India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 01 Feb 2012 23:26

My own take is that it is unlikely that there will be a US-Iran war, or even major military action, under the current US administration. If Obama doesn't get a second term (I think he will), things will be different.

As long as there is no war, it is in India's interest to keep relations with Iran open, and try to reconcile Iran and US. However, if there is an actual war, it is no longer in India's interest to align itself against the US.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 02 Feb 2012 00:06

I think there will not be a war even under a different administration - IMHO the American people are fatigued by funding the two wars at the cost of their economy. One would see large scale (much larger than anti Iraq-war and anti Afghan-war) protests. Then there is the possibility of drafting which will bring large numbers onto the streets.

Regards

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 02 Feb 2012 01:54

X-Posting..

‘Sunni Wahhabi’ Saudi oil for ‘Shia’ Iran oil? No thanks!

http://www.firstpost.com/world/sunni-wa ... 00415.html

In 2006, soon after Pranab Mukherjee took over as External Affairs Minister, US diplomats drew up a bio-profile of him, which they sent to Washington in a diplomatic cable that, thanks to the exertions of WikiLeaks, has made it into the public domain.

The cable ended with the observation that Mukherjee is “soft-spoken and articulate, but speaks English with a heavy Bengali accent that can be difficult for Americans to understand.”

Pranab-da’s Bengali accent is still firmly in place after all these years, but it’s a fair bet that on Tuesday, when he articulated India’s rejection of pressure from the Barack Obama administration to abide by US sanctions on Iran and cut back on oil imports from Teheran, the Americans understood him loud and clear.

Concerned about energy security. Reuters

“It is not possible,” Mukherjee said, “for India to take any decision to reduce imports from Iran drastically.” Iran, he added, was an important country among those that can meet the energy requirement of emerging economies.

The fact that Mukherjee said this while on a visit to the US doubtless amplified his message for US policymakers.

The dilemma that confronts India is this: oil imports from Iran account for 12 percent of India’s needs, and as the US and the European Union escalate the pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear energy programme, they are tightening the screw of sanctions on Iran. And India is turning out to be ‘collateral damage’ in this conflict.

Yet, India’s reluctance to sign on for sanctions against Iran is driven not just by its energy dependence on that country. When it comes right down to it, although India has voted against Iran on UN resolutions requiring it to make its nuclear programme transparent, it does not share the West’s paranoia of a nuclear Iran.

Pious baloney about the ‘civilizational links’ between India and Iran, which are frequently cited as a tie that binds the two countries, has nothing to do with it. Nor is India’s Shia Muslim population a factor in pushing for closer affinity with Iran, although that spin finds great resonance in the media.

India’s calculations are rooted rather more in the real world of cold-blooded strategic calculations. For one, India and Iran share a common interest in Afghanistan: they are wary of a return to power of the Taliban, the prospects of which have been enhanced by the recent peace talks initiative with the US. Iran even provides India land access to Afghanistan and to Central Asia: India in turn has helped to upgrade Iranian infrastructure, without forming any strategic alliance that would bind it to a regime that, from all accounts, doesn’t shrink from nuclear brinkmanship.

If India’s strategic interests don’t count for much with the West – to the point where they are pushing for India to abide by the sanctions regime – India too does not, in turn, share the West’s paranoia.

For India, which has been living next-door to a country with a jihadi-indoctrinated military that spawns terrorists as ‘strategic assets’ and frequently sends them over to extract a blood price, the prospect of a nuclear Iran somehow doesn’t sound so chilling. And the West wasn’t exactly overly sympathetic to India’s concerns about the nuclearisation and the jihad-isation of Pakistan – until the poisonous fruits of that jihadi adventurism hit them hard.

In return for Indian abidance by the sanctions against Iran, the West says it is willing to help India secure supplies from Saudi Arabia.

Get this: the West wants India to give up its strategic interests and foreclose a key source of ‘Shia oil’ from Iran – and instead source ‘Sunni Wahhabi’ oil from Saudi Arabia, which has done more than most other countries to spread the Wahhabi poison in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. No, thank you.

If anything, India is uniquely placed to leverage this crisis to its advantage. Given Iran’s desperation, since the sanctions are beginning to bite, Iran is willing to offer oil at a discount to market price and accept Indian rupees from its second largest customer (after China). We should milk this opportunity for what it’s worth.

Sure, India may have to live with Western name-and-shame efforts to make it feel out of step with the world on this issue, but if there ever was an occasion on which to stand firm to defend your strategic interests, it is this.

It’s a thin diplomatic line, but sometimes you have to walk the talk – and convey the message, even if it’s in a heavy Bengali accent.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Feb 2012 04:04

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16828451
Walt Disney acquires controlling stake in India's UTV

Walt Disney's expansion plans in India have received a big boost as it agreed to acquire a controlling stake in UTV, one of India's biggest media companies.The move comes after India's cabinet approved a proposal by Disney last month to buyout shares in UTV that it did not previously own.The companies did not disclose how much Disney will pay to acquire the stake.International firms have been looking to increase their presence in India to tap into the fast growing market."Increasing our brand presence and reach in key international markets is a cornerstone of our growth strategy," said Andy Bