India-US Strategic News and Discussion

[arun]

Josy Joseph writing in TOI reveals that declassified Indian documents shown that US hostility to India during the 1971 war with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was more intense than previously disclosed:

US forces had orders to target Indian Army in 1971

[Philip]

A full page devoted to classified docs. about the same.For all pro-US honchos,see how the US planned to attack the Indian armed froces and prevent the pakis from surrendering.A few decades from now,long after some of us have kicked the bucket,when more secret docs are opened,we will again see the entire gamut of Paki-US chicanery directed against India,the planning of terror attacks well known to the US like that of 26/11,etc. and other despicable JVs between the two against India.Let these historical facts remind us never to get into an embrace with Uncle Sam.A cordial hand-shake is enough.We can do business with the US with a hand-shake.If you embrace him as Yahya ,the Shah,Saddam,Gaddhafi and others did however,you will end up in the dustbin of history.

We must thank the dear Lord for giving us Mrs.G. at that time.When we see the enormous forces ranged against India at that time and her steely determination to defeat them,what a leader!

[Altair]

As I told earlier India was not threatened by impending attack by an American carrier strike group positioned off our coast when we had far less economic and political clout in the world. Does Pakistan really think that they can threaten India now? with what exactly?
China understands that its economy is not going to grow as fast as in the past decade because of Euro and American financial woes. It needs India more than ever. If US thinks that it can fool India into getting on its lap it must think again.
This is the most important moment for India and unfortunately we have a lame duck Prime Minister and a reptillian Maino at helm. May karma do its part.

[ramana]

Whose papers are these? GOI or GOTUS?

[Rudradev]

Philip: it may well have come to actual hostilities. It is a commonly held belief among officers of the Indian Navy (I know several personally) that the frigate INS Khukri was torpedoed and sunk off the coast of Diu, not by the PNS submarine Hangor but by a United States Navy submarine, during the 1971 war. There are a number of controversies and allegations of cover ups regarding the IN's official account of the Khukri incident, in which 194 Indian Sailors lost their lives... the only IN ship lost in any war. There are conflicting details, particularly regarding the number of torpedoes fired, between eyewitness accounts from sailors on the nearby INS Kirpan and officially admitted reports. Besides that, the Hangor commander's version of the incident ("the ship sank in two minutes") is even more fictitious and less credible than most Paki military claims of achievement tend to be.

The stated belief is that it was quite impossible for a PNS vessel to have run the blockade of Karachi and been in the vicinity at all; that it was, in fact, a USN sub that attacked and destroyed the Indian ship on December 9th, 1971. The Enterprise CBG itself arrived on station in the Bay of Bengal on December 11th, 1971-- with marines and bomber aircraft on standby to engage the Indian Army on Nixon's orders.

[Rahul M]

here are the 1971 documents.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocu ... 1969-76v11

also check the documents running up to the 1965 war from another set of documents in the link.
most interesting is the naked truth about US offer of partnership which India is supposed to have rebuffed.

[rajanb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakis ... nvolvement

On 6 December and 13 December, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of cruisers and destroyers and a submarine armed with nuclear missiles from Vladivostok;[67] they trailed U.S. Task Force 74 into the Indian Ocean from 18 December 1971 until 7 January 1972. The Soviets also had a nuclear submarine to help ward off the threat posed by USS Enterprise task force in the Indian Ocean.[68] [69]

If the Yanquis had tried anything, they would have had their hands full.

Also a note about India's Special Tibetan Forces:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/dec/26claude.htm

It is worth mentioning an episode which, of course, does not appear in the American archives -- The Tibetan participation in the conflict. After the debacle of 1962, the Government of India had recruited some Tibetans youth in the eventuality of another conflict with China. The Special Frontier Force was trained in Chakrata in Uttar Pradesh [ Images ] under the command of an Indian general.

In 1971, nine years after its creation, the SFF was sent to East Pakistan to prepare for the arrival of regular Indian troops. Their saga is one of the least known parts of the Bangladesh war.

Late October 1971, an AN-12 airlifted nearly 3,000 Tibetans who later assembled at Demagiri close to the India-East Pakistan border. On the other side of the border were the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Armed with Bulgarian-made assault rifles, the SFF was given the task of organising guerrilla raids across the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Opposite the SSF, in thick jungles and leech-infested marshes, was stationed a Pakistan brigade, including a battalion of its elite Special Services Group.

