India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 29 Sep 2010 13:18

You have to go back to shiv's point - in this area the US is weak and has no choice apart from appeasing the TSPA. Is the US going to publicly open another front in the war when Obama has made a hard deadline of July 2011? At the same time 26/11 scared the US as well. Brings the question, who is the client here?

Now Obama at the core is not someone motivated by sweeping ideological interests like GWB was, but rather is a liberal oriented pragmatist who thinks in terms of political calculations in order to please his base. In that line of reasoning, I think as long as Pak doesn't send Faisal Shehzads over to the US I think we can expect the US to take a strong interest in Pakistan's stability, and as long as Pakistan vehemently demands Kashmir, IMO US will continue to press India to come to the negotiating table on this. Hence the JK protests.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Sep 2010 13:23

This depends upong the definition of the word "FIX" being used by ombaba. If it is to give it away, huge problem.
If it is resolve withen the ambit of Indian constitution as an internal matter without "external intervention", no problem.

JMT

PS:- is the UNSC permanent membership in US hands to give to India?
Why is India interested in the preservation of the last relic of the imperialist era.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 29 Sep 2010 13:32

I don't think "FIX" means giving up Kashmir, but more probably something like make LoC permanent border, peace in South Asia etc.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Sep 2010 14:07

India can get "Paki", and accept the suggestion. To be repudiated at a later date.

Alternatively, claim all of TSP, claiming all of the lands controlled by them are Indian lands as that land was controlled by Mughals who lost it to English and who in turn lost it to the Indians. IE India is the successor state of Mughal Hindustan. Therefore, all of TSP and parts of Afghanistan are parts of Yndia.

I am not smoking something potent

slow day in the office

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 29 Sep 2010 14:30

Hari Seldon wrote:^^^Nihat,

I've been lurking around brf too long to not know that unkil isn't being fooled or anything. Unkil wants to be fooled when it comes to TSP. TSP alive rather than dead serves its longer term (self-) goals better than India putting TSP in its place, militarily. O so DC (s)thinks. Apparently.

oh, and jai hohoho

then the question arises, why does Unkil want to be fooled by TSP, why is it turning a blind eye and what these long term objectives of Unkil for which it wants to keep pampering TSP.

2 or 3 years from now, the current situation is likely to evolve to the one similar to pre 9/11, Of course it would be all the more better if someone were to shed more light on the US-TSP-India relation from the end of the cold war till 9/11 happened.

TSP is currently not fighting the Afghan taliban, they're fighting the TTP which has been blowing Pakis up left, right and center and Unkil is under the illusion that TSP is pushing back Afghan Taliban. In effect it is paying for TSP's cancer treatment caused by its own smoking habit.

What happens when Unkil withdraws it troops, basically decides to cut it losses and run. Would TSP still have some leaverage over Unkil, what was the situation like before 9/11 happened ??

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Sep 2010 14:33

Nihat,

That is the reason why, khans goose is truly cooked.

If they dont know who the enemy is, how can they win?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 29 Sep 2010 15:33

This new carrot/stick by Yamrika is a very zimble message onree.

Keep buying my junk, Pal. Look KSA has committed 30-60 billion, you are still only at 5-10 . You need to do more to keep my MIC going. Even as I "fix" outsourcing.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Sep 2010 16:00

If Obama wants to keep on giving Pak "blow-jobs" to prevent Pak from giving the US "blow-jobs" of the explosing type,then what for is all this BS about the great Indo-US "strategic relationship" which benefits the US alone ,and why on earth should India enslave itself by abdicating its defence and foreign policy to the US? Who the heck cares about what the Pakis want.They can demand the Kutb Minar too apart from Kashmir for all we care,but India needs no friend like the US who is going all out to placate our mortal enemy.Indians must care about India and our fundamental security and interests.THose nations who are conspiring to weaken the Indian state must be firmly told where to go.Obama can fornicate as much as he wants with Pak,but for his debauched diplomacy,must be shown the door after the riot act is read out to him.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Sep 2010 16:25

Pratyush wrote:This depends upong the definition of the word "FIX" being used by ombaba. If it is to give it away, huge problem.
If it is resolve withen the ambit of Indian constitution as an internal matter without "external intervention", no problem.

