By the way, re: George Pervertovich, who recently said the US must "recognize Pakistan's concerns about Kashmir and atrocities against Indian Muslims" or some such dung.
Pervertovich has a reputation of being biased against India, even within the State Dept. Here is a post I made several months ago, recounting my interaction with a Phoggy Bottom official. It seems to have been trashed on BRF, but I thought it was worth the re-post:
********
All,
I had the good fortune to interact with a mid-senior level Phoggy Bottom Babu in DC over the last weekend. He is at South Asia desk, quite heavily involved in negotiations with South Block, accompanied Obama to Delhi last year, etc.
Some random things to report, from his perspective, regarding US-India relations.
1) Roemer did not quit over the MRCA deal. He had been planning to quit for months, as his family did not like staying in India at all.
2) The State Dept impression of Roemer is that he is a very energetic guy but a little A.D.D.; could not focus enough to address any single issue with tenacity. South Block of course, is all about tenacity.
3) US Policy on Pakistan is likely to continue as is, for the most part. Nobody has any better ideas, at least that they're willing to talk about in public. Everything about Pakistani perfidy is known to the State Dept and has been known since 9/11. Various scenarios associated with Paki nukes are considered the biggest area of concern; in effect, my source said, the US is being blackmailed and does not have solutions with a reasonable cost-benefit ratio at present.
4) State Dept usually retains a "hangover" momentum from the previous administration's policies. During the Clinton administration, Clinton himself was generally pro-India, but State Dept was anti-India with cold warriors like Warren Christopher and Madeline Allbright in charge. Today Obama is much less actively pro-India than G.W.Bush was... but State Dept. still retains some of the momentum from the Bush/Rice days of being relatively pro-India. Only Presidents can effect a sea change in policy: State Dept are Babus who are largely in the business of implementing pre-existing policy directives rather than coming up with new ones. However, Presidents see things through the lenses of their priorities, and for Obama, India is not that big a priority as it was for GWB.
5) Important: Regarding Think Tankers/Experts, since we pay so much attention to their writings and pronouncements on BR.
Of all the South Asia experts in the US, five are considered to be top-league. Bruce Reidel, Ashley Tellis, Dan Markey, George Perkovitch and Robert Einhorn.
6) Of these five, Reidel, Tellis and Markey are the ones most often consulted by State Dept. regarding US-India policy.
Ashley Tellis is the most pro-India of them all. I must stress here, that my source told me that Ashley Tellis has done more for positive US policy on India than all the other State Dept. people combined. Whether or not you agree that the Nuclear Deal was a good thing for India, it must be recognized that Ashley Tellis was instrumental in getting it formulated and passed, and that he did this out of the most sincere personal conviction that the Nuclear Deal was a good thing for India.
In short, Ashley Tellis is as much a true son of India as a US-citizen working for the US government can possibly be. Regardless of what we think of the Nuclear Deal, he must be recognized and honoured for this. And the fact that State Dept. continues to consult him is a good sign for India.
7) Reidel and Markey are considered to be "balanced" in their views. Their opinions also carry a lot of weight. In general they are not considered to be anti-India.
8 ) George Perkovitch and Robert Einhorn are considered to be anti-India. The words used to describe Perkovitch: "he is difficult to talk to about India."
The important thing for us to realize, is that the State Dept is aware of their bias and applies a judicious amount of salt to whatever they peddle about India.
Perkovitch and Einhorn are not consulted as much as Tellis, Reidel and Markey on matters regarding India.
9) Despite how much importance we give Stephen Cohen on BRF, he was never considered a pre-eminent South Asia expert by the GOTUS, not even in the same league with the five I have mentioned. Today he is considered a has-been even among circles where he was once respected. The Pakistanis wasted their efforts by feeding him samosas fried by Begum Zia's delicate hands. Other than addressing second-rate media circuses and writing largely unheeded columns, Uneven Cohen is of not much consequence.
10) The above applies ten times as much to C. Christine Fair. The opinion in the State Dept. is that she is a "kook". (sic.) Nobody who matters pays any attention to her at all. She is marginalized, frustrated, dismissed and generally worthless... no wonder she sympathizes so much with the Pakis.
So save your heartburn when you read anything written by Uneven Cohen or Christine Unfair... nobody at State Dept. (let alone the White House) gives a $hit about them.
11) Funny. The babu I spoke to had never even heard of George Friedman or STRATFOR!
Really, sometimes we spend a lot of effort on BRF chasing shadows and confusing their pronouncements with genuine GOTUS opinions on foreign policy.
12) Lastly, Holbrooke is largely considered to have failed in his brief all around. He was consistently stonewalled in India, and the opinion is that he was not the right diplomat for the region.