The Indian army [ Images ] knew this brigade was a threat to one of its corps preparing to advance on Dhaka.

During the second week of November, Operation Eagle began. Leaving Demagiri in canoes, the Tibetans commandos entered East Pakistan. The SFF then started overrunning one Pakistani post after another.

By the time the war was officially declared, the Tibetans had already been inside East Pakistan for more than three weeks. Using both their Bulgarian rifles and native knives, they advanced swiftly. Their Indian commandaner, Major General S S Uban later said, 'They were unstoppable.'

On December 16, the SSF was 40 kilometers away from Chittagong port, having successfully managed to neutralise the Pakistani brigade.

After Pakistan's surrender, they paraded through Chittagong. Unfortunately, 49 Tibetans lost their lives for a nation which was not theirs.

The release of the State Department volume on the 1971 conflict is a posthumous homage to the courage of the Indian Army which despite heavy odds and the might of the United States freed Bangladesh from Pakistani clutches.

Apologies if posted earlier. I hope we still have this unit around.

[merlin]

As I told earlier India was not threatened by impending attack by an American carrier strike group positioned off our coast when we had far less economic and political clout in the world. Does Pakistan really think that they can threaten India now? with what exactly?

This is the most important moment for India and unfortunately we have a lame duck Prime Minister and a reptillian Maino at helm. May karma do its part.

The difference in all in the leadership. Who thinks that MMS won't abandon a strong Indian response to a Pakistani attack for a Nobel peace prize?

[V_Raman]

This is the most important moment for India and unfortunately we have a lame duck Prime Minister and a reptillian Maino at helm. May karma do its part.

i really think think that india/china understand the golden opportunity they have in front of them to drive the west out of our neighborhood. i still have faith in our netas.

[ramana]

darshann, TO me it appears that there was compact between Democrats and INC that the Repubs broke when they came to power in late sixites. The INC thought they had a deal with US. The Repubs thought the deal was with Democrats and not all US. It led to the smiling Buddha. The Democrats then got angry that INC reneged and setup the NSG regime agaisnt India. Circumustances led to POKII. While the Repubs were ready for real poltick the Democrats in Congress were not. Eg Hyde (bound) act.

The inner anger is still not yet resolved for the Democrats. Hence the urge to prop up TSP against India which is laughable.

Can a dung beetle match an elephant?

[Philip]

There is someone I know extremely well who helped plan the raid on Karachi.I will ask him about the Khurki controversy next time I meet him.However,reports from the survivors say that Capt.Mulla,who saw to it that his crew got off th ship first, was lsat seen on the brigde in his deck chair/favourite chair if I remember correctly.This would contradict the "two minutes" sinking oif the vessel by the Paki sub...if it did sink the Khukri.It is not beyond the bounds of conjecture,especially in the light of the current revelations, that a US nuclear sub that did the job after the successful raid on Karachi by the IN,in an attempt to stop further destruction of the Paki fleet.

What is not an item of dispute however is that of the USN preparing to save the LTTE's fuhrer and his key commanders and cadre when the LTTE's defeat and destruction was imminent.Both diplomatic and physical attempts were made to save his skin,but like Indira,the Lankan govt. never gave in to the pressure.Now that we know that the US was deceitful in its sanctions statements,secretly arming the Pakis while pretending that they had been stopped and actually planned to go to war wih India,we will have to take its statements about Paki cooperation in the so-called war on terror with a bagful of salt.

[darshhan]

darshann, TO me it appears that there was compact between Democrats and INC that the Repubs broke when they came to power in late sixites. The INC thought they had a deal with US. The Repubs thought the deal was with Democrats and not all US. It led to the smiling Buddha. The Democrats then got angry that INC reneged and setup the NSG regime agaisnt India. Circumustances led to POKII. While the Repubs were ready for real poltick the Democrats in Congress were not. Eg Hyde (bound) act.

The inner anger is still not yet resolved for the Democrats. Hence the urge to prop up TSP against India which is laughable.

Can a dung beetle match an elephant?

Ramana ji , You are right about democrats not being on board when Bush administration had started delinking India from Pakistan.Maybe the democrats are still angry with India but inspite of what they feel about India , they will not be able to reverse the delinking.

