The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

[shiv]

The oil strategy is of two part. Get to the region with the OIL and get access. They are in Khazakh in Tbilisi and Almaty from 1993. My friend was visiting this place from the that period. The other one is to deny the oil to any other player in the region if they dont get the OIL access.

Assuming that getting Oil for themselves is a real priority over stopping access of CA oil to other powers (specifically India) then they wouldn't operate the way they operated. Take the case of Middle east where they just went there and built those nations with massive infrastructure. Like paying massively to Mushys and abduls to clear up a vast areas of land with no-abdul zones to put pipe lines, Texaco, Chevron zones etc to Gwadar. They are capable and they could have done it by now and the alternative oil would be flowing today.

Instead they are doing such a harakiri so that the one tribe fights over the other and things like that. They are more interested in smoking out caves and drone attacks as opposed to anything else. In this approach they are ensuring that pipelines will alway remain pipe dreams. This gives credibility to my reasoning that the target is very straighforward for US and that is India.

If Afghanistan and Pakistan become stable - China will be the first beneficiary of the oil from CAR. As long as CAR oil can go West it suits the US even if the US itself does not directly receive the oil.

Pakistan serves the US well as a pivot (actually I hate words like pivot and fulcrum applied to nations) - let me say Pakistan serves as a base and a vassal state that serves to enhance friendships or augment differences. Pakistan has served that role continuously from the 1950s and the US wil not give up Pakistan.

In this regard it is important to make Pakis understand that they are only slaves, soldiers of Mohammad slaving for the USA. If they don't like it they can choose to stop being America's ghulaam and become china's slave or remain only Allah's slaves. It serves ONLY the US to have Pakistanis allied to the US. It does not serve India. One argument that has been made on this thread is totally built up on hot air and speculation

That hot air is that Pakistan should best remain America's slave. If it becomes China's slave it will be worse for India. The choice that has been mooted on this thread is: "OK OK the US is bad for India, but China will be worse. So Indians should learn to accept what is bad for them over something that could be worse" I have not heard a more silly argument in my entire life. Clearly someone is speaking for America on BRF because only America gains in the current state of affairs. Definitely not India.

Pakistan is an unstable state where many people can influence affairs, including India. It is sheer negligence to cop out and say "Yikes! Let us leave things alone. China will be worse if the US goes". As if Pakistan is "nice" or has been nice for 60 plus years under US dominance.

India must spoil the US's party an agree to toe the US line only if the US can give India tangible gains and the prospect of non interference from its slave Pakistan in future. If the US does not control that slave it has no business in the region and really should be made to bugger off and get the hell out.

What can the US do for India?

[somnath]

The choice that has been mooted on this thread is: "OK OK the US is bad for India, but China will be worse. So Indians should learn to accept what is bad for them over something that could be worse" I have not heard a more silly argument in my entire life. Clearly someone is speaking for America on BRF because only America gains in the current state of affairs. Definitely not India

This is precisely the sort of thinking that is so passe (I wonder if it was ever contemporary, maybe during Indira Gandhi's time!) that makes any rational analysis impossible predicated on ths same..."US is bad for India" - on what basis? Was Russia (or France or anyone else) willing to, or able to, circumvent the international regime to work out a special nuclear deal for India? Without US sponsorship, is it possible for India to get a seat at the tables of international nuke diplomacy - NSG et al? Is access to US military tech (an "option", not an obligation for us) bad for India in building up a deterrent against China, which has access to neither US nor European tech? IS the current US presence in Af bad for India?

Our relations with Pak are pretty "focussed" - the only issue for us is Pak-sponsored insurgencies (for Pak its Kashmir)...But relations between large nation states can never be unifocal, hence there will never be "good", or "bad" countries - only congruent or incongruent interests on various issues....

The strategic side of Indo-US relationship is evolving, and is doing so faster than any of us are perhaps privy to...
http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=14518

India needs influence in Af, partly so that it retains its capacities to influence events in Pak itself..What influence shall India retain in an Af which has a Pak proxy regime bankrolled by Chinese money if (and its a big if) the US pulls out? By past experience, a sliver of land (with a rag tag militia) around Panjshir?

[Muppalla]

If Afghanistan and Pakistan become stable - China will be the first beneficiary of the oil from CAR. As long as CAR oil can go West it suits the US even if the US itself does not directly receive the oil.

This one is confusing me. Why should Af-Pak bother China if oil is the primary reason. It has direct borders to CAR. In fact the instability in Af-Pak may actually help it as the CARs can sell desperately to China as they will not be able to make pipe lines to Gwadar etc to sell to others.

In my opinion, China and US has the same goal as far as Af-Pak is concerned- Contain India. It may be a game of Chicken. US tells to China - Hey buddy do some harakiri in AF-Pak as I don't want to take the whole share of doing shit here. If you don't I will allow India to get to CARs. Same thing from China to US too. So for both of them it is a win-win situations as long as AF-pak remains a gobar shit.

[svinayak]

USA has more than $500B trade with PRC> PRC holds more than few $T in US bonds
USA is the largest provider of arms to Pakistan.

