India-US Strategic News and Discussion

RangarajanA · Post by **RangarajanA** » 18 Jul 2011 07:25

I would like to point to an article on John Kerry in the NYT Sunday magazine section.
[url] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17 ... f=magazine[/url]

Why is this article interesting -- two reasons:
1. If Obama wins the second term as a US President, Kerry has a good shot at being the next Secretary of State. So we need to know where his thoughts are.
2. His name is on the bill ("Kerry-Lugar bill") that is giving 7.5B dollars in aid to Pakistan.

This is written by a friendly journalist that he took along with him on a tour of Afghanistan and Pakistan, after the raid that captured OBL.

Some excerpts:
"“Countries and people and leaders of countries act out of self-interest,” he said. “Foreign policy is the art of finding those interests and seeing what serves your nation, and trying to marry them.” That is a crisp summation of the pragmatic calculus that lies beneath the policy of engagement. " -- this seems to be Kerry's underlying philosophy for diplomacy. Nothing wrong here, but we should keep this in mind and remember that all the nice words about "larges democracy", "human rights" etc are just that, words.

Kerry explained not taking the Pakistani army into confidence regarding the raid to capture OBL as:

"Kerry insisted to a group of Pakistani journalists that the decision not to inform Pakistani leaders of the raid in advance had to do with operational secrecy, not mistrust. “In Tora Bora,” he said, “we outsourced the job, and it didn’t work.” U.S. Special Forces could have killed or captured Bin Laden at the battle of Tora Bora in late 2001, but they had left the job to Afghans, and Bin Laden and his men had escaped. The raid in Abbottabad was Tora Bora II. “No American president could have outsourced the job again.”"

Nicely avoided the issue of "trust deficit"

Kerry flies into Pakistan -- straight to meet with Kiyani and Pasha and meets them for 4.5 hours. He is not meeting with his legislative counterparts or the political leadership first. Another data point, if one more was needed, on where the power lies in Pakistan.

archan · Post by **archan** » 18 Jul 2011 23:33

new thread. Split one on-topic post from 100th page of the last one. People, kindly try to be on topic.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Jul 2011 00:52

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14182709
Hillary Clinton due in key India visit

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to begin a three-day visit to India aimed at strengthening political and economic relations.Mrs Clinton's visit comes nearly a week after a series of blasts in the city of Mumbai, which killed 19 people.She will meet Indian leaders in Delhi and travel to the southern city of Chennai, a hub for US investment.
The visit is her second as secretary of state and follows President Barack Obama's last November.Correspondents say Mrs Clinton's visit will seek to expand cooperation between the two countries - from trade and educational exchanges to anti-terror measures.
She will attend a "strategic dialogue" session with Indian officials in the capital, Delhi, on Monday.Mrs Clinton reacted to the Mumbai blasts last week, saying it was "more important than ever that we stand with India".She also reaffirmed her "commitment to the shared struggle against terrorism".No group has said it planted the bombs but suspicion among some officials and analysts has fallen on the Indian Mujahideen, a group which has claimed to have carried out similar attacks in the past.US officials and political analysts say that Mrs Clinton is also likely to press for better ties between India and Pakistan. "She will encourage India to do all it can to engage Pakistan, to find areas where they might be able to break down some of their barriers and build some kind of confidence in each other," Karl Inderfurth, a former senior State Department official, told Reuters news agency.
In June, the two countries agreed on improving access to each other's markets - the US wants India to become one of its top 10 trading partners.India is currently the US's 12th largest trading partner, with bilateral trade of almost $50bn (£31bn).

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 19 Jul 2011 05:26

commitment to the shared struggle against terrorism

After the Libya invasion episode, I'd be extra wary of trusting anything said.

They were friends with Libya and Libya even parked 35 billion in US banks as good will.

That 35 billion has now been seized by the US.

The bad habit of short changing others eventually catches up as trust vanishes.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 19 Jul 2011 08:41

Its unlikely that this government would have the balls to say to Mrs. Clinton. "We wish the Pakistanis well, but good fences make good neighbors and Pakistan is politically, economically, and culturally a separate country and perhaps after 400-500 years we can good relations."