There are two main reasons for this.First of all India has been growing fast economically for the last two decades(despite bad governance and mediocre leadership).This has steadily increased the gap between India and Pakistan in India's favor.The trend is likely to continue in the future and this gap will continue to widen.Even the massive amounts of aid that is given to Pakistan by US will not plug this gap.

The second reason might be even more important.US is headed for economically turbulent times.Too much debt coupled with too much govt spending.Their deficit is continuously growing.The point is that US is in deep trouble for now.It will be expending too much energy domestically to indulge in international game playing(Great games , balancing etc) for long.There is an old saying which says that when in deep shit , one starts seeing things more clearly and starts acting objectively.

Apart from this antipathy towards Pakistan is also growing among Americans as more and more Americans realise that it is the Pakis who are responsible for the deaths of more than 1700 US soldiers in Afghanistan ,not to mention the involvement of Pakistani establishment with Islamic fundamentalism.This should also curtail the support given to Pakistan by the Democrats.

[chetak]

There is someone I know extremely well who helped plan the raid on Karachi.I will ask him about the Khurki controversy next time I meet him.However,reports from the survivors say that Capt.Mulla,who saw to it that his crew got off th ship first, was lsat seen on the brigde in his deck chair/favourite chair if I remember correctly.This would contradict the "two minutes" sinking oif the vessel by the Paki sub...if it did sink the Khukri.It is not beyond the bounds of conjecture,especially in the light of the current revelations, that a US nuclear sub that did the job after the successful raid on Karachi by the IN,in an attempt to stop further destruction of the Paki fleet.

What is not an item of dispute however is that of the USN preparing to save the LTTE's fuhrer and his key commanders and cadre when the LTTE's defeat and destruction was imminent.Both diplomatic and physical attempts were made to save his skin,but like Indira,the Lankan govt. never gave in to the pressure.Now that we know that the US was deceitful in its sanctions statements,secretly arming the Pakis while pretending that they had been stopped and actually planned to go to war wih India,we will have to take its statements about Paki cooperation in the so-called war on terror with a bagful of salt.

Phillip saar,

The Khukri did not sink in "two minutes".

When the ship went down, survivors reported that Capt Mulla was seated in the Captain's chair on the bridge with the cable of the bridge telephone wrapped around in such a way that he had anchored himself to the chair.

Despite many entreaties from his crew he refused to abandon his ship even as he made sure that he got the others safely off.

He had all the time required in case the thought of himself abandoning his own ship ever crossed his mind. He was a tough task master and Naval tradition dictates that the captain goes down with the ship. At least it did in those days.

These days they are among the first to jump, their own crew be damned.

[JE Menon]

>>These days they are among the first to jump, their own crew be damned.

Yes, nowadays they are all scoundrels, useless fellows interested only in personal benefit of one sort of another. May even take a bribe to get their own ship sunk.

We in BRF are uniquely moral Indians who suffer no such inclination, and can immediately spot such traitorous behaviour in entire arms of the military even before one incident of such a nature happens. BRF, ahead of the curve as always.

[chetak]

>>These days they are among the first to jump, their own crew be damned.

Yes, nowadays they are all scoundrels, useless fellows interested only in personal benefit of one sort of another. May even take a bribe to get their own ship sunk.

We in BRF are uniquely moral Indians who suffer no such inclination, and can immediately spot such traitorous behaviour in entire arms of the military even before one incident of such a nature happens. BRF, ahead of the curve as always.

JE M saar,

Such an incident has already occurred.

In August 1990, the Petya class, anti-submarine frigate INS Andaman sank.

At that time, even though lives were lost, the Captain was, callously and disgracefully, to say the least, among the first to leave. He was kicked out / left later as I dimly seem to recall.

The Services mirror the society from which they spring and the changing mores are well and truly reflected as can easily and frequently be seen today.

And being second generation in the Service gives one a long time frame composite worm's and bird's eye view as it were.

[JE Menon]

>>At that time, even though lives were lost, the Captain was, callously and disgracefully, to say the least, among the first to leave. He was kicked out / left later as I dimly seem to recall.