India now wants protection from US inn Af Pak

What absurdity!

[RajeshA]

That hot air is that Pakistan should best remain America's slave. If it becomes China's slave it will be worse for India. The choice that has been mooted on this thread is: "OK OK the US is bad for India, but China will be worse. So Indians should learn to accept what is bad for them over something that could be worse" I have not heard a more silly argument in my entire life. Clearly someone is speaking for America on BRF because only America gains in the current state of affairs. Definitely not India.

The simple truth is "worse" is indeed worse than "bad"!

If one disagrees with that, one needs to prove that the "present bad" is worse than the "potential future worse"! Lacking such an argumentation, all qualifiers such as "hot air", "silly", "speaking for America" are simply hot air!

If one says, the other is "speaking for America", the other can counter, one is "laying down the red carpet for China in the Indian Subcontinent, our backyard"! So one hurls a few jabs at the other, and resolves nothing!

As long as India remains a passive player and does not join the game, there is no escaping this truth - "worse" is worse than "bad".

Getting USA to stop delivery of conventional weaponry to Pakistan through putting pressure on USA, by means which is still yet not clear to me, is NOT the Indian game, even if a noble and desirable aim, but the critique is

1. it is a limited aim
2. those weapons can just as easily be procured elsewhere, of a quality if not that good, than something similar, if not now, then soon!
3. even if India succeeds, the question remains - then what?
4. it does nothing to solve the problem that Pakistan is, a country sponsoring terrorism in the shadow of nuclear blackmail

So if India is indeed willing to start playing, why not go for a comprehensive game, why keep swatting at the flies in our little well?! If we want to throw America out of the region, then I am all for it, but it has to be a part of a game which ensures Indian dominance!

[somnath]

USA has more than $500B trade with PRC> PRC holds more than few $T in US bondsUSA is the largest provider of arms to Pakistan.

India now wants protection from US inn Af Pak

What absurdity!

1. Precisely, AND China is the most formidable competitor to the US in the immediate and long term future...So its a bit silly to talk of foreign relations in terms of "X bad", "Y good"..

2. India retained influence in Af when the latter was under Soviet tutelage of some form...Till the time India builds capacities to sustain an independent presence in Af, it has to work with other countries, US being the most obvious one today..

This one is confusing me. Why should Af-Pak bother China if oil is the primary reason. It has direct borders to CAR. In fact the instability in Af-Pak may actually help it as the CARs can sell desperately to China as they will not be able to make pipe lines to Gwadar etc to sell to others.

Hydrocarbons is one reason for China to be interested in CAR/CIS...Access to an alternative trade route (Arabian sea) is another....Keeping islamist influences out of Xinjiang is a third...For the US, besides the question of hydrocarbon, presence in CEntral Asia is key to retain pressure points around its two major advaersaries - one legacy (Russia) and one emerging (China)...

And unstable Pak doesnt suit either US or Chinese interests..But US presence itself today creates major divisions within not just Pak, but the Pak strategic establishment....Chinese presence arguably wont have the same virulent resonance, as China doesnt have the same objectives and outlook as the US (look how it has cut separate deals with Islamist griups like the Jamait)...

India's interests lie in keeping Pak unstable, and retain influence in Af...Presence of the US in Af-Pak therefore works to our advantage...

[svinayak]

US has to double the trade tariff to Chinese goods and force it to devalue Chinese currency.
There is no need of any war to take on this competitor! PRC is not a competitor to US. This is a fake

PRC has the largest lobby in DC and they are crawling and paying all the lawmakers.
So this is all hogwash that US needs India when the TOI article is fake and rubbish

[somnath]

US has to double the trade tariff to Chinese goods and force it to devalue Chinese currency.

Why dont you drop a line to Tim Geithner? Poor chap (and everyone else) has been thinking of how to get the Chinese to devalue their ccy... Its so simple! While you are at it, do go through the WTO rules around trade tariffs to really make your suggestion more iron clad..

[Arjun]

The discussion on whether the US or China is the bigger evil seems a tad pointless.

The starting point is to keep one's central objective in sight. If it is the breakup of Pakistan - India has to game both the US and China in order to achieve this objective. The gaming will probably involve seemingly aligning with one side or the other at various points - but ultimate objective should be to game both parties to achieve what is in India's interests.

[svinayak]

US has to double the trade tariff to Chinese goods and force it to devalue Chinese currency.

Why dont you drop a line to Tim Geithner? Poor chap (and everyone else) has been thinking of how to get the Chinese to devalue their ccy... Its so simple! While you are at it, do go through the WTO rules around trade tariffs to really make your suggestion more iron clad..

When they are taking so much money from the PRC lobby and other Wall St lobby why should they bother. I was in a PRC VC show in US and the way the US officials were wooing the PRC to coopt even suggesting the book 'Superfusion: How China and America Became One Economy and Why the World's Prosperity Depends on It' I had to suppress my laugh! Check out the book if you have not.