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Jul 2011 08:51

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html
Why aren’t we working with Japan and India?

The Obama administration needs to consider what has shifted in these pivotal relationships and where it bears responsibility for the listlessness in our two biggest strategic partnerships in Asia.Domestic political weakness is at play in both countries. Japan has lurched from one unstable coalition to the next, with more likely to follow if Prime Minister Naoto Kan steps down in August as expected. While the DPJ seems to have abandoned its earlier flirtation with greater “independence” from Washington — thanks in part to Chinese assertiveness this past year — the Obama administration remains strikingly un-ambitious in setting the agenda for security cooperation with Tokyo.
Indians rightly complain that Washington’s preoccupation with China and “Af-Pak” has displaced India as a focus of U.S. foreign policy, and New Delhi has lost confidence in the administration’s commitment to Afghanistan, where a precipitous U.S. withdrawal threatens to undermine core Indian interests with regard to Pakistan, China and terrorism. And as India strikes trade agreements with a range of other partners, a U.S.-India investment treaty is mired in U.S. bureaucracy
Tokyo and New Delhi want to reinforce, not undermine, American leadership in Asia and the world. But mixed U.S. messaging about “strategic restraint” and “strategic reassurance” toward our competitors encourages India and Japan to pursue self-help strategies premised on a belief that Washington’s determination to defend common interests is wanting. The tone of our relationships is set in Washington as well as in Tokyo and New Delhi. The Japanese and Indians may well be all the things American critics allege. But they are the only Japanese and Indians we have, and a bolder vision for these critical partnerships is essential

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Jul 2011 09:53

A Way Forward in U.S.-India Defense Cooperation

There may also be U.S. laws limiting the planes from carrying nuclear weapons.

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 19 Jul 2011 11:15

Clinton is here. What about a complimentary "enhanced patdown" for the diplomatic nicety which Unkil extended to, and defended, the Indian Ambassador Meera Shankar?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Jul 2011 12:29

The Forthcoming Strategic Dialogue with India: Uneven

Delhi keeps Hillary away from Left Waterloo- Calcutta dropped after Centre agonises over US leader’s trip soon after CPM ouster

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2011 12:48

Another Uneven Cohen and Kashmir fan

Published on Jul 19, 2011
By David Wolfe
Finally, It’s Hillary’s Turn: Foreign Policy Journal

Moreover, Sec. Clinton will enjoy greater flexibility to assist in addressing issues such as Kashmir, water rights, and nuclear arms reduction due to the recent Obama Administration announcement on the suspension of $800 million in military assistance to Pakistan, which Pakistan typically has used to strengthen its border with India and fund militant groups, rather than for its intended purpose of fighting terrorists and the Taliban. No longer can India point to US assistance as being part of the problem. Finally, the recent killings of Osama bin Laden and Ilya Kashmiri by the US inside Pakistan also tells India that the ‘US understands the terror state that is Pakistan’, and will unapologetically do what it takes to rid the world, and more importantly the region, of this cancer. Nobody appreciates this more than India; except for maybe Pakistan behind closed doors.

In addition, this may also be the counterpunch the US and the region as a whole need to China’s recent assertiveness in South and Southeast Asia. Secretary Clinton would have an ability to use the resumption of funding as an incentive for Pakistan to accept some of the terms put forth by India with regards to their concerns over the water issue, as well as nuclear safeguards. Additionally, Sec. Clinton would have an ability to present new and possibly logical solutions to deciding the fate of Kashmir that is acceptable to all parties, including the Kashmiri people. Through incentives, as well as a fresh voice with new ideas, India and Pakistan can gain on a number of levels via US assistance, yet maintain an ability to claim ownership in resolving their own bilateral issues.

The real question remains: Can India and Pakistan be reliable partners in a region beset by dysfunction and failed promises? Once and for all, the table is set for Sec. Clinton to finally emerge from the Presidential shadows cast over her by both her husband and current boss. Finally, it’s Hillary’s turn.