Boss, and this one incident, in which the captain faced punitive measures, is reason enough for you to say "These days they are among the first to jump, their own crew be damned." Why are we so ready to condemn an entire body of men and women, many of whom, perhaps the vast majority of whom, serve with honour and integrity? Of course the services mirror the society from which they spring, but is it the case that ours is a society of unremitting immorality, where the default position one must take is that the majority is corrupt and dishonourable, where cynicism is unleavened by the myriad positives which one experiences every day amidst the undoubted negatives? I refuse to take such a position because it is not true. I believe you are the one who posted the article by the fellow who returned to the US, and the wonderfully sensitive response by Chetan Bhagat. How come that you stated this then? I know perhaps in the heat of the moment or carelessness you may have stated it, but you must know in your heart that this cannot be the case - not for all.

Certainly our society has its flaws, and has its fundamental problems. No one is making a case that we are anywhere close to perfect. That is why we are on BRF examining in minute detail a number of its problems, and occasionally throwing up an interesting idea or two. India is brimming with goodness and hope as well as aspiration and virtue. We should not buy into this narrative of negativism purveyed primarily by the media which is besotted with the Western narrative (while blind to the flaws in those societies), often beholden to them and almost always beguiled by them.

Just a thought.

[JwalaMukhi]

Certainly our society has its flaws, and has its fundamental problems. No one is making a case that we are anywhere close to perfect. That is why we are on BRF examining in minute detail a number of its flaws, and occasionally throwing up an interesting idea or two. India is brimming with goodness and hope as well as aspiration and virtue. We should not buy into this narrative of negativism which is purveyed primarily by the media which is besotted with the Western narrative (while blind to the flaws in those societies), often beholden to them and almost always beguiled by them.

Just a thought.

+100. JEM saar, please to be writing more onlee. Perspective, perspective and perspective is the word. Timely and much needed reminder across many threads.

[ramana]

So 30 years before Texmati was saying in 2001 US will help rise of India, US was actually helping keep India down!!!

How ironic.

[Altair]

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/ ... 006klz.php

Magnitude 5.6 - OKLAHOMA
2011 November 06 03:53:10 UTC

[chetak]

>>At that time, even though lives were lost, the Captain was, callously and disgracefully, to say the least, among the first to leave. He was kicked out / left later as I dimly seem to recall.

Boss, and this one incident, in which the captain faced punitive measures, is reason enough for you to say "These days they are among the first to jump, their own crew be damned." Why are we so ready to condemn an entire body of men and women, many of whom, perhaps the vast majority of whom, serve with honour and integrity? Of course the services mirror the society from which they spring, but is it the case that ours is a society of unremitting immorality, where the default position one must take is that the majority is corrupt and dishonourable, where cynicism is unleavened by the myriad positives which one experiences every day amidst the undoubted negatives? I refuse to take such a position because it is not true. I believe you are the one who posted the article by the fellow who returned to the US, and the wonderfully sensitive response by Chetan Bhagat. How come that you stated this then? I know perhaps in the heat of the moment or carelessness you may have stated it, but you must know in your heart that this cannot be the case - not for all.

Certainly our society has its flaws, and has its fundamental problems. No one is making a case that we are anywhere close to perfect. That is why we are on BRF examining in minute detail a number of its problems, and occasionally throwing up an interesting idea or two. India is brimming with goodness and hope as well as aspiration and virtue. We should not buy into this narrative of negativism purveyed primarily by the media which is besotted with the Western narrative (while blind to the flaws in those societies), often beholden to them and almost always beguiled by them.

Just a thought.

Sirjee,

You have a valid point. Negativism has never helped anyone. A majority of the folks who perished on the Andaman were all the Heads of Department and some section heads who valiantly stayed back to help manage the evacuation. It matters very little if one joker ran away.

I painted with too wide a brush. Second time I seem to have done this today. Apologies for both occasions.

[ramana]

Every time India manages to forget the past and moves two steps ahead towards the US, the US releases its dirt and pushes the relationship four steps back.

[Philip]

Ramanna,what galls Indians most is that we have been a nation that historically almost never resorted to invasions,but was repeatdly invaded and raped by our conquerors.In the post WW2 era where a more integrated world would eschew military force to resolve conflicts and let the UN resolve them,we find that the very members of the UNSC like the US in this instance have double standards.When exposed,I am reminded of what the good Dr.Tim Hoyt used to say in defence about US chicanery against India,"it happened a long time ago"!

[abhishek_sharma]

When I talked about Nixon-Kissinger's policies towards India, an American replied: "Oh, we should not be blamed for what Nixon did!"

[svinayak]

To me another american told me that he would vote for Nixon again if given a chance.

