India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 15 Sep 2011 07:12

http://www.bostonherald.com/track/insid ... ition=also

Jackie O’s recordings jab MLK, Indira Gandhi

Nothing makes me happy to hear a leftist jab another leftist!

Former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy thought civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr. was a “phony” and she called future Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi “a real prune” among other not-so-nice things.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 15 Sep 2011 08:00

Cybercrime cooperation added to US-Oz trade.

The agreement is particularly critical considering the ongoing cyberthreat emanating from the Pacific region, especially China and North Korea. It also reflects the Obama administration's stated goals earlier this year to work aggressively with other nations to combat cybercrime, improve law enforcement cooperation against cyber terrorists and hackers, and create broad international policies to help make the internet more secure.

Cybercriminals, unfriendly nation states and terrorists are routinely using the internet to steal money, ferret out classified secrets and technology, and attempt to disturb or destroy critical networks. Officials say they must work more closely together to protect government and corporate networks, including those that control critical infrastructure, ranging from the electrical grid and telecommunications networks to nuclear power plants and transportation systems.

The White House released its international cybersecurity strategy in May, as part of an effort to improve cooperation on global cybercrime and set guidelines for internet oversight.

Cybersecurity experts have argued that the internet cannot become a safer place until nations implement international agreements that better define and regulate cybercrime, provide oversight of the internet, and set out new standards and rules for industry as it increasingly moves its business into the largely ungoverned online world.

The ANZUS treaty is going to get more beefed up, as we can probably envision from the article.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Sep 2011 08:15

Rao pushes U.S. companies to invest in India

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 15 Sep 2011 16:58

Tolerant Of Other Religions, Except Islam: America 10 Years After 9/11

Americans consider religious freedom a cornerstone of society, but fall short in their tolerance of Muslims, according to a poll released Tuesday (Sept. 6) that probes Americans' attitudes toward immigrants and the nation's safety 10 years after 9/11.

The "What It Means to Be American" poll found that a small majority (53 percent) say the country is safer now than before the 9/11 attacks. Attitudes toward Muslims, however, are far less straightforward.

More than 8 in 10 Americans say that self-proclaimed Christians who commit violence in the name of Christianity are not really Christians. By contrast, less than half (48 percent) say that self-proclaimed Muslims who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam are not really
Muslims.

"Interestingly, we find that Americans basically have a double standard when it comes to evaluating religious violence," said Robert P. Jones of the Public Religion Research Institute, which produced the survey with the Brookings Institution.

On the same question, disparities arose among political and religious groups.

Republicans (55 percent) were more likely to call the perpetrator of a violent crime in the name of Islam a Muslim than were Democrats (40 percent). At 57 percent, white evangelicals were far more likely to consider the perpetrator a Muslim than were Catholics (39 percent) or black Protestants (36 percent).

In general, the survey of 2,450 adults paints Americans' attitudes toward Muslims as a complex picture of acceptance and wariness.

Nearly nine in 10 Americans agree that "America was founded on the idea of religious freedom for everyone, including religious groups that are unpopular." And by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans reject the idea that Muslims want to establish Islamic law, or Shariah, in the United States.

But they are divided as to whether Islam is at odds with American values, with 47 percent agreeing and 48 percent disagreeing.

The poll's authors likened this ambivalence about American Muslims to the evolution of attitudes toward Catholics, who were once widely suspected for their loyalty to the pope, and Mormons, once widely reviled for their religious practices.

Brookings scholar William A. Galston said Muslims are now testing the nation's tolerance, particularly as they try to build mosques.

"The siting of Muslim houses of worship has become the object of great controversy, which really goes right at the heart of religious free exercise," he said.

The survey also notes differing attitudes toward Muslims between generations, with more than 6 in 10 young Americans (ages 18 to 29) reporting comfort with several expressions of Muslim religious practice, compared to fewer than 4 in 10 senior citizens.

The report uncovered more ambivalence on immigration, and concluded that prospects for immigration reform face steep obstacles.

A slim majority (53 percent) takes a positive view of the influence of immigrants on American society; 42 percent said the growing number of newcomers threatens American values.

And while 51 percent of Americans said the nation should make a serious effort to deport all illegal immigrants, when asked a more nuanced question, a majority seemed to oppose such a policy.