My Comment (still unpublished)

David Wolfe seems to be another one of those Pakistan apologists, who even if Pakistan should stab USA in the back, they say "it is minor scratch, sorry I got in your way".

David Wolfe seems to parrot the same old Kashmir rhetoric, that India should make concessions of her own land because Pakistan is a mad terrorist. So more appeasement.

What David Wolfe fails to understand is that if USA so much as gives the impression that it is meddling in the Kashmir issue, it will undo years of hard work between USA and India in improving relations.

Kashmir is not America's to play around with. From Pakistan USA has never received any honest cooperation, and USA will end up losing whatever favorable image it has built over the years in India as well.

David Wolfe seems to be the type of "specialist" that can only help USA hurts its own national interests out of some fancy he developed for some Islamists while he dealt with Kashmir.

If USA loses India, USA would not have a single friend on the Asian Continent between Israel and Japan straddling the two ends of the Asian Continent.

If David Wolfe really is concerned about China, he will be advocating that Pakistanis and Chinese be kicked out of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, a strip of land that makes cooperation between China and Pakistan possible at all. If there is no land connection between China and Pakistan, the relationship is dead, and seeing no other alternative, Pakistan would give in to US demands on counter-terrorism. As long as the land bridge stays between Pakistan and China there is zero chance that Pakistan would cooperate.

If USA wants to regain even a semblance of long-term influence in Asia and Muslim countries in Asia, then control over Pakistan is a necessity, and for that taking away the land-bridge called Gilgit-Baltistan is a precondition. Gilgit-Baltistan also provides an air-bridge from India to American forces in Afghanistan, thus enabling USA access to Afghanistan from the Indian Ocean completely independent of both Pakistan and Iran.

Today with American forces in Afghanistan, this can even be done, for the land-bridge is a stone's throw from Afghanistan.

Instead David Wolfe thinks up of solutions which will weaken Indian grip over her own territory in Kashmir enabling China and Pakistan to build a broader bridge through Kashmir, strengthening their strategic relationship even more, all at the cost of America and American influence in the Muslim World.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 19 Jul 2011 15:53

Hillary may push for fighter aircraft deal with India
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/hillary-may- ... 510-3.html

India needs some of these toys to protect themselves from Chinese threats and others. This does not eliminate cooperating with anyone who helps India to get not only fifth Generation but also work closely in developing technology to defend her borders against any terror and incursion activities. At present India is even threatened by even small countries that are around her.

Opinions
Why aren’t we working with Japan and India?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jul 2011 16:29

^^ They want us to buy F-35 because they over-ordered and want to get rid of the excess stock. We won't get any ToT or anything. At least with FGFA we have built it for our needs and we learn soo much from the experience. Fall out will be on MCA.

I saw the list that she came with. They want us to help them out in Afghanistan and build up ANA/P. India today has the list.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 19 Jul 2011 17:10

They want us to help them out in Afghanistan and build up ANA/P. India today has the list.

Why not help them at this stage? India and US relationship has emerged a long positive way. It is better to get all the exploits such relationship. It is also essential for US to clear all the hurdles of nuclear power sharing.

US committed to expanding N-deal with India

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ind ... epage=true

If US want it to be done it can be done soon. All the barriers can be eliminated as it is essential for them to have relationship developed with India strategically. This does not mean to contain China but to develop India as a powerful democratic country to do long term business with in South Asia.

India and US should colloborate in space programmes as well. Pakistan should not become a framework to be obssessed with neither terrorism. It should be growth and benefits to mutual sides.

If Pakistan wants to grow they should join by eliminating terror and fundamentalism that destroys their own nation and people. If not it will be isolated. But the Chinese red army are supporters of terror govts and so they should not become too powerful. Otherwise terror governments will continue to kill their own people and will get armed by Chinese red army. TError activities of Pakistan based groups or supporting groups are encouraged against India by Chinese red army because they donot want to see India being a soft place for business and growth. Competition should be a healthy one not leading to envy of bringing down each other. This is why India should become powerful with all these toys. Some do not wish to see India becoming powerful in this way.