[merlin]

Every time India manages to forget the past and moves two steps ahead towards the US, the US releases its dirt and pushes the relationship four steps back.

We would not be having this problem and angst if we were moving towards the US for our own self interest rather than theirs.

[Philip]

I actually admire Nixon for many reasons,even though he couldn't stand India and "that woman" ! He had ghoulies and took tough decisions when they had to be done,not like our wets these days.Detente with the Soviets,the ending of the Vietnam War,SALT,and his opening up to China were his great lachievements.

As I've said elsewhere,we can have a cordial handshake with the US and do much business together,but to shamelessly embrace Uncle Sam like a Paki rent-boy (or we love you Dubya) is beyond the pale.

[Altair]

Is an American military general or some one in Joint chiefs in India?

[JwalaMukhi]

When I talked about Nixon-Kissinger's policies towards India, an American replied: "Oh, we should not be blamed for what Nixon did!"

Yah right, what is america? a banana dictatorship like libya or pakistan? That's a lousy way for a proud american who proudly votes and elects their leaders in free and fair elections and touts democracy to everyone. Have to take the responsibility. Else.
Yes sir, no difference between pakis talking about non-state actors and laying blame on one individual in a democratic setup. There will be foibles, but to wriggle it out like a paki, probably reflects the underlying pakiness.

[ramana]

X-posted...

In this article, an American discusses many military scenarios involving Pakistan (and other countries).

This is interesting:

It is even possible that the United States might, depending on how the conflict began, consider trying to shoot down any missile launched from either side at the other, given the huge human and strategic perils associated with nuclear-armed missiles striking the great cities of South Asia.

Relevant quotes:

Here they say South Asia imperils their security!

...
But "standoff" warfare featuring long-range strikes from planes and ships cannot address many of the world's key security challenges today -- and possible scenarios in places like Korea and South Asia, discussed further below, that could in fact imperil American security.....

Scenarios:

Some might question whether we even still need a one-war capability. Alas, it is not hard to imagine plausible scenarios. Even if each specific case is unlikely, a number of scenarios cannot be ruled out. What if insurgency in Pakistan began to threaten that country's nuclear arsenal, and the Pakistani army concluded that it needed our help in stabilizing their country? Far-fetched at present, to be sure -- but so was the idea of war in Afghanistan if you had asked almost any American strategist in 1995 or 2000. Or perhaps, after another Indo-Pakistani war that reached the nuclear threshold, the international community might be asked to lead a stabilization and trustee mission in Kashmir following a ceasefire -- not an appealing prospect to anyone at present, but hard to rule out if a nuclear exchange put the subcontinent on the brink of complete disaster. {Dream on!!!}What if Yemen's turmoil allowed al-Qaeda to set up a major sanctuary there like it did in Afghanistan fifteen years ago? What if North Korea began to implode and both South Korea and the United States felt the need to restore order before the former's estimated nuclear arsenal of perhaps eight bombs wound up in the wrong hands?....

And more of them....

Consider one of these -- the Pakistan scenario -- in more detail. Such a scenario is extremely unlikely; for all its challenges, Pakistan does not appear on the verge of collapse. It is also important to underscore, especially in this period of fraught U.S.-Pakistan relations, that any international effort to help Pakistan restore order to its own territory could only be carried out with the full acquiescence, and at the invitation of, its government. {Which govt? The Army or the civilian facade?}That is because there is no scenario I can imagine in which Pakistan's army would entirely melt away, meaning that it would be a force we would have to reckon with and in fact want to work with regardless of circumstances. It is also because the country is so huge that the task would be unthinkably demanding, even with today's military, if the U.S. and international roles were not primarily in support of indigenous efforts. Even independent American writers like me can worry Pakistanis with discussion of such scenarios, and the May 2011 killing of bin Laden only exacerbates the Pakistani sensitivities to any discussion of scenarios that would infringe upon their sovereignty. But we cannot avoid the issue.

Of all the military scenarios that undoubtedly would involve U.S. vital interests, a collapsed Pakistan ranks very high on the list. The combination of Islamic extremists and nuclear weapons in that country is extremely worrisome. Were parts of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal ever to fall into the wrong hands, al-Qaeda could conceivably gain access to a nuclear device with terrifying possible results. The Pakistan collapse scenario appears somewhat unlikely given the country's traditionally moderate officer corps; however, some parts of its military as well as the intelligence services, which created the Taliban and have condoned if not abetted Islamic extremists in Kashmir, are becoming less moderate and less dependable. The country as a whole is sufficiently infiltrated by fundamentalist groups -- as the attempted assassinations against President Pervez Musharraf in earlier days, the killing of Benazir Bhutto in 2007, and other evidence make clear -- that this terrifying scenario should not be dismissed.