[shiv]

I am OK with anything the US does, even bandwagoning with the US provided the US totally stops doing anything against Indian interests. Basically I don't buy all this bull about "International relations being give and take where a negative in one place is made up by a positive somewhere else" Excuse me? This is about pipsqueak India and superpower USA. When the US "takes" it takes a huge chunk. When the US gives it lets out a little fart in the direction of the receiver which the receiver must sniff with gratitude.

Yeah - damn right I am complaining and whining about that. But I see complaining and whining as a far better way of making Indians open their eyes to a bad and unequal relationship rather than philosophical acceptance and high pretence that we too are sitting at some high table playing international games. We are not. India is struggling to put food on the table (on a leaf on the floor) of 40% of its people. Oh yes oh yes. i know. We need to be strong. Armed military might is the fundamental basis of geopolitical clout blah blah blah. But when our armed might has to constantly increase to hold back a nation of Islamic nut cases while we pretend to play games and say "I say Barack old boy. How about a game of chess over Afghanistan and CAR?" Balls. Stop funding and arming the Pakistan army. Let it collapse. Let Pakistan take its true political course. India is prepared for that. It's the US that is not prepared.

[Sanku]

^^^^^^^^^^

Kudos!!!

[RajeshA]

But I see complaining and whining as a far better way of making Indians open their eyes to a bad and unequal relationship rather than philosophical acceptance and high pretence that we too are sitting at some high table playing international games. We are not.

Agree a 100%! We are not sitting on the high table! We have done nothing to earn a right to sit there! We have not kicked any big power in the nuts to be qualified! We have not straightened out any enemy through the might of arms, the only feather in our hat being 1971!

In fact we don't have a game! Holding on to US's apron strings is not going to get us anywhere!

However I don't think that keeping USA in AfPak is the same thing as being dependent on it! Keeping them there at the moment, I think is in some ways advantageous.

However we have to have a game in AfPak independent of USA! There are many possibilities there, one being the one I suggested in Managing Pakistan's failure Thread of making the Pushtun hunt ISI & TSPA for India (and themselves) in exchange for lots of money. Let after drugs, hunting ISI+TSPA become the mainstay of Afghan economy. They will love it, we will love it!

[somnath]

Agree a 100%! We are not sitting on the high table! We have done nothing to earn a right to sit there! We have not kicked any big power in the nuts to be qualified! We have not straightened out any enemy through the might of arms, the only feather in our hat being 1971!

In fact we don't have a game! Holding on to US's apron strings is not going to get us anywhere!

Thats poppycock, I am sorry to say - self criticism is great, but self-denial isnt...We may not be sitting at the highest tables yet, but we are pretty close, and we are being asked to come in as permanent invitees all the time - not because someone "likes" us but because we are in many ways indispensable to the resolution of the problems...And to get there, we have done at least nearly as much as China has....At least in the last 20 odd years...What military success has China shown? Post WWII, they fought 4 major campaigns - Korea, India, Vietnam and Russia...One stalemate, one success and two humiliations...Our record in that sense has a better "strike rate"...Both China and India are coming at the high table by the dint of sheer economic success, and a willingness to buy military sinews with the economic surplus...

And who is talking of US's "apron strings"? Till we have the capability to have our independent "game" in Af - and I dont see that happening in a long time - we need the US to provide the cover for us..And if we have to "game" that in any fashion, why not? After all, Pak has gamed it in a sense as well - its caught in a cleft stick, but thats the lack of enough quality in their thought process..

Which is why repeated thoguhts like this

I am OK with anything the US does, even bandwagoning with the US provided the US totally stops doing anything against Indian interests

make no sense...
If that were to be a touchstone, we will need to stop interacting with every single country around the world....Every single, no exceptions...I see no reason for us to extend any favours to anyone, similarly no one else has any reason not to return the compliment...

Is the relationship between India and US unequal? Of course it is - the difference in power equations dictate that..But it is FAR less unequal than it was 20 years back, and a nearly 180 degrees from what it was 40 years back (despite all our stupid rhetoric then)...But that dfoesnt mean we cant inflence events in a manner that is beneficial to us...

The way I look at it is -US is spending God know how much, but many hundreds of billions to maintain a presence in Af...And that presence allows us the cover to retain influence, a large influence in Af...So much so that it is perhaps the biggest thorn in the PAki strategic establishment's flesh...And how much do we spend? Maybe a couple of billion dollars? And our presence at least in parts contributes to the continuing instability in Pak..Which is a desired state...Plus, we are effectively keeping China out of the equation...Mind you, not for not trying hard - China is tryign damn hard - but between US and India, the Af establishment can only gingerly hold China's hands...

[RajeshA]

Agree a 100%! We are not sitting on the high table! We have done nothing to earn a right to sit there! We have not kicked any big power in the nuts to be qualified! We have not straightened out any enemy through the might of arms, the only feather in our hat being 1971!

In fact we don't have a game! Holding on to US's apron strings is not going to get us anywhere!

Thats poppycock, I am sorry to say - self criticism is great, but self-denial isnt...We may not be sitting at the highest tables yet, but we are pretty close, and we are being asked to come in as permanent invitees all the time - not because someone "likes" us but because we are in many ways indispensable to the resolution of the problems...And to get there, we have done at least nearly as much as China has....At least in the last 20 odd years...What military success has China shown? Post WWII, they fought 4 major campaigns - Korea, India, Vietnam and Russia...One stalemate, one success and two humiliations...Our record in that sense has a better "strike rate"...Both China and India are coming at the high table by the dint of sheer economic success, and a willingness to buy military sinews with the economic surplus...

somnath ji,

we have discussed it in the past. My criterion for sitting on the "high table" is first consolidating own's domination of one's neighborhood, or let's say one's civilizational extent.

We have done none of that!

In order to sit at the "high table" others should know that a country has certain strategic national interests and is willing to go to war for those interests.

We have done none of that, except may be in '71, which was limited in scope, and a long time ago!

And who is talking of US's "apron strings"? Till we have the capability to have our independent "game" in Af - and I dont see that happening in a long time - we need the US to provide the cover for us..And if we have to "game" that in any fashion, why not? After all, Pak has gamed it in a sense as well - its caught in a cleft stick, but thats the lack of enough quality in their thought process..

somnath ji,
I have a completely different outlook on India's potential and what game we should be playing. Wrote a little ebook on it!

I say we can play the game today, if we want to!

Depending on US in AfPak is a poor and weak means of safeguarding our interests there. There are better ways!

[somnath]

we have discussed it in the past. My criterion for sitting on the "high table" is first consolidating own's domination of one's neighborhood, or let's say one's civilizational extent.

We have done none of that!

In order to sit at the "high table" others should know that a country has certain strategic national interests and is willing to go to war for those interests.

US didnt "dominate" its neighbourhood...At its height, GReat Britain was locked in a fierce battle for influence for all other powers in its own neighbourhood...Who does china "dominate", save Pakistan and maybe North Korea? So this "domination" thing is a bit nebulous..If you mean that a great power should loom large over its neighbourhood, India already does so..The biggest foreign policy issue for each of Inida's neoghbouring state is India! And the politics of each state is defined by "pro" and "anti" India postures - if that is not preponderance, what is?

A great power over history has been defined by two things - economic surplus, technological edge and military capacity..India is in the process of acquiring all three..

Depending on US in AfPak is a poor and weak means of safeguarding our interests there. There are better ways!

I am sure! But maybe you should post teh ebook online!

[shiv]

The way I look at it is -US is spending God know how much, but many hundreds of billions to maintain a presence in Af...And that presence allows us the cover to retain influence, a large influence in Af...So much so that it is perhaps the biggest thorn in the PAki strategic establishment's flesh...And how much do we spend? Maybe a couple of billion dollars? And our presence at least in parts contributes to the continuing instability in Pak..Which is a desired state...Plus, we are effectively keeping China out of the equation...Mind you, not for not trying hard - China is tryign damn hard - but between US and India, the Af establishment can only gingerly hold China's hands...

The US spends many billions in Afghanistan for itself. Our being in Afghanistan is a pathetic side effect - not a primary US design or requirement. It is only one more tool for the US to bargain with Pakistan. Throwing India out would gain the US goodwill from Pakistan. The India that is so near to all those high tables was not even invited to the conference on the future of Afghanistan. "Nearly there" and "Not there yet" are semantics with a ludicrously large gap in significance.

Unmentioned and forgotten in your post post above are the billions the US spends in Pakistan to make the Pakistan army "feel secure" against India and ensure that India does not get into Pakistan. It is a completely useless exercise for India to be in Afghanistan when Pakistan is the problem. That is a few billion dollars worth of beating about the bush.

Whichever way you look at it our presence is Afghanistan is pointless when the Pakistani army is being supported and kept alive actively by the USA . It would be far better to destabilize a Pakistan that is unaided by the US than pretend that this roundabout method of being in Afghanistan courtesy the US and being unable to interfere easily in Pakistan courtesy the US is appropriate and intelligent. In fact that couple of billions we are spending on Afghanistan could just as well be spent on handling a Pakistan army that gets aid from China alone and not the US. I am certain we can manage that. It is only the US that is pretending that the problem is in Afghanistan.

[PrasadZ]

1. Precisely, AND China is the most formidable competitor to the US in the immediate and long term future...So its a bit silly to talk of foreign relations in terms of "X bad", "Y good"..

True that ! And yet so many out here (incl you) talk of China bad, US good ..

Hydrocarbons is one reason for China to be interested in CAR/CIS...Access to an alternative trade route (Arabian sea) is another....Keeping islamist influences out of Xinjiang is a third...

Leaving aside reason 1, you will notice that US and China have quite different interests in the region

And unstable Pak doesnt suit either US or Chinese interests..But US presence itself today creates major divisions within not just Pak, but the Pak strategic establishment....Chinese presence arguably wont have the same virulent resonance, as China doesnt have the same objectives and outlook as the US (look how it has cut separate deals with Islamist griups like the Jamait)...

The US had a negligible Islamist presence, yet got terrorists attacking them. China already faces an insurgency that has the support of some Islamists, yet Chinese presence "wont have the same virulent resonance"?! If it doesnt, it would be because India chose not to foster it and maybe India got something for it ..
The Chinese have cut deals with the Jamiat the same way the US cut deals with the Taliban once upon a time. I fail to make out why you believe the US could end up in the cross hairs of the same Taliban but the Chinese wont !

[svinayak]

Depending on US in AfPak is a poor and weak means of safeguarding our interests there. There are better ways!

This is the realpolitik and needs more explanation.
If you can elaborate on this we can get more clarity.


India will need independent policy with other nations and this hanging on another country which has not shown much in Indian interest for the last 40 years is not going to happen

[svinayak]

The way I look at it is -US is spending God know how much, but many hundreds of billions to maintain a presence in Af...And that presence allows us the cover to retain influence, a large influence in Af..


The US spends many billions in Afghanistan for itself. Our being in Afghanistan is a pathetic side effect - not a primary US design or requirement. It is only one more tool for the US to bargain with Pakistan.

This kind of statements are real crap. US interest is the primary one in AF PAk and there is nothing much other countries can do

[VikramS]

Acharya:

WRT to US and China.

They are economic partners. Both need each other.
They are strategic opponents. Both wish the other did not exist.

How this dichotomy has survived for so long is a different issue which requires more discussion. It will help Indians understand how the US works and how the Chinese are able to buy influence in the US, and who in the US truly calls the shots.

[svinayak]

Acharya:

How this dichotomy has survived for so long is a different issue which requires more discussion.

That is not the point. The geopolitics of the relationship has to be understood and how does it affect the Indian interest.
TOI article saying the PRC is now under pressure that India and US DPG is meeting is total rubbish

[svinayak]

Whichever way you look at it our presence is Afghanistan is pointless when the Pakistani army is being supported and kept alive actively by the USA . It would be far better to destabilize a Pakistan that is unaided by the US than pretend that this roundabout method of being in Afghanistan courtesy the US and being unable to interfere easily in Pakistan courtesy the US is appropriate and intelligent. In fact that couple of billions we are spending on Afghanistan could just as well be spent on handling a Pakistan army that gets aid from China alone and not the US. I am certain we can manage that. It is only the US that is pretending that the problem is in Afghanistan.

This is the kind of clarity we need in the afpak region.

[RajeshA]

we have discussed it in the past. My criterion for sitting on the "high table" is first consolidating own's domination of one's neighborhood, or let's say one's civilizational extent.

We have done none of that!

In order to sit at the "high table" others should know that a country has certain strategic national interests and is willing to go to war for those interests.

US didnt "dominate" its neighbourhood...At its height, GReat Britain was locked in a fierce battle for influence for all other powers in its own neighbourhood...Who does china "dominate", save Pakistan and maybe North Korea? So this "domination" thing is a bit nebulous..If you mean that a great power should loom large over its neighbourhood, India already does so..The biggest foreign policy issue for each of Inida's neoghbouring state is India! And the politics of each state is defined by "pro" and "anti" India postures - if that is not preponderance, what is?

A great power over history has been defined by two things - economic surplus, technological edge and military capacity..India is in the process of acquiring all three..

1. USA consolidated its neighborhood as far back as in 1846 War with Mexico for California, Texas and New Mexico, so that it became a power from Atlantic to the Pacific!
2. Russia became the biggest country ever in history constantly expanding from Moscow outwards conquering the Baltics, Ukraine, Siberia, the Far East, and later Central Asia. The Soviets beat back the Nazis and retained their dominance.
3. China did come under the influence of the West and Japan, but by the middle of the 20th century again began its conquests and captured East Turkestan and Tibet. It fought wars against a nuclear armed Russia, and on both accounts of its border dispute it got its way. China has fought the Americans in Korea to a standstill. It won a border war against India and went to war with Vietnam. It has shown it means business.
4. Britain and France were two of the biggest colonial powers.

Against this list, India got its borders "bequeathed" to it by Britain, and has never shown much urge to expand, Sikkim and Goa being two small exceptions. When we should have gone out and thrown Pakistan out of Kashmir we ran to UNSC. When Mumbai 26/11 happened we ran to USA. Those are simply not the spots of a superpower!

We should have solved Pakistan by now. We should have established our irreversible domination over Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and the rest by now! We have done none of it!

So I don't think, we deserve a place at the high table! Military machinery sitting in the garage and collecting dust and rust is hardly something to write home about!

As things stand, all talk of "India beeg sooperpowerr" is just a bogey by the Indian media to tell Indians to keep on holding on to America's apron strings, and we will get respect! That is the worst condescending sh*t I know!

When Pakistan says, India cannot be a superpower without before dealing with Pakistan, then that is 100% true! If there was any spine in our GoI, we would long have swatted Pakistan like a fly. We can still do it! There are good suggestions floating around! But for that we have to have the mind of a superpower, nay, we have to have the heart of a superpower!

[svinayak]

As things stand, all talk of "India beeg sooperpowerr" is just a bogey by the Indian media to tell Indians to keep on holding on to America's apron strings, and we will get respect! That is the worst condescending sh*t I know!