View: Transforming India Opens Door for U.S. Alliance
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-1 ... -view.html

Full text of India-US joint statement
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Full-text ... 22986.aspx

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jul 2011 17:55

We will, where our interests converge. We will help them (we've been trying to for last 3 years) in afghanistan. They need to show us that we are partners and not some poodle - F-35 would probably catch the eye of IAF, if they part with technology - they aren't showing us that they want to do that yet. Also, issue of a reliable partner due to the past history. For now, they'll probably get transport a/c deals, engines perhaps for Jags etc.

We need the US, they need us in some areas. I just hope that they are a bit more forthcoming on our security interests wrt to Pak like terror. The US can put pressure on pak to close terror groups, if it places stiff conditions. The US needs to do more, more than the other way round.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2011 21:10

Published on Jul 19, 2011
By Jyoti Thottam
Six Things to Watch from Hillary Clinton's India Tour: Time Blogs

3. Afghanistan. The Indian foreign ministry spokesman made sure to use the phrase “regional issues of interest” in his briefing about Clinton's visit. It's a signal that New Delhi is keen to have the U.S. publicly acknowledge India's role in Afghanistan's uncertain future. The Associated Press reports that Clinton will deliver a message to allay fears that the Taliban (seen by India as a Pakistani proxy) will gain the upper hand, reassuring India that the U.S. “will not support Afghan reconciliation with insurgents unless it is inclusive and protects the rights of minority groups, religions and women.” This is a tricky balancing act. Pakistan resents any Indian involvement in Afghanistan, and India hasn't reached total consensus about whether it should rely on soft power in Kabul, as it has in the past, or engage more forcefully. Clinton will spell out the U.S. regional vision in a speech Wednesday in Chennai.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Jul 2011 23:59

="RajeshAcom/2011/07/19/finally-its-hillarys-turn/comment-page-1/#comment-152952]My Comment[/url] (still unpublished)
David Wolfe seems to be another one of those Pakistan apologists, who even if Pakistan should stab USA in the back, they say "it is minor scratch, sorry I got in your way".
David Wolfe seems to parrot the same old Kashmir rhetoric, that India should make concessions of her own land because Pakistan is a mad terrorist. So more appeasement..

Shriman Rajesh ,
He is one of Fai's F Buddies.

David Wolfe, South Asia international human security specialist, who had himself been placed under house arrest and accused of 'uniting separatists' during a recent visit to Kashmir, maintained that the armed struggle was not the way forward. 'The non-violent struggle has been painful, but the Kashmiris cannot give up on it. You only have to see the resolve on their faces.' He also pointed out the detrimental effect of armed fighters coming across the line of control from Pakistan. 'The only people who get hurt are the Kashmiris they are supposedly coming over to help.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0729-Kashmir.html

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jul 2011 00:29

Sab ek thali ke chatte-batte
Ab mil ke dabocho Paki-tatte

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2011 01:08

shyamd wrote:^^ They want us to buy F-35 because they over-ordered and want to get rid of the excess stock. We won't get any ToT or anything. At least with FGFA we have built it for our needs and we learn soo much from the experience. Fall out will be on MCA.

I saw the list that she came with. They want us to help them out in Afghanistan and build up ANA/P. India today has the list.

India cannot be a partner of US at all since US has invested too much in Pakistan and has trade with China for too long. They have to solve their problem with Pakistan and India has to take care of its interest, its border and its security.
US interest and Indian interest is diverging now and India has to survive the mistakes done by super powers in the region for the last 50 years.

F-35 is too expensive toys for India and it is an overkill for India. The reason for offering may be that some ego in US has been damaged by India rejecting the inferior toys F16/18. THey want to show that they are still in the race and US can still provide something which is useful to India. F-35 is a ego booster for US and India is not in it to boost the ego of other nations.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2011 01:13

RajeshA wrote:Another Uneven Cohen and Kashmir fan

What David Wolfe fails to understand is that if USA so much as gives the impression that it is meddling in the Kashmir issue, it will undo years of hard work between USA and India in improving relations.

Kashmir is not America's to play around with. From Pakistan USA has never received any honest cooperation, and USA will end up losing whatever favorable image it has built over the years in India as well.

This kashmir thing has to be taken out of the plate of US soon since they have lost track of it. They have never been involved with the independence of India and do not really recognize the Hindu religion and its history.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2011 01:17

joshvajohn wrote: At present India is even threatened by even small countries that are around her.

Is this a joke. Or is it a personal opinion.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jul 2011 01:23

Acharya wrote: US interest and Indian interest is diverging now and India has to survive the mistakes done by super powers in the region for the last 50 years.

I disagree. I think it is converging in some areas more than ever before - SE Asia, West Asia, PRC crossing the line, economy amongst other areas.

But keep in mind, alliances change depending on ground realities, geopolitics.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2011 01:26

Prem wrote: US officials and political analysts say that Mrs Clinton is also likely to press for better ties between India and Pakistan. "She will encourage India to do all it can to engage Pakistan, to find areas where they might be able to break down some of their barriers and build some kind of confidence in each other," Karl Inderfurth, a former senior State Department official, told Reuters news agency.

Err. Is this US-India dialogue or a US-Pakistan vs India dialogue.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2011 01:39

shyamd wrote:
I disagree. I think it is converging in some areas more than ever before - SE Asia, West Asia, PRC crossing the line, economy amongst other areas.

But keep in mind, alliances change depending on ground realities, geopolitics.

Agree to disagree. What is Indian interest which is being helped by US

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 20 Jul 2011 01:42

abhishek_sharma wrote:The Forthcoming Strategic Dialogue with India: Uneven

Some real dishonest nonsesne from Uneven

A top priority for the United States should have been to serve as a monitor of Indian and Pakistani presence in Afghanistan, but the conceptually silly “Af-Pak” framework prohibits this, leaving India out. The country has thus emerged as another site for the India-Pakistan cold war, yet both Islamabad and Delhi will be among the first to suffer the consequences from the post-withdrawal mess.

Why is AfPak silly? Because it offends his Pakijabi clients who would rather have it cast is IndiaPak? Next, I don't understand why a US withdrawn will be bad for TSP. After all, TSP cannot wait for US to leave do they can march into Kabul with their "good Talibunnie" proxies, with lots help from Punjabi pigLeTs. Of couse, US withdrawl will be bad for India to a certain extent given that US presence will at least restrain TSP's use of "non state actors" against India. And what is this "cold war" crap. India wanting a stable, peaceful democractic Afganisthan is equivalent to TSP controlling Afganisthan with medival barbarians? Allowing this kind of nonsense to be perpetuated is the kind of abject foreign policy diplomatic failures of MMS & Co.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2011 02:33

View: Transforming India Opens Door for U.S. Alliance
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-1 ... -view.html

------------------

Some Indians, mostly among the intellectual elites and lower-level government officials, don’t share Singh’s enthusiasm for close ties with the U.S. They see their country as the inheritor of a great civilization and fear becoming subservient to the U.S. Given these countervailing pressures on Singh’s government, there may be limits on the scope of India’s transformation that could also restrict the terms of an alliance with the U.S. But Washington shouldn’t be deterred by these internal deliberations.

Interesting observation that only a "small group looks at India as great civilization " and rest of the people look forward to work with US.
This is very intersting aspect of political sociology which US is tryng to use to build different supporters inside India. Bu picting one group against the other US wants to get thier interest taken care of.
But to keep Indians not get suspicious the author also says - "But Washington shouldn’t be deterred by these internal deliberations."

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Jul 2011 03:04

shyamd wrote:
Acharya wrote: US interest and Indian interest is diverging now and India has to survive the mistakes done by super powers in the region for the last 50 years.
I disagree. I think it is converging in some areas more than ever before - SE Asia, West Asia, PRC crossing the line, economy amongst other areas.

But keep in mind, alliances change depending on ground realities, geopolitics.

+1.

Though I think your earlier remark about the F-35 and the IAF is misplaced. The JSF program is on its death spiral. Costs too much you order less and the cost goes up so you order fewer and so on.