Were Pakistan to collapse, it is unclear what the United States and like-minded states would or should do. As with North Korea, it is highly unlikely that "surgical strikes" to destroy the nuclear weapons could be conducted before extremists could make a grab at them. The United States probably would not know their location -- at a minimum, scores of sites controlled by special forces or elite army units would be presumed candidates -- and no Pakistani government would likely help external forces with targeting information. The chances of learning the locations would probably be greater than in the North Korean case, given the greater openness of Pakistani society and its ties with the outside world; but U.S.-Pakistani military cooperation, cut off for a decade in the 1990s, is still quite modest, and the likelihood that Washington would be provided such information or otherwise obtain it should be considered small.

If a surgical strike, series of surgical strikes, or commando-style raids were not possible, the only option would be to try to restore order before the weapons could be taken by extremists and transferred to terrorists. The United States and other outside powers might, for example, respond to a request by the Pakistani government to help restore order. Given the embarrassment associated with requesting such outside help, the Pakistani government might delay asking until quite late, thus complicating an already challenging operation. If the international community could act fast enough, it might help defeat an insurrection. Another option would be to protect Pakistan's borders, therefore making it harder to sneak nuclear weapons out of the country, while providing only technical support to the Pakistani armed forces as they tried to quell the insurrection.{Turn the Kabila guards on the Kabila. What is this guy smoking? It is the guards that are the problem not the inmates.} Given the enormous stakes, the United States would literally have to do anything it could to prevent nuclear weapons from getting into the wrong hands.

Should stabilization efforts be required, the undertaking could be breathtaking in scale. Pakistan is a very large country: its population is over 175 million, or six times Iraq's; its land area is roughly twice that of Iraq; its perimeter is about 50 percent longer in total. Stabilizing a country of this size could easily require several times as many troops as the Iraq mission, and a figure of up to one million is plausible. However, that assumes complete collapse.

Presumably, any chaos within Pakistan would be localized and limited, at least at first. Some fraction of Pakistan's security forces would remain intact, able and willing to help defend their country. Pakistan's military includes more than half a million soldiers, almost 100,000 uniformed air force and navy personnel, another half million reservists, and almost 300,000 gendarmes and Interior Ministry troops. Nevertheless, if some substantial fraction broke off from the military -- say, a quarter to a third -- and was assisted by extremist militias, it is quite possible the international community would need to deploy 100,000 to 200,000 troops to restore order quickly. The U.S. requirement could be as high as 50,000 to 100,000 ground forces. The smaller force discussed here could handle that.

As noted, another quite worrisome South Asia scenario could involve another Indo-Pakistani crisis leading to war between the two nuclear-armed states over Kashmir, with the potential to destabilize Pakistan in the process. This could result, for example, from a more extremist leader coming to power in Pakistan. Imagine the dangers associated with a country of nearly 200 million with the world's fastest-growing nuclear arsenal, hatred of India as well as America, and claims on land currently controlled by India. I do not suggest that we should create the option of directly attacking such a hypothetical future Pakistan. That said, some scenarios could get pretty hairy -- for example, if that future government in Islamabad had ties to extremists and thought about supporting them militarily. Certainly if such a future government was involved directly or indirectly in attacking us, we would need options to respond. These should include the possibility of a naval blockade and scale up from there as necessary, along the lines of the capabilities discussed above regarding Iran.

Even more plausibly, it is easy to see how such an extremist state could take South Asia to the brink of nuclear war by provoking conflict with India. Were that to happen, and perhaps a nuke or two even popped off above an airbase or other such military facility, the world could be faced with the specter of all-out nuclear war in the most densely populated part of the planet. While hostilities continued, even if it would probably avoid taking sides on the ground, the United States might want the option to help India protect itself from missile strikes by Pakistan. It is even possible that the United States might, depending on how the conflict began, consider trying to shoot down any missile launched from either side at the other, given the huge human and strategic perils associated with nuclear-armed missiles striking the great cities of South Asia. The United States might or might not be able to deploy enough missile defense capabilities to South Asia to make a meaningful difference in any such conflict. But certainly if it had the capacity, one can imagine that it might be prudent to employ it in certain circumstances.