Dont how this kind of rubbish has entered into Indian media. This is total psy ops for the entire new generation who have no clue to how things are in the rest of the world.

[somnath]

When Pakistan says, India cannot be a superpower without before dealing with Pakistan, then that is 100% true! If there was any spine in our GoI, we would long have swatted Pakistan like a fly.

RajeshA-ji, that is a PoV and you are entitled to it...Though one might always say that NoKo would say the same thing of te US, or Iran! For that matter Cuba could have said the same thing about the US...

But thats really not the point - whether India is an emergent, emerging or simply dilletante superpower...The point is on what our options are in the "great game"...According to me, manoevring around to get the US to underwrite the costs of an Af campaign while we do our stuff under the radar is a pretty good strategy...

True that ! And yet so many out here (incl you) talk of China bad, US good
--------------
The US had a negligible Islamist presence, yet got terrorists attacking them. China already faces an insurgency that has the support of some Islamists, yet Chinese presence "wont have the same virulent resonance"?! If it doesnt, it would be because India chose not to foster it and maybe India got something for it ..
The Chinese have cut deals with the Jamiat the same way the US cut deals with the Taliban once upon a time. I fail to make out why you believe the US could end up in the cross hairs of the same Taliban but the Chinese wont

PrasadZ-ji..At least I am not talking in terms of anyone "good" or "bad" - I find those descriptions quite infantile to be honest...Just that a US presence in Af (and Pak) works in multiple ways to our benefit that a Chinese presence wont...

How is China and US different? Simply in terms of their global ambitions and baggage...China does not have to sustain a military presence in Iraq, China does not have a to underwrite Israel...China does not support the Philippino govt against Abu Sayyaf...Therefore the global islamist angst against China is just not there..Therefore they can cut local, mercantile deals and concentrate on their basic objectives...

[RajeshA]

Though one might always say that NoKo would say the same thing of te US, or Iran! For that matter Cuba could have said the same thing about the US...

NoKo and Iran have both worked admirably to US advantage. NoKo has helped USA justify its large military presence in Japan and South Korea! It has allowed US to use the danger from NoKo to swing the Japanese and the South Koreans to the corner.

Same thing with Iran. The Iran bogey has helped USA to have a vice-like grip on the other Gulf countries, and thereby secure both their cooperation and their Oil.

Cuba on the other hand has allowed various organizations like CIA, etc. to have bloated budgets, etc. Only during the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis, was Cuba really a threat. After that Cuba ceased to be a credible threat, but is a useful counterfoil.

None of these countries pose an "existential" threat to USA, nor have these countries really managed to keep USA down.

Pakistan on the other has a totally different meaning as a credible and present threat to India as well as shackles on India's feet!

[shiv]

It will help Indians understand how the US works and how the Chinese are able to buy influence in the US, and who in the US truly calls the shots.

Vikram - with respect this business of truly understanding the US can sometimes go too far. Having spent far too many years trying to understand the US under the watchful guidance of my peers who made their lives in the US who kept telling me that the US works this way or that way and Indians need to "understand" that, I now realise that too much time is spent understanding the US and not enough time is spent by Indians talking of Indian interests. After a point "How the US works" is a useless exercise for India. Beyond a point the US's style of functioning and Indian interests are at odds. Period. The US needs to learn how India works and that can only be done by Indians who stop trying to understand the US and who start talking about making Americans understand Indian interests.

I don't mean to be harsh - but the only people I have seen who go out of their way trying to make Indians understand "how the US works" are Indians who are deeply exposed to America. Unfortunately for me I have politely endured too many lectures telling me why I should "understand" the way the US works. As long as the US can understand what India wants it hardly matters how the US goes about reaching that understanding.

There are a lot of core US interests that cannot be changed by understanding the US. The US has to be forced to change by an irresistible pressure of circumstances in the way the US had to give up on East Pakistan and in the way Pakistan is making the US do a downhill ski. No amount of "understanding how the US works" will help implementing things that are not seen as being in US interests. And a lot of things that I want to see are plainly not in US interests Like stopping support to the Pakistan army. Desperately trying to achieve those things by understanding the US is like understanding why the US needs the Pakistan army. I do not want to understand that.

When Indian interests and American interests are at at odds, no amount of Indian understanding of US thoughts can achieve anything for Indian interests. When interests are opposite, what Indians need is a forcing of Indian interests down American throats, not a forcing of American processes and thoughts down Indian throats.

[RajeshA]

Relevance: Speaking of changing US role in Pakistan

New Routes for USA into Afghanistan

X-Posting from TSP Thread

Originally posted by jrjrao

NY Times report by Mark Mazzeti says that the fraying alliance between the US and PakiSatan is stressed close to the breaking point.

And the main reason for divergence between Munna and Unkil is that Pakis want unquestioning acceptance of its desire and right to deploy L-e-T against India (and also Afghanistan, to a lesser degree).

A Shooting in Pakistan Reveals Fraying Alliance: New York Times

The C.I.A. team Mr. Davis worked with, according to American officials, had among its assignments the task of secretly gathering intelligence about Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant “Army of the Pure.” Pakistan’s security establishment has nurtured Lashkar for years as a proxy force to attack targets and enemies in India and in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir. These and other American officials, all of whom spoke only on condition of anonymity, are now convinced that Lashkar is no longer satisfied being the shadowy foot soldiers in Pakistan’s simmering border conflict with India. It goals have broadened, these officials say, and Lashkar is committed to a campaign of jihad against the United States and Europe, and against American troops in Afghanistan.

During a visit to Islamabad last July, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared Lashkar a “global threat,” a statement that no doubt rankled his Pakistani hosts.

And so a group that Pakistan has seen for years as an essential component of its own national security, and that American counterterrorism officials could once dismiss as a regional problem, has emerged as a threat that Washington feels it can no longer ignore.

Given such a fundamental collision of interests, it was perhaps inevitable that Lashkar would one day provoke tensions between Pakistani and American security officials, and the collision itself would come into full public view. Rather than being a cause of the problem, Mr. Davis was merely an all-too-visible symptom.

Because Lashkar has long been nurtured by Pakistan’s spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, American espionage operations against the group are freighted with grave risks, and are not viewed kindly by Pakistani spies.

Lashkar has long employed the language of global jihad in its propaganda, denouncing the United States and Israel, and vowing that the group would “plant a flag” in Washington and Tel Aviv.

Despite such global goals, Lashkar for most of its history has limited its attacks to India and Kashmir — the targets that would serve the interests of its ISI benefactors.

Professor Fair, the Georgetown expert on Lashkar, said the group has set up sophisticated networks throughout Asia to train dozens of sleeper operatives for attacks in India.

In Thailand, for instance, Muslim recruits arriving from India are handed fake Pakistani passports for travel to Pakistan, where they go for several weeks of training, according to Professor Fair. After the training, the operatives go back to Thailand, reclaim their Indian passports and return to India.

Lashkar has also bolstered fund-raising networks throughout Europe, especially in Germany and Britain, and European counterterrorism officials believe Lashkar is considering attacks in Western capitals similar to the devastating raids by the group in Mumbai, India, in November 2008.

In Washington, there seems to be little enthusiasm for sending yet another delegation to Islamabad to press Pakistani officials to cut their ties to militants. It hasn’t worked so far, and Obama administration officials know that Pakistan believes too much is at stake to walk away from the groups it might need once the Americans leave Afghanistan.

But even with such seemingly irreconcilable differences, and even as both American and Pakistani officials muse in private about how long the beleaguered alliance can survive, both appear to realize that — for now — it simply must.

As much as senior Pakistani officials resent the billions of dollars in aid they accept from Washington, they believe that they can’t turn away the money and hope to keep pace with their rival, India. And Wendy Chamberlin... says...the appetite of the Afghan war makes ending the relationship impossible, because there are no better routes over which to transport all the military supplies that currently are shipped through Pakistan.

“Like it or not,” she said, “Pakistan is our lifeline.”

It is the supply routes, which are basically stopping America from using the stick against Pakistan or from walking away from the relationship or stopping their military support to Pakistan.

It is here that India can give the Americans another lifeline, so that they can cut off their Pakistani one!

1. Land Route: Logistics support through Iran from Chahbahar Port to Afghanistan. To sweeten the deal make an Oil refinery across the border from Iran in Afghanistan, and let Iran get gasoline. The refinery itself can also be an Indian venture.
2. Air Corridor: India offers to host the Americans in an Indian Indian-run airbase, say in Pathankot, Punjab. There are regular flights of American aircraft between Bagram Airbase and Pathankot Airbase, the route servicing military supplies, urgent supplies, medical care for the wounded, personnel transport in and out of Afghanistan, and may be even combat aircraft sorties.

[Virupaksha]

1. Land Route: Logistics support through Iran from Chahbahar Port to Afghanistan. To sweeten the deal make an Oil refinery across the border from Iran in Afghanistan, and let Iran get gasoline. The refinery itself can also be an Indian venture.
2. Air Corridor: India offers to host the Americans in an Indian Indian-run airbase, say in Pathankot, Punjab. There are regular flights of American aircraft between Bagram Airbase and Pathankot Airbase, the route servicing military supplies, urgent supplies, medical care for the wounded, personnel transport in and out of Afghanistan, and may be even combat aircraft sorties.

RajeshA,

have you heard of the phrase,

"cutting of one's nose to spite his face"/ in telugu "konda nalikki mandeste unna naalika udindata", i.e. the medicine for throat relief removed off his tongue.

Your 2nd option is exactly that.

[somnath]

^^^The Iran route can have India as its fulcrum...Not just in terms of the actual logistics, but also in terms of sponsoring the grand "limited" deal between Iran and the US...

More than a refinery, what Iran would want is some sort of a quid pro quo on sanctions....Once sanctions are lifted, anyone will be only too willing to build a refinery in Iran...It will be a tough set of reconcliations, but more plausible than any of the other routes...

the air corridor via India makes no sense...The US can maintain the air corridor over Pak as well...Whatever happens, Pak isnt going to have the gumption of shutting down its airspace for US aircraft...