JMT

PS:- is the UNSC permanent membership in US hands to give to India?
Why is India interested in the preservation of the last relic of the imperialist era.

JMTC:

Because having gifted the UNSC seat to China when the UN was being founded (and India is a founding member), it soon became clear that the only way to stave off UN sanctions over 'Kashmir' (the plebiscite was another stupid JLN move) was to be a member of the UNSC.

The sanctions fear also led to a cap on our nuke program after 1974

Since then, India has had to take it in the Mush from almost every UNSC member

to get them to be on 'our side' on the UNSC resolution on Kashmir. Most of the time of every Indian Embassy was spent on convincing every tinpot regime that was a member of the General Assembly of the validity of our claim. It was a joke and we were a joke.

That is what this whole tamasha is all about—taking away the P-5 grip on our short and curlies. All thanks to JLN and Krishna Menon and a whole bunch of Lalit Bhanot clones who were running the foreign policy establishment at that time..

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Sep 2010 16:34

^^^ permanent seat is less valuable than it was. ongoing economic clout brings its own following, and less browbeating by the P5, put it this way - atleast 3 of them have an incentive to be more aligned to us now than to the G2. if the deal with bush was of 'non interference' or passive blockage (instead of active harm) then india really doesn't need to be a permanent member. this is why BRIC makes a lot of sense (or BRI does) and even Commonwealth with India at its centre to pull together all the other votes in our favour when required
last i looked, almost everyone was pro-india or neutral on the kashmir issue, with one or two mischiveous abstainers, which is what is causing the paquis so much taqleef

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Sep 2010 16:43

Just read this presceint viewpoint from a British MEP,Hannan,who belives that India will chart the course of the 21st century in its interaction with the "Anglosphere".

As Lal has said,we have our own strengths and this viewpoint by a British European MP ,echoing his PM's and FM's view too,shows that India is being taken very seriously by the intelligent nations of the world despite our bloomers in organising the CWG.hannan also pours scorn on Obama wasting the excellent Indo-US relationship that Bush helped create.

India's relationship with the Anglosphere will define the twenty-first century
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danie ... t-century/

Daniel Hannan
Daniel Hannan is a writer and journalist, and has been Conservative MEP for South East England since 1999. He speaks French and Spanish and loves Europe, but believes that the EU is making its constituent nations poorer, less democratic and less free. He is the winner of the Bastiat Award for online journalism.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Sep 2010 17:03

India needs to cultivate peersons like Daniel Hannan. He is already sold on the Idea of India. We need more guys like him.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 29 Sep 2010 17:51

Lalmohan wrote:^^^ permanent seat is less valuable than it was. ongoing economic clout brings its own following, and less browbeating by the P5, put it this way - atleast 3 of them have an incentive to be more aligned to us now than to the G2. if the deal with bush was of 'non interference' or passive blockage (instead of active harm) then india really doesn't need to be a permanent member. this is why BRIC makes a lot of sense (or BRI does) and even Commonwealth with India at its centre to pull together all the other votes in our favour when required
last i looked, almost everyone was pro-india or neutral on the kashmir issue, with one or two mischiveous abstainers, which is what is causing the paquis so much taqleef

India needs to walk away from the UN. I can assure you that it will change their tone entirely.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Sep 2010 18:03

^^^"permanent seat is less valuable than it was. ongoing economic clout brings its own following,"

The veto or not agreeing to veto is still the currency of power. The Chinese got a special deal for their companies in Iran for agreeing to not veto sanctions on that country.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2010 18:07

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^"permanent seat is less valuable than it was. ongoing economic clout brings its own following,"

The veto or not agreeing to veto is still the currency of power. The Chinese got a special deal for their companies in Iran for agreeing to not veto sanctions on that country.

If we are not part of UN, we need not abide by their resolutions and sanctions either, meaning Indian companies could have full access to Iranian economy!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Sep 2010 19:02

RajeshA wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:^^^"permanent seat is less valuable than it was. ongoing economic clout brings its own following,"

The veto or not agreeing to veto is still the currency of power. The Chinese got a special deal for their companies in Iran for agreeing to not veto sanctions on that country.
If we are not part of UN, we need not abide by their resolutions and sanctions either, meaning Indian companies could have full access to Iranian economy!