The whole thrust of the MILIND complex in the US now is how to get 'allies' and/or friends to sign on for LM and Boeing vision of future weapons so the unit numbers are high and thus subsidize the Pentagon acquisition program.

I was a supporter of the US bid for the MMRCA but the F-35 canard is too much. The PAK/FA FAK/PA thingie will eventually lead to a coherent AMCA whatever. The F-35 is a AMCA killer.

OT but like everyone else I focused on the avionics. VV important but for India the real threshold is engine and metallurgy.

As to the F-35 and ToT fuggetabouddit! The Brits and Aussie liasons on the the JSF are seething about ToT and access to codes etc they thought were part of the deal.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jul 2011 03:06

Acharya wrote: Agree to disagree. What is Indian interest which is being helped by US

economy. They want us to look after IOR. They are weak and are outsourcing things to us. This is not limited to India, but also Turkey and a few other nations. PRC must not be allowed to enter af-pak. PRC/Afg/Iran/Iraq combo may make a run for the oil fields. So, US finds it convenient to give India the torch. So what you will see temporarily is a US/India combo on some things in our areas. This game is big.

Why do you think hillary is pushing US weapons to us?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2011 03:07

This is the comment on the bloomberg report. THis guy is realistic.

scotchsky 6 hours ago

I've been working with the Indian military for two years now, and would agree that there is a wonderful ideological foundation from which to build a truly powerful and mutually beneficial partnership with India, but the strategic possibilities are much diluted by the current operational realities. From my perspective, India is currently hamstrung by its overbearing diplomatic bureaucracy, and still-constrictively rigid social hierarchies that are so poorly suited to today's organizational realities: networked, de-centralized, an distributed wins the day. There is tremendous talent, tolerance, and promise in the 40 and under set, but India is going to have to scrape through a few more years of a national system controlled by a generation defined by hardheadedness, intolerance, and cronyism. The US, for our part, seems pretty much incapable of the notion of "partnership", and Nadeem who chimes in below about mistrust of US aims and methods has valid concerns. This prospective partnership has to be based on mutual respect and mutual benefit, and the day that either is missing, the US can be counted on to pull out. We're brutally unsentimental partners, best suited, as Nadeem points out, for shorter term pol-mil alliances of common cause, and longer term trade.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2011 03:08

shyamd wrote:
economy. They want us to look after IOR. They are weak and are outsourcing things to us. This is not limited to India, but also Turkey and a few other nations. PRC must not be allowed to enter af-pak. PRC/Afg/Iran/Iraq combo may make a run for the oil fields. So, US finds it convenient to give India the torch. So what you will see temporarily is a US/India combo on some things in our areas. This game is big.

Why do you think hillary is pushing US weapons to us?

Where is the torch. Where is the meat. Till now it is all talk

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jul 2011 03:15

Cosmo_R , thanks for your reply.

exactly my point. They are cutting JSF orders and need someone to make it cheaper. They have offered to several nations - UAE, India etc. What we learn from FGFA we can use for MCA. Look into how US mil/space R&D expenditure is being cut (this will weaken the US for a long time to come). So the hope is to partner with someone like France and better the US tech (in some areas we are almost there). I guess our scientific advisors will be the best ones to advise on our capabilities and how we can advance them.

The lack of ToT for F-35 means it is out of the race unless US wants us to support certain areas of their foreign policy. But french a/c give us options to join NATO missions - so we don't need US a/c anyway. Russian fleet allow us to join Russian missions/foreign polciy. US fleet might be useful for somethings, but not all. French/EU is better.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jul 2011 03:18

Acharya wrote: Where is the torch. Where is the meat. Till now it is all talk

Strategic analysis is based on history and my knowledge of how the US & indian strategists think, as well as geopolitics & current events. Imo, the Indo-Afghan defence signing evidence of the first moves in this direction. I am certain it was a US backed move. Hillary seems to be talking of "capacity building". Ask a military wala what that means in defence terms.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2011 03:21

Still not acceptable. Not enough in it

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Jul 2011 03:34

Acharya wrote:Still not acceptable. Not enough in it

Your economic single sentence expectations and standards are too high. Suggest IMHVVVVVO you bring them down to human levels.