[pran]

Air Corridor: India offers to host the Americans in an Indian Indian-run airbase, say in Pathankot, Punjab. There are regular flights of American aircraft between Bagram Airbase and Pathankot Airbase, the route servicing military supplies, urgent supplies, medical care for the wounded, personnel transport in and out of Afghanistan, and may be even combat aircraft sorties.

That window of opportunity has been lost since 9/11 & Kunduz airlift when India unequivocally offered help but since Gorilla wants to retain the services of the monkey it has to resort to other methods like whipping it. Now India offering any such opportunity without US asking for it appears denigrating to the Indian ethos. Now the new twist in the new saga of GOAT has to run its course until the monkey forgets its role and tries to change the script which it has been doing lately.

The calibrated pressure that India has built painstakingly is not lost upon the rest of the world and the change of attitude has taken place.India know very well that monkey cannot let go of the banana while it is getting whipped and it can be provoked to a frenzy again , until then let the Gorilla get amused and handle its pet.

[ramana]

Shiv after the US abandoned the Pakis they bailed them out by hiding their nuke trade. Recall the ring magnets from PRC case. US experts would go to Congress and lie about the missiles that TSP was getting from PRC.
They got Pakis UN troops role in Somalia which they botched by killing civilians and led to Black Hawk Down!

US Admins in the 90s did their best to promote insecurity in India by promoting Hurriyat, questioning J&K accession, losing the detonator which was evidence of Mumbai blasts. They were the most undiplomatic diplomutts.

ramana thank you for saying all this plainly. It is of course well known to most of us. But everything is worth repeating endlessly either to educate those who don't know, or to merely thwart their miseducation.

SSridhar, I need you to blog an article on the support that US gave the TSP in decade they abandoned them. Please think about this?

[shiv]

... since 9/11 & Kunduz airlift when India unequivocally offered help but since Gorilla wants to retain the services of the monkey it has to resort to other methods like whipping it.

Precisely sir precisely. Thank you for recalling history at a time when one has to be bold merely to recall the past. An Indian offer of logistics was rejected. Had we understood that the US wanted to keep Pakistan on its side and preserve the Pakistan army perhaps we might not even have offered. But we did learn something from having our offer rejected.

The US wanted to "clean up" Afghanistan without asking for any accountability from the very people who created the mess in Afghanistan - the Pakistanis. They had US aid of course and that US aid restarted after 9-11.

[shiv]

Fraying maybe, but it ain't gonna break anytime soon

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/weeki ... ted=2&_r=1
A Shooting in Pakistan Reveals Fraying Alliance

As much as senior Pakistani officials resent the billions of dollars in aid they accept from Washington, they believe that they can’t turn away the money and hope to keep pace with their rival, India. And Wendy Chamberlin, the former American ambassador in Islamabad, said that America’s relationship with Pakistan remains essential for security in the region, even if some lawmakers in Washington might see cutting aid to the country as a way to distance the United States from the headaches of the relationship.

There are many reasons for continuing the relationship with such a large and strategically important country, she said. At the very least, Ms. Chamberlin said, the appetite of the Afghan war makes ending the relationship impossible, because there are no better routes over which to transport all the military supplies that currently are shipped through Pakistan.

From the American viewpoint security in the region means supporting Pakistan to "keep pace with their rival, India". This is an irreconcilable difference we (Indians) have with the USA. US entities word this very carefully and hide the true significance behind unstated hints like "security in the region means we need to help Pakistan".

I want the US to fail in Afghanistan.

[somnath]

^^^well it's always problematic remembering history selectively. Kumduz happened at a time when pak was turning on a coin at every US phonecall. The US was then planning for a long campaign in af for which pak was the natural and cheapest logistics line.

Conditions are very different now as the whole pak equation has unravelled.

[ramana]

A weird thing is when an Indian Left Liberal drops the mask he turns up with Yankee Doodle!

[shiv]

^^^well it's always problematic remembering history selectively. Kumduz happened at a time when pak was turning on a coin at every US phonecall. The US was then planning for a long campaign in af for which pak was the natural and cheapest logistics line.

I can see the problems that selective recall causes. It was the US that was too scared/too dependent on Pakistan to antagonize Pakistan and kill their assets in Kunduz although your recall of history claims that it was Pakistan that was accommodating US wishes. Pakistan won that game and has been winning ever since.

But we have been seeing a US viewpoint and imagining that the US was dominating. Clearly it was not as contemporary events are revealing. The US is a tired old horse that is losing it and should be beaten down opportunistically. Unless they mend their ways.

[svinayak]

A weird thing is when an Indian Left Liberal drops the mask he turns up with Yankee Doodle!

Not a surprise. For fifty years they were the product of the social engineering of the west and they have affiliation to the Yemerica.

Yemerican interest was dominant and no wonder rest of the Indians were wondering how India was not progressing for 50 years.

[shiv]

A weird thing is when an Indian Left Liberal drops the mask he turns up with Yankee Doodle!

Unless it is pointless trolling with no specific views beyond that.