Here would be an interesting thought experiment - what do supporters of "improved ties" think of the following piece :http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0216/Obama-must-support-India-Pakistan-rapprochement
Obama must support India-Pakistan rapprochement
Amid all the bad news, there is a bit of hope in South Asia: India and Pakistan have restarted their peace dialogue, with greater economic engagement. The Obama administration should reinforce this effort, which would help US security interests in the region, especially in Afghanistan.
This is an old and well known position that has been mooted by some voices from the USA regularly for over five decades. In fact "bigger names" than CSM have suggested this. Inclusion of Obama's name suggests an internal US political agenda here. Obama is a more recent phenomenon than this "idea"
I have had the opportunity to think about various reasons why anyone in the US might want to say this and I will state what I think I know. No need to take my statements as the ultimate gyan on the issue. these are my thoughts.Possibility 1
: The US is genuinely interested in peace and harmony and means well for all nations on earth. In this light the US simply must do its best to create an atmosphere of love and joy in "South Asia". This reason sounds so good that no one in his right senses would argue with it without being bashed down as a cynic who does not want world peace. This single reason would pass as the best possible motivation if it were not for twisted suspicious minds who cannot understand that the US is all about noble intentions.
: The US has been saying this since the 1960s. For over 50 years Pakistan has tried to get the US involved in negotiating with India or Pakistan has been trying to "multilateralize" its dispute with India and bring in a mediator. India has always stated its issues with Pakistan to be a bilateral issue. The US has played an interesting double game here. While it has agreed that India-Pakistan issues should be solved "bilaterally" and has resisted getting involved, it has involved itself heavily in Pakistan primarily in supporting the Pakistan army in exchange for the latter being an "ally".
I will use an analogy here. The reason who no one calls for peace between Romeo and Juliet is because they have no dispute. If you have a dispute, you can call for peace. If the dispute goes on forever you can forever play a "balancing role" by selectively supporting one side or other. But I must not accuse the US of doing this. It is too far fetched. The US is too nice a nation to fulfil the paranoid delusions of a sick mind.Possibility 3
: This is a relatively recent twist to the US's "desire for peace" 9-11 saw Bush jump enthusiastically into Pakistan with bribes and favors - to the extent of allowing the evacuation of Pakistan advisors to the Taliban from Afghanistan from Kunduz while US bombers kept away. Bush and the US military establishment expected that the Pakis would jump in enthusiastically and clear Afghanistan of the baddies, the Al Qaeda and their hosts the Taliban. In just a few weeks Pakistan's "deep state" screwed the US. The attack on the Indian parliament was staged resulting in India expending a lot of hot air at the border giving a cast iron excuse for Pakistan to keep its army fixed at the Indian border and play no role in the US's original plan of driving Al Qaeda to the border where Pakistani forces would "take care" of them. Take care they did. So from 2002 to 2008 the US begged and beseeched the Pakistan army to "do more" while urging India to give up Kashmir or appear less threatening to Pakistan so that Pakistan would be able to move troops from the border with India to their north-west and do the America job for which the US was paying Pakistan 3 billion US$ a year from 2001. The Pakistan military was probably ROTFL all this time. Possibility 4
This is the latest (current) chapter in the US talking about "peace" between India and Pakistan being in US interests. In 2007 the Lal Masjid standoff created internal rifts in Pakistan. This was followed by an over Islamist takeover or Swat (as opposed to the traditional control of Pakistan by the pretend moderate Pakhana army). Swat is less than a 100 km from islamabad. By the end of 2008, the Mumbai attacks occurred and within days Indian media had access to recorded conversations between Islamist handlers in Pakistan and the terrorists. These events changed two things. They revealed (to the USA) the nexus between the Pakistani army and the islamist terrorists and they also revealed that the Pakistan army seemed to be having a hard time trying to exert their power over the militants. This may have been pretence, but that is not relevant to this discussion. Up until 2008 the US continued to take the position that Pakistan was free to maintain an Islamist militia against india as long as they did the US's job. The US had a "wake up and smell the coffee
" moment after 2008 when they began to realise that Islamic terrorists are islamic. Their allegiance is to Islam. Not the US. They cannot be made specifically anti India. The only specifically anti-India terrorists in the world are the Pakistan army (whom the US military loves very much) and the Paki army outsourced their work to Islamic terrorists who are anti US and anti India. The US is on a losing wicket here. They have no idea how to put the genie back in the bottle and are clutching at straws. Of all the solutions being mooted, one of the solutions that has cropped up in recent days is to "reduce Pakistani paranoia of India". The theory that is now being propagated within US think tanks is that the Pakistani establishment have an irrational fear of India and a reduction of that irrational fear and the improvement of India Pakistan relations would, in the long term serve US interests.
I have enough material in my head to type much more on the implications of all this. But I will stop here with the following concluding statement: If I was asked to deliver a talk to 100 people and tell them the above four "possibilities" on why the US might want an India-Pakistan rapprochement, I bet that most of them would believe only the first one - that the US is well intentioned. Most people would dismiss the other three as my paranoia and delusions or as conspiracy theories.