Whether or not we are part of the UN, violating UN sanctions will get us sanctioned. That is the whole point of the UNSC

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 29 Sep 2010 19:04

RajeshA wrote:If we are not part of UN, we need not abide by their resolutions and sanctions either, meaning Indian companies could have full access to Iranian economy!

Theory and practice are identical in theory but different in practice.

We're talking about a country, Yindia, that abides by nonproliferation and MTCR and space-non-militarization treaties to which it is not even party to! Dilli breaking norms of institutions it is a fully paid member of, is a tad far-fetched, I'd say.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Sep 2010 19:14

Delhi will not break any treaties, its part of the Indian moral high ground in international affairs
which makes the US in particular think of us as being sanctimonious

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2010 19:17

Lalmohan wrote:Delhi will not break any treaties, its part of the Indian moral high ground in international affairs
which makes the US in particular think of us as being sanctimonious

Think of a room full of devils having to hear to speeches by SDRE angels round the clock! If India becomes a superpower, the devils would die of excessive vomiting.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Sep 2010 19:59

Walk out of UN negates the whole slew of UN resolutions on Kashmir: plebiscite, LOC etc.etc.. While walking out make a recommendation to move the UN Hq to Beijing to reflect the Asian century and new realities. This will uncouple the US and PRC.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 29 Sep 2010 20:03

Our moto is Satayameva Jayate. It has taken us this far and it will take us further. No worries.

No body is begging for UNSC. It is being negotiated. Or else, UN will be rendered meaning less on any issues related to India (if UN proposals are contrary to Indian national interests) as time goes by.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Sep 2010 20:10

I say the only difference between Indian and American politicians is that the American ones roam in soot-boot and speak English. There are countless rallies these days in Washington DC. Did any one notice how people are being "offered" bus rides from various spots? How is this different from the Indian politicians getting people in lorries, giving biryani and some "bata", huh? I think the Indian citizens have it better when it comes to vote pandering, at least they get something in return - be it reduced rice, free tv ityadi. When will the Americans catch up

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Sep 2010 20:12

atleast the americans get decent sanitation!

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 29 Sep 2010 20:16

Bah, the UNSC is no united front (pun intended).

Poor sri Bush II had to go in with a 'coalition of the willing' when it became clear unkil's war plans might not get UNSC cover cheap.

The georgia smackdown avoided the UNSC, Russia got smarter. Pity they weren't strong enough to veto action over the serbs in the 90s.

My point here is that going fwd, with duniya becoming increasingly volatile, hostile and unpredictable, tensions will rise and P5 unity will crack. The first few cracks will seal the fate of the veto, as we know it. And I for one won't shed any tears at its passing.

Our problem also remains that we consistently undercut our own spoiler value. PRC in our position would have taken actions to lead to a UNSC bustup by now. Scorched earth policy is first resort for them - jo hamein na mila, woh kisiko na mile. Someday we'll get that wise, hopefully.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Sep 2010 20:23

Lalmohan wrote:atleast the americans get decent sanitation!

Okay, I give you that one.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2010 20:31

The power of the UN derives from the fact, that it is a recognized body by all the countries of the world as the foremost forum for conflict resolution amongst its other functions. More importantly it's legitimacy derives from its recognition by the world powers. No India may not be amongst the super-powers. In fact I do not even believe that India is a regional power, but in spite of that India is a major world power in terms of military prowess and economy.

If India walks out, it would definitely be a big dhakka to the P5. We are then showing the P5 the middle finger, and telling them we don't recognize their privileged position or their legitimacy to lord over others. They can try to ignore the snub if they want to, but in reality that would be difficult. In fact, that would open the door for others to question their supremacy.

Now Japan and Germany, the two other prospective candidates would not walk out, simply because US would not allow them, and they are two countries with the most faith in the system, even if a bit disappointed. The other pissed off power is Brazil, and is definitely another candidate whose withdrawal from UN could shake UN's foundations.