Otherwise you create despondency, defeat. IOW FUD

Good Nayak that you are, I trust you understand.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2011 03:39

I am just replying to his points. All are valid points such as ""capacity building" etc. But there is something more they want including controlling the foriegn policy of India in certain ways. For and Mil policy are soverign policy of any country. But they see that there is a section of Indians who want US to get inside India. That is the most important news in these reports.

There are people in BRF who post such as smaller neighbours are threats to Indian nation. They want to blowup threats and show that outside help is required

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2011 03:49

Apologies if already posted.

As I had imagined long back ..............................

'US should pursue military engagement with India'

"The US should pursue robust strategic and military engagement with India in order to encourage a stable balance of power in Asia that prevents China from dominating the region and surrounding seas," said Lisa Curtis and Dean Cheng, of The Heritage Foundation in an article 'A Strategic vision for US-India Relations'.

And ..................... the original paper:

The China Challenge: A Strategic Vision for U.S.–India Relations

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 20 Jul 2011 04:10

Posted by Cosmo_R

As to the F-35 and ToT fuggetabouddit! The Brits and Aussie liasons on the the JSF are seething about ToT and access to codes etc they thought were part of the deal.

Please don't take this me supporting US fighter aircraft in any way but just to set the facts right, UK was furious about Lockmart refusing to share the code an cause a dependence on US weapons, and an inability to integrate home grown weapons. GWB, in his time, personally intervened and instructed the LM led MILIND complex to share it with them with an executive order, if I remember. After all they had invested more than a few Billion squid (that they couldn't afford) in the program and were partners in it from day one (or atleast close). UK shared a lot of their VTOF knowledge and engineering, they were the masters of this with the Harrier. If you recall, they actually provided the US with the Merlin engine in WWII that made the P-51 Mustang what it was and the first jet engine tech that made the F-86 Sabre what it became in Korea. Really Bad on LM to be this way (maybe lawyers calling the shots with too much free time) with our 51st state but really good for GWB to step in. I don't think the Aussies cared, they just want to use the plane.

I don't know if India can risk this with Obama or any new POTUS.

GWB,for all his comical, laughable behavior, had his head on straight for 90 percent of the critical matters.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Jul 2011 04:59

@AnantD ^^^. True GWB did all that. The problem at the ground level: people I know personally Oz and Brits specifically on the JSF program liaison over dinner chez nous voiced these frustrations. IOW, it was not working at the basic level because it was being blocked at the lower levels. It took a threat by Brown to to go with naval Rafales over the JSF to bring the DoD into line.

And FWIW, I am a great supporter of US technology and exports and jobs and all that. BUT the GOTUS has to realize it is selling not renting hardware.

I don't think they realize that India is a different breed.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2011 05:52

Although it is very natural to compare (based on what we know) and extrapolate based on that too, the dynamics with India is very different. I just do not see what has happened with the UK or Australia as too relevant with India.

What India brings to the table today and the near future (about 25 years or so) I very much doubt that either of those two countries brought to the table in the past 100 years.

Just that India has to produce and be accountable for what she does. And, I think, China will help India in this matter.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 20 Jul 2011 07:44

shyamd wrote:I saw the list that she came with. They want us to help them out in Afghanistan and build up ANA/P. India today has the list.

Shyam, could you please post this list for people who don't have access to India today!!

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 20 Jul 2011 07:47

Clinton pitches for more military sales to India

Clinton was addressing a press conference with her counterpart SM Krishna after the two held their second strategic dialogue on the second day of her visit. The joint statement issued after the talks also spoke of US military sales and sharing of defence technologies with India.

"India's defence orders from US companies have reached a cumulative value of over $8 billion in the last decade. These sales reflect strengthened cooperation. "Both sides affirmed their desire to strengthen cooperation through technology transfer, and joint research, development and production of defence items," it said.