Asked whether they favor an immigration plan that combines enforcement with deportation, or a plan that combines enforcement with a path to citizenship, 62 percent preferred to combine enforcement with a path to citizenship.

On race, nearly half of Americans (including 51 percent of whites) believe that discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against minority groups. About 3 in ten blacks and Hispanics agree.

The biggest differences in perceptions about discrimination emerged between those who most trust Fox News and those who most trust public television, with nearly seven in 10 Fox News fans saying that so-called reverse discrimination is as big a problem as traditional discrimination, compared to less than one in four public television viewers.

Among the poll's other findings:
Ninety-five percent of Americans believe all religious books should be treated with respect, no matter the religion.

Acceptance of Mormons continues to lag behind other minorities, with 67 percent expressing favorable views of Mormons, compared to 84 percent for Jews and 83 percent for Catholics.

16 percent of Americans believe that people in Muslim countries have a favorable view of the United States.
The survey of 2,450 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Sep 2011 18:54

Manny wrote:http://www.bostonherald.com/track/insid ... ition=also

Jackie O’s recordings jab MLK, Indira Gandhi

Nothing makes me happy to hear a leftist jab another leftist!

Former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy thought civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr. was a “phony” and she called future Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi “a real prune” among other not-so-nice things.

Why did she feel she had to make remarks about Mrs. IndiraG while she was still future PM?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 15 Sep 2011 19:37

Indian Mujahideen designated terror organisation by United States

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 15 Sep 2011 19:56

U.S.–India Counterterrorism Cooperation: Deepening the Partnership ---- Lisa Curtis

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 15 Sep 2011 23:06

Does anyone know who this Iftekhar Shareef guy is. He seems to be really close to a lot of congressis including Rajmatam. Sorry to say but looks a teeny bit sketchy. Look at biwijaan

Highest Honor Received: First Indian-American to receive the “First Dual Citizenship of India” (OCI) Card, from Honorable Prime Minister of India Dr. Man Mohan Singh – On Jan 07, 2006 at Hyderabad, India.

http://iftekharshareef.com/

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 15 Sep 2011 23:23

look at the photo gallery...Sonia, Jesse Jackson, Azharudding, Illinois Governor, Louis Guitirrez, etc.

this is a list of a variety of US politicians. it's an indication of how deeply Massa is trying to penetrate India.

also, why specifically this guy? does appeasement have to be so blatant that first OCI needs to be this guy???

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 15 Sep 2011 23:34

^^^ Can someone insert the photos. I don't know how to

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 15 Sep 2011 23:35

[quote][/quote]^^^ Can someone insert the photos. I don't know how to

d for helping set up a free medical clinic for Indo – Pak community, Presented by Consul General of Pakistan on behalf of Pak-American Business Association of Chicago on December 3rd, 2004.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 16 Sep 2011 00:16

devesh wrote:also, why specifically this guy? does appeasement have to be so blatant that first OCI needs to be this guy???

Perhaps like our brothers at IndianDefense.koum, the secular netas make sure that any Dharmic could never take any inclusive, err I mean, exclusive credit of anything from a secular exclusive, err I mean inclusive, Govt.; and instead anything and everything could be heralded by twoo, arr I mean troo, secular people onlee, not heathen secular people.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Sep 2011 17:13

ramana wrote:Why did she feel she had to make remarks about Mrs. IndiraG while she was still future PM?

The best, IMO, explanation I heard was by Swapan Dasgupta in the NDTV discussion. He said that a flirtatious Nehru was fawning all over Ms. JK, much to the dislike of Ms. IG. Probably she had a word or two about this which upset Ms. JK.

sum · Post by **sum** » 16 Sep 2011 17:51

also, why specifically this guy? does appeasement have to be so blatant that first OCI needs to be this guy???

Well, MMS today again repeated ( for the 2nd or 3rd time) in as many days that the security forces need to be "minority friendly". So, appeasement is currently as blatant as it can get...

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 16 Sep 2011 18:33

SSridhar wrote:
ramana wrote:Why did she feel she had to make remarks about Mrs. IndiraG while she was still future PM?
The best, IMO, explanation I heard was by Swapan Dasgupta in the NDTV discussion. He said that a flirtatious Nehru was fawning all over Ms. JK, much to the dislike of Ms. IG. Probably she had a word or two about this which upset Ms. JK.