It is also imaginable that, if such a war began and international negotiators{Crooks in UN?} were trying to figure out how to end it, an international force could be invited to help stabilize the situation for a number of years. India in particular would be adamantly against this idea today, but things could change if war broke out and such a force seemed the only way to reverse the momentum toward all-out nuclear war in South Asia. American forces would quite likely need to play a key role, as others do not have the capacity or political confidence to handle the mission on their own.

....

What he is saying is that its in US interests to prevent India from any retalitation to a TSP first strike!

Has the idiot(best military commentator) thought over the matter that India might choose to go convnetional and wipe out TSP and reserve teh nukes for interlopers?

[KLNMurthy]

Were parts of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal ever to fall into the wrong hands

Sums up very nicely the blithering idiocy combined with earnest self-righteousness that has marked US policy for a very long time. Nukes are already in wrong hands but ulloo can't see it.

[pgbhat]

Sums up very nicely the blithering idiocy combined with earnest self-righteousness that has marked US policy for a very long time. Nukes are already in wrong hands but ulloo can't see it.

but you see the author says that the PA officer corps has been traditionally "moderate" to justify that. You know whiskey drinking and clean shaven....

[svinayak]

What he is saying is that its in US interests to prevent India from any retalitation to a TSP first strike!

Has the idiot(best military commentator) thought over the matter that India might choose to go convnetional and wipe out TSP and reserve teh nukes for interlopers?

They are working with the western paradigm which assumes and does scenarios with equal retaliation from the enemy side.
That model will give them wrong analysis and wrong outcome of the conflict in the region.

But they may use it to their advantage to justify their presence (NATO troops) in the region to prolong their penetration in the region.

Also this work very well with their doomsday theories and apocalypse scenario which can drive their public support to fund large scale intervention. Funding for the marine Expeditionary warfare needs justification with a doomsday touch.

[habal]

It's a bit more deeper. Main problem for imperialists is isolated pockets of liberalism and positivity. And they are the Baathists, Gaddafi's, Hindus are major impediments. Islam is a philosophy of negativity, so once you turn entire regions Islamist or extremist, then wiping them out is like Bin Laden's death. Rest of the world will watch with popcorn.

this is the way things are being set up. Attack is against true liberalism and all that gives human being hope.

[ramana]

Remember the kentcuky governor election where the Republican challenger accused the incumbne Democrat of pandering to Hindus?

Well:
Governor poised to get re-elected

[ramana]

X-post...

China's No. 1 target is the US, next is India: Bush

Posting in full. It seem US political establishment is not at good terms with PRC.

MUMBAI: Former US president George W Bush on Tuesday delivered a blunt warning to Indians about the intentions of China. The former president who has courted trouble in the past with his aggressive and overthe-top assertions said China was looking to upstage India.

"China's No. 1 target is the US, next is India," he told a group of select CEOs at a late dinner meet on Tuesday. Bush, the two-term president whose reign saw a dramatic improvement in Indo-US relations, also said his country's patience with Pakistan was wearing thin, according to one of the participants.

"If the US had not befriended Pak, Pak would have become more dangerous. But now US patience is wearing off," he said. In the course of a free-wheeling discussion, Bush also touched upon a number of important topics. He cautioned businessmen never to do business with Russia and said the EU would have a completely different look in five years but the Euro would stay.

"If Iran goes after Israel, the US will go after Iran," Bush said, referring to the tense stand-off in the Middle-East over Iran's nuclear weapons programme. "While making history, timing is most important," he added. Those attending the dinner meet included HDFC Chairman Deepak Parekh and ICICI Bank Chairman KV Kamath.

Closed-door dinner

RPG promoter Harsh Goenka, GVK group promoter GVK Rao, Bajaj Auto chairman Rahul Bajaj and IIFL promoter Nirmal Jain were also present. "This event was kept a secret because the main condition from George W Bush's office was that there will be no announcements about this engagement and no media coverage given to it.

Even the list of guests was kept secret," said a senior executive from ICICI Lombard. The visit was organised ICICI Lombard and Fairfax Financial Holdings, a Torontobased company that owns 26% of the Indian general insurance company, and was attended by their top officials from India and the US.