So India and Brazil can get together and give the P5 an ultimatum. Either they give in and make India and Brazil veto-carrying permanent members of UNSC or they can stare at India's and Brazil's backsides. All those airs around the high and the mighty would suddenly be sucked off and they will relent.

India has other forums to meet up with other countries - G77, NAM, Commonwealth, IBSA, etc..

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Sep 2010 21:06

RajeshA ^^^

Have you floated the idea among the MEA and got their reaction?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 29 Sep 2010 21:09

SwamyG wrote:I say the only difference between Indian and American politicians is that the American ones roam in soot-boot and speak English. There are countless rallies these days in Washington DC. Did any one notice how people are being "offered" bus rides from various spots? How is this different from the Indian politicians getting people in lorries, giving biryani and some "bata", huh? I think the Indian citizens have it better when it comes to vote pandering, at least they get something in return - be it reduced rice, free tv ityadi. When will the Americans catch up

Indeed. Not to mention legalized bribery in US, while in India, it is just that, bribery. Politics for the most part in US is entertainment and made for media by design. So a president from one party wins, and within less than 2 years there is another election for senate and congress during which time he (president) was supposed to deliver the moon, and the other party nit-picks every little fault of the presidnt (if he is a black guy like Obama with a Muslim sounding name, even better), and wallah the other party assumes power and cycle repeats. And of course, like in India & elswhere, there is always the blind idoltary of a bygone past as if that era were a garden of Eden; just witness a fascist like Glen Beck or attractive bimbos like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman doing shastaanga namaskar to the "founding fathers"

. (They are the counterparts to Muslim Jihadis for whom Koran is the ultimate revelation, no matter what the issue).

But unlike India, the US system is for the most part on auto pilot, and the population is overwhelmingly homogenous in a cutural/religious sense; so be it tea party Nazis or Boston Brahmin liberals, they all share the same western outlook to life (individual freedom, no-holes-barred materialism & the like), and above all as a country, they are so far & ahead of everbody else (except western lackeys who are their junior brothers) that the "us Vs them" keeps united and balanced.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 29 Sep 2010 21:58

deleted

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Sep 2010 22:02

CRamS wrote:Indeed. Not to mention legalized bribery in US, while in India, it is just that, bribery.

It is called fees in America, and it is called Bribe in India. In America the money goes into the pocket of companies, in India it goes into the pockets of people.

Politics for the most part in US is entertainment and made for media by design. So a president from one party wins, and within less than 2 years there is another election for senate and congress during which time he (president) was supposed to deliver the moon, and the other party nit-picks every little fault of the presidnt

If a democrat does not tow the party line, he is branded a DINO and the republican gets branded as RINO.

(if he is a black guy like Obama with a Muslim sounding name, even better), and wallah the other party assumes power and cycle repeats. And of course, like in India & elswhere, there is always the blind idoltary of a bygone past as if that era were a garden of Eden;

It beats me why they keep going to founding fathers. Geez, they were good but their conditions 200+ years ago was different. It cracks me up when people start debating what the founding fathers would have done. Imagine if two desis started talking about what Yudhistra would have done under a circumstance. At least Yudhistra was dharmic and dharma evolves over time. Why go so far, imagine if our politicians start discussing what Gandhi, Nehru or Patel would have done now. I suspect our desi aam admi would burst out laughing or just walk away.

they all share the same western outlook to life (individual freedom, no-holes-barred materialism & the like), and above all as a country, they are so far & ahead of everbody else (except western lackeys who are their junior brothers) that the "us Vs them" keeps united and balanced.

A vision binds them. I do not want to belittle our founding fathers, as I understand the pain they took in framing the Constitution considering the circumstances of the World after WWII. They could have articulated little better about India and what it stands for. Past is past, hopefully some leaders work on it at least now.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Sep 2010 22:04

Funny how people expect others to fight for their causes. Not.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 29 Sep 2010 22:16

Manny wrote:From Woodward's book it is clear, the Pentagon/Generals and Oshama are not seeing eye to eye. This bloke Oshama has been asking the Generals a way out and they are not giving him that option and he is frustrated.

The clown wants to surrender and move out so he can build his welfare society but he wants the armed forces to take the fall. But they ain't buying it. So the sniveling surrender monkey Oshama is looking at other ways and thinking, hey, we can ask India to fall under the bus and we can get out of there pleasing the porkies. That's how the typical lefty socialist thinks, rob from Peter to pay off Paul...as long as it doesn't come from his pocket!

What a brilliant idea eh Oshama Hussain? We are onto you..you coward!

What appears to be may not be what it it. Deliberately portraying dissent is a great strategy to send mixed signals. In totality US policy towards India has not changed.
I am aware that people will mutter George Bush but understand that under George Bush US got what it wanted from India - Access to markets, resources and massive ejization (which may be contributor to current Maoist problem). The US looks at the total picture "net-net" from a country.
Likewise it has not changed under Obama. It's just that the means to reach the end have been modified based upon geopolitical constraints.
The end being
- India contained by either being broken up, control of government, constant insurgancy
- Utilization of Indias resources
- Access to markets military, finance etc
- Civilizational control and diminishment (slightly diff from India contained)

As long as these end goals are met all is fine. When even a miniscule goal is not met we have "Tamasha" in Kashmir, Bomb blasts, Maoists start acting up, Media talks about human rights record

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2010 22:41

Cosmo_R wrote:Have you floated the idea among the MEA and got their reaction?

Nah, would cause too many heart attacks!

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 29 Sep 2010 22:56

Bob Woodward & Peter Bergen are having their 15 mins of fame as establishment mouthpieces. Both are all over the place faithfully regurjitating what the CIA/Pentagon bosses want told. Peter Bergen as a "terrorism expert" was getting into the gory details of the oh sooooo powerful Al keeda trying a Mumbai style attack which was supposedly thwarted and everybody in the west can live happily ever after, that is, until Pentgon/CIA need to get attention after some hiatus. It was interesting to hear Peter Bergen only talk about annhilating anyone thinking of doing a Mumbai in the west, the same slime ball who relayed TSPA/ISI/LET's message post Mumbai that Kashmir must be resolved.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Sep 2010 23:26

^^^
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/092710.html

President Barack Obama trapped himself in the morass of Afghanistan by his post-election decision to show bipartisan continuity and to keep in place George W. Bush’s military command structure, particularly Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Sep 2010 01:55

Amendments to Offshoring Act in U.S. blocked

http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/30/stories ... 461400.htm

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 02:40

Published on Sep 29, 2010
By T.P. Sreenivasan
Mr. Obama's Passage to India: Wall Street Journal

The president's trip may still yield some positive results. The U.S may abolish a black list of Indian firms, euphemistically called the "entity list," which would allow American companies to transfer dual-use technologies to India. President Obama may also support India's bid for permanent membership of the U.N. Security Council and advocate the inclusion of the country into nonproliferation groups like the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The U.S. has nothing to lose by supporting India's aspirations. If other countries block the Security Council bid, for instance, it won't be America's fault, and Mr. Obama will win hearts in India.

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 30 Sep 2010 09:13

The nature of American strategy By MV Kamath

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 30 Sep 2010 09:40

Thomas Kolarek wrote:The nature of American strategy By MV Kamath

Ever since independence it was India that was badly hit by the United States at all times. And what has Pakistan gained by being Washington’s strategic partner? It is a broken nation and is steadily going to pieces. US has used every trick of the trade to contain India in the 1950s and 1960s and to wage a covert war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. During the Bangladesh War then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger even tried to persuade China to attack India. That is the sum total of America’s love for India. It is no honour, much less paying, to be America’s partner in international affairs. If Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has not realised this, he never will. It is India which must have a strategy of its own to implement-and never the other way round.

A rather poor article that is neither balanced way nor recent!
All the examples used are from a different era with a different India, if not a different US.

One can make quite elegant arguments both pro and against a strategic alliance with US.
One thing the article does not even bother doing is a more recent analysis of Indian strategy.
What lesson has India learnt post 9/11? India offered to help and was turned down by US.
It would be foolish of India to approach the US a la Massey Sahib

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Sep 2010 12:08

RajeshA wrote:
Nah, would cause too many heart attacks!

use track 2 and guage reaction without causing heart attack.