JLN did try to put the moves on JK (it's been written about elsewhere) much to JFK's amusement.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 16 Sep 2011 18:33

sum wrote:
also, why specifically this guy? does appeasement have to be so blatant that first OCI needs to be this guy???
Well, MMS today again repeated ( for the 2nd or 3rd time) in as many days that the security forces need to be "minority friendly". So, appeasement is currently as blatant as it can get...

Contributions to the 'cause'

arun · Post by **arun** » 16 Sep 2011 19:10

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Aspen Institute India (Aii) have cosponsored a U.S.-India Joint Study Group to identify the shared national interests that motivate the United States and India.

The following are select policy recommendations from the report, The United States and India: A Shared Strategic Future.

On Pakistan:
•Hold classified exchanges on multiple Pakistan contingencies, including the collapse of the Pakistan state and the specter of the Pakistan military losing control of its nuclear arsenal.
•The United States should heavily condition all military aid to Pakistan on sustained concrete antiterrorist measures by the Pakistan military against groups targeting India and the United States, including in Afghanistan.
•The United States should continue to provide technical assistance to Pakistan to protect its nuclear arsenal, and to prevent the transfer of this technology to third parties.
•India should continue its bilateral negotiations with Pakistan on all outstanding issues, including the question of Kashmir. India should attempt to initiate quiet bilateral discussions with Pakistan on Afghanistan as well as trilateral discussions with Afghanistan.

On Afghanistan:
•India, with U.S. support, should continue to intensify its links with the Afghanistan government in the economic, diplomatic, and security domains.
•The United States and India should determine whether large-scale Indian training of Afghanistan security forces, either in Afghanistan or in India, would be beneficial.

On China and Asia:
•The United States and India should jointly and individually enlist China’s cooperation on matters of global and regional concern. Neither India nor the United States desire confrontation with China, or to forge a coalition for China’s containment.
•Given worrisome and heavy-handed Chinese actions since 2007, the United States and India should regularly brief each other on their assessments of China and intensify their consultations on Asian security.

Read it all (1 MB download):

The United States and India: A Shared Strategic Future

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 16 Sep 2011 21:19

We have a new 'American expert' on India. Check out this guy - Sahibazda Amer Latif

Has anyone heard of him? I wonder if he is a descendant of Ahmadiya leader Sahibzada Abdul Latif...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Sep 2011 22:26

Its a bogus study group. Both sides are funded by Americans. So how can it be a joint study?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Sep 2011 22:48

Rangudu wrote:We have a new 'American expert' on India. Check out this guy - Sahibazda Amer Latif

Has anyone heard of him? I wonder if he is a descendant of Ahmadiya leader Sahibzada Abdul Latif...

He has quite body of published opinion.

I would say most likely an American of Paki origins.

wow!!!

India Abroad Link

The irony of it a Paki American dictating US policy towards India! And the SD/Pentagon wonders why they don't get advanced!

The NRIs fund chairs at US think-tanks hoping to advance India US ties and they get sabotaged by the think-tanks themselves appointing Pakis and US hawks to fill those positions!

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 16 Sep 2011 22:57

ramana wrote:India Abroad Link

The irony of it a Paki American dictating US policy towards India! And the SD/Pentagon wonders why they don't get advanced!

Unbelievable. Excerpt:

Persis Khambatta, and Indian-American and Sahibzada Amer Latif, a Pakistani-American and a senior official at the Pentagon have been selected as the first two fellows at the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Wadhwani Chair for United States-India policy studies. It is the first such chair in a leading Washington, DC think tank, endowed by Silicon Valley informaton technology entrepreneur Romesh Wadhwani and wife Kathleen Wadhwani.

While Khambatta's primary focus will be on the economic development dimensions of US-India relations, Latif, on secondment from the Pentagon, where he was serving as Director, South Asian Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense, will be on defense and security issues between Washington and New Delhi.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Sep 2011 23:05

Now you know why the US wants India to accept all those four letter agreements (EULA etc>). Its a Paki American demand to ensure that those weapons are monitored!

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 16 Sep 2011 23:10

Why U.S. has to Worry about Hindu Terrorism?

I guess these three are responsible for spreading the message of "Saffron Terror" to Indians and the World.

B.Raman's Analysis

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 17 Sep 2011 00:01

Ramana and Carl,

This Latif guy testified before Congress this week. I was able to briefly flip through it but did not find any TSPian imprint similar to what you find with snake oil salesmen like Shuja Nawaz or other RAPE reps.

If anything, this guy seems to have some in-depth knowledge of LeT, HuJI etc. Somewhat surprising.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Sep 2011 00:03

If he is Ahmediya then its not surprising. And as for not finding overt basis, Ahemdiyas were at forefront of the TSP movement before 1947.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 17 Sep 2011 00:22

SSridhar wrote:
ramana wrote:Why did she feel she had to make remarks about Mrs. IndiraG while she was still future PM?
The best, IMO, explanation I heard was by Swapan Dasgupta in the NDTV discussion. He said that a flirtatious Nehru was fawning all over Ms. JK, much to the dislike of Ms. IG. Probably she had a word or two about this which upset Ms. JK.

Makes sense, given that 'prune' is hostile slang for a single (presumably sexually frustrated ) woman who is disapproving of sexuality in general.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 17 Sep 2011 03:04

SwamyG wrote:B.Raman's Analysis

From the analysis of B.Raman:

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is the public policy research wing of the US Congress. It works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, non partisan basis.

In a report dated September 1, 2011, titled “India: Domestic Issues, Strategic Dynamics, and U.S. Relations”, the CRS has made the following observations on the Indian domestic scene based on reports largely collated from Indian media..

So is CRS, funded by US taxpayers, collating from ~~bogus~~ Indian media? Here goes its assumption of

its responsibility is to ensure that Members of the House and Senate have available the best possible information and analysis on which to base legislative decisions. The CRS reports are based on open source information. It rarely does field research.

So the Indian media has a field day being part of "the best possible information and analysis" for USA legislative decisions, regardless of who is adhering to the highest standards of canons of journalism. I have actually read somewhere that journalists take some kind of oath of profession, but it has 1 in a 10 million odds against it in Desh today. Very rare onlee.

Hindutva can at times take an anti-Western cast

So the report mentions nothing more on this. It is strange how Hindutva, 'at times', makes an anti-western cast. So what does it reflect about India to the usual mango legislators in USA which I believe is 85% Christian, and perhaps right-wing majorly by dharmic standards?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 17 Sep 2011 04:18

"WASHINGTON—U.S. officials say they are looking for evidence that directly links elements of Pakistan's powerful spy agency to this week's assault on the U.S. Embassy and coalition headquarters in Kabul, a sign of just how rancorous relations have become between the two allies in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Pay wall

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

Should we now not be advising the US that one should not jump to conclusions and offer to mediate?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 17 Sep 2011 16:56

vishvak: Open source research

; that is the kind that people like me will indulge in; when there is no finance, resources and authority to back. What our media says about us makes even more important, if such is the state of reports. Maybe they are collecting info based on Bollywood movies too.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 17 Sep 2011 17:43

Uncomfortable Facts I learnt today:
- 26/11 was primarily solved by the US (India only had Kasab on the table)
- Our counter terror strategy relies heavily on US diplomacy/pressure/support
- India's politicians only do the bare minimum for internal sec and that too until it is very late in the day (they dont want to take much pre-emptive action - even though they know where/who the threat is sometimes emanating from), simply because they don't want some major fiasco to lose the next elections.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 18 Sep 2011 00:24

SwamyG,

There was a thread by you in India Forum, "Nexus Between Entities Influencing India"

Did you compile a DB out of all that information? Could you share that at my email bushlovesosama atzeerait gchacha dawtkaum?

I am compiling a similar DB and this should help.

TIA

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 18 Sep 2011 01:15

shyamd wrote:- India's politicians only do the bare minimum for internal sec and that too until it is very late in the day (they dont want to take much pre-emptive action - even though they know where/who the threat is sometimes emanating from), simply because they don't want some major fiasco to lose the next elections.