A few comments;

- His remarks about TSP are freebies to please his hosts
- PRC threat is meaning less as his own fmaily did a lot to promote PRC. So till they(Bush family) draw down cant be taken seriously.
- His remarks about Russia are interesting. Its to have Indian businessmen exert pressure on MMS govt to reduce Central Asia presence
- Same thing with Iran
- Interesting emarks about EU and Euro. So a neutered Euro will be laoowed as alternate currency to $
- Odd that two companies organised this 'secret' meeting in Mumbai one of them 1/4 owned by a Canadian company.

I really think its about opening up Indian banks and financial sector to US and all other is just a red herring.

And IB must be sleeping if they didn't know the guest list or the full text remarks!

[devesh]

I am starting to get really scared. we are seeing a repeat of the Banking/Merchant clans of the 17th and 18the centuries. brihaspati ji's warnings are ringing in my ears: always it seems economic "rise" is a simple illusion/prelude before invasion/suppression. the forces unleashed by Narasimha Rao need a guiding hand to keep the big picture. otherwise, they will go the way of historical clans supporting EIC.

[Philip]

Another "Bushism"....."Never do business with Russia".

Tell that to Dr.Pillai and the Brahmos team,the IAF/HAL and the SU-30MKI team and the IN and the ATV team!

Bush is down here to scare-monger India into becoming a catspaw for it against the PRC.The PRC unfortunately doesn't help remove this fear with its aggro. against us,unbridled military,nuclear weapons and missile support for Pak,insulting ambassadors,and constant nibbling away on our borders.The great danger hetting into a US embrace is to see India go the Paki way eventually.We will swiftly be seduced into US military adventurism,and when the US inevitably retreats after causing collossal chaos,will leave India left to pick up the pieces and the tab.

The SCO offfers a small window of opportunity, if the PRC can see the merits of doing business with India,as a genuine equal partner (which thus far it has rejected).A grouping of "Eur-Asian" nations (Russia,Ukraine,Belarus,etc.,Central Asian states and the rest of Asia) can make the region a safer place.This has an echo in Putin's call for a "Eurasian" confederation of nations,Russia though more interested in close cooperation between itself and its former Sov.Republics.What is needed is a "North-South" dialogue in Asia,between Russia and its satellite states,Central Asia and China,the Far East,Asean,SAARC/IOR and the ANZ/Pcific island entities.It is a very large and diiverse group comprising more than 60-75% of humanity though. There are regional groupings within this broad spectrum, of "north-south" nations,but a start should be made.

Asia has to find its own security apparatus that allows the open business opportunities of the EU,while providing everyone the security umbrella of NATO.But allowing NATO to interefere and try and create its own monster in Asia from its track record,when it should be securing N.Atlantic security instead,is a recipe for disaster.

The best Indo-US relationship model is in straightforward business when the capitalists/corporate houses of both countriues drive hard bargains with each other and money meets its right level.Security cooperation should be carefully evaluated,the benchmark being how the US treats terrorism directed against India from its fav, rent-boy Pak and what it intends to do with pak,punish it or keep on rewarding it.Just like pak's duplicity,so too with the US.It cannot keep on playing "both sides" with regard to policy with Pak.

[habal]

connect it to the derating of Indian banks going on. India's financial sector isn't going to go down by itself, it needs external help and the usual tools like Chidu aren't helping either. MMS hands are tied and he is being derated, Montek is just soundbytes. Sibal is hiding under the bed and comes out just to help draft a toothless lokpal.

[shyamd]

My take on Bush's remarks. Not surprised that this was kept secret - mainly for security reasons in all probability.
- USIBC involvement in the meeting?
- Basically these sort of visits are to grab the ears of certain influential officials/journalists, networking etc. Some nations use a combination of think tanks and emissaries such a Bill Clinton and these sort of guys. It usually happens when they want India or the country they are visiting to do something. The question is what? What was the purpose of his visit?
- Not to do biz with russians? Is this a hint - "please by our weapons and we are trustworthy partners".
- Republicans are dominated by businessmen/interests where as democrats are thinktank intellectuals.
- His comments aren't to be taken seriously.

[devesh]

as long as the concerned sections of the state knew of this visit and the contents discussed at the meeting, I am "ok". but that is the question. does the IB know what went on at this meeting?