the military ban. (What about us, we've been crying out hoarse and giving MFN without reciprocation now for ages, why get on a high horse and expect the US to do so)

3.Listing the top Paki military leaders as war criminals/terrorist supporters (Osama safe house,etc.). : What have we done for Dawood, Azhar, murderers of Lt Kalia and team and the 99 Hijackers and murderers of Rupin Katyal? We've called the bandicoots home and toasted them. What have we done in 71 with the 90K POWs. We don't give any confidence when we clamor others to do that bidding really.

4.Freezing accounts abroad of all Paki establishment figures who matter,ISI officers,etc. and "red flag" interpol notices. (Easier said than done, despite knowing we've done nothing wrt Bandicoot and others..nice to demand others do so..makes a case)

5.Immediate arrest of Gen.Bandicoot Musharat,in luxurious exile in the UK,as he has been exposed as being behind the hiding of Osama,and his trial in the Intl.Court at the Hague on terrorism and other charges (Bibi's assassination). : Sure while we fall over ourselves inviting him to Agra and calling him over to leaderships summits after Kargil..we must expect the US to do so..yes indeed.

6.Demand that Pak suspend its N-weapons programmes and begin dismantling its stockplie of N-material and warheads,as they are very unsafe in the TSP and can easily fall into terrorist hands (already a fact,if one lists the TSP as a terrorist entity).establishment off a naval blockade if it does not submit. (Yes, but we have never ourselves listed Pakistan as a terrorist state, why expect the US to do so? All i've heard so far politicians saying they are OK with Pakistan having Nukes)

7.Arms sales to India without "strings attached".The same methodology as used by the EU,Russia,etc. to be adopted. (Indeed yes we can always ask that of the US as it is between us and we have been asking that for sometme now)

8.India to join the NSG ek thum.No conditions. (I think thats already on, fact is the US should be commended on bringing India into special status that fast durng GWBs time..the dehyphenation with Pakistan actually began in the way the US started looking at India and Pakistans Nuclear program)

9.India to be given a UNSC seat with veto when the UN is reorganised. The world's largest democracy India, must be treated as "equal in status with the world's largest Communist dictatorship,China" (Obama had declared so in the Indian parliament, but seeing our own hobknobbing with dictators, support for Gaddaffi, our revulsion at FDI and global integration..we do create a block against us)

Point is when we ourselves don't have the conviction to carry out what you want the US to..why base your relations with the US on them in the present context? On what moral authority can then we demand that of the US? Idealistically yes.. the whole world should bully up Pakistan to behave like we want..while we do next to nothing. We cannot base our relations with others that way.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Dec 2011 16:39

I agree. While we have wimps and apologists for Pak in govt.,there is very little that we can do,but the time will come when these wimps will be thrown out,it is then that a firm stance against Paki terror and US policies towards it to change,should be the goal of the new regime.

As far as Gen.Bandicoot is concerned,new info not available earlier links hinm directly with harbouring Osama and Bibi's assasination.The US is also at a crossroads,either they get screwed again nd again by Pak..and pay for the pleasure,like sado-masochists,or they turn the heat on Pak and its military.The emergence of Imran suddenly with huge crowds behind him,appears to have a foster-father!

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 26 Dec 2011 20:42

Newt G, for all his follies, once spoke understandingly of India right after Pokhran II. Said someting to the effect of "Look at the neighborhood they're in. I wouldn't blame them for acting in self-defence." Or something to that effect.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2011 20:53

Nancy J Powell career:
http://www.nndb.com/people/969/000127588/

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2011 20:59

Teresita & Howard Schaffer endorse Nancy Powell's appointment:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/ ... affer.aspx

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2011 21:02

K.P. Nayar points out about Nancy Powell
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111218/j ... 897528.jsp

If it turns out that she does need another legislative confirmation, a measure of the goodwill for India on Capitol Hill will be how quickly the Senate foreign relations committee schedules her hearing and how much support her nomination gets on the floor of the full Senate.

PS: I have not been able to find anything interesting about Nancy Powell in Wikileaks (doesn't mean it isn't there, just means I haven't found it).

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 26 Dec 2011 21:10

A_Gupta wrote:Teresita & Howard Schaffer endorse Nancy Powell's appointment:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/ ... affer.aspx

The most benign spin one can muster on TSP

The quest for an “end game” in Afghanistan is a source of considerable anxiety to both India and the United States, and Pakistan's role looks increasingly problematic . India and the United States have already had difficulty defining meaningful and realistic terms for cooperative policy; that will not get any easier. Whatever satisfaction there may be in Delhi over the current poisonous relations between the United States and Pakistan must be tempered by the realisation that they reduce Washington's ability to exercise constructive influence in Islamabad. (In other words, don't tamper with equal equal)