Are they at least neutral, or are some of them actively supporting the terrorists (LeT / al Qaida) for stated reasons?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 18 Sep 2011 04:21

Big bad wolf, no DB. Just plain text @ IF.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 Sep 2011 05:18

Vera_k . They dO the bare minimum. Will only act after the crime has taken place.
Its quite cOmplicated as IB does its bit and gets the infO tO lOcal pOlice for further fOllOw up etc. This is where it gets pOliticised.
Usually inactiOn, they won't act unless its sOmething extremely seriOus. .

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 18 Sep 2011 23:02

Hmm, even if it is inaction, they will be liable. One day they will land up in an Indian or US court and have to defend themselves.

In this matter, if a case is registered against Modi for inaction in 2002, it will open up avenues in the Indian legal system for acting against politicians ignoring terror.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 19 Sep 2011 05:31

American poverty levels hit record high

A record 46 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010, pushing the US poverty rate to its highest level since 1993, according to a government report on the grim effects of stubbornly high unemployment.

Underscoring the economic challenges that face President Barack Obama and Congress, the US census bureau said the poverty rate rose for a third consecutive year to hit 15.1% in 2010. The number of people in poverty was the largest since the government first began publishing estimates, in 1959.

The US has the highest poverty rate among developed countries, according to the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The poverty line for a US family of four, including two children, is an income of $22,113 (£14,062) a year.

The data showed that children under 18 suffered the highest poverty rate – 22% – compared with adults and the elderly.

In a sign of decline for middle-income Americans, the figures showed continued decline in the number of Americans with employer-provided health insurance, while the ranks of the uninsured hovered just below the 50 million mark.

The poverty rate increased for non-Hispanic whites, black people and Hispanics but did not differ significantly for Asians. Black people and Hispanics together accounted for 54% of the poor, with whites at 9.9% and Asians at 12.1%.

The south fared worst among US regions, recording the highest poverty rate, a significant drop in median income and the largest number of residents without health insurance.

Broken down by state, Mississippi had the highest share of poor people, at 22.7%, according to calculations by the census Bureau. It was followed by Louisiana, the District of Columbia, Georgia, New Mexico and Arizona. At the other end of the scale, New Hampshire had the lowest share, at 6.6%.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 19 Sep 2011 05:57

Rony wrote:American poverty levels hit record high

The data showed that children under 18 suffered the highest poverty rate – 22% – compared with adults and the elderly.

The poverty rate increased for non-Hispanic whites, black people and Hispanics but did not differ significantly for Asians. Black people and Hispanics together accounted for 54% of the poor, with whites at 9.9% and Asians at 12.1%.

These kind of stats must be quoted when freedom house or state dept talk about plight of Dalits in India. And please note, I am not trivizing the daily inhuman travails Dalits have to endure in India, I am just pointing out the hyprcrisy of US in using their sad plight to embarass India and put it on the dock when India tries to assert itself.

shivajisisodia · Post by **shivajisisodia** » 19 Sep 2011 06:09

SwamyG wrote:Why U.S. has to Worry about Hindu Terrorism?

I guess these three are responsible for spreading the message of "Saffron Terror" to Indians and the World.

B.Raman's Analysis

Perhaps, it is a "Chankiyan" strategy to convine the world that Hindus can rise up and create problems for everybody too, if they are pushed too far.

Seriously, though, one can trun the negative into a positive, by actually putting out the message to the world that Hindus can be pushed into committing acts of terror too, if they are pushed beyond a point. The world doesnt know that Hindus never will. It is out of the West's frame of reference that a people can just keep on taking it and taking it and taking it.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Sep 2011 23:06

shivajisisodia wrote: The world doesnt know that Hindus never will. It is out of the West's frame of reference that a people can just keep on taking it and taking it and taking it.

You seriously misunderstand the world; and you seriously misunderstand Indians too.

The top most echelons of the "world" do understand "Hindu's" very well, and know they will never use terror, since the fundamental ideological underpinnings that form the basis of terror are different..

However, that to your understanding can not go beyond the second half of the statement.

However despite knowing that pretty well, they will still accuse "Hindu's" of terror if it serves their purpose. They are inherently excellent opportunists.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Sep 2011 02:08

Robert Blackwill on Strengthening U.S.-India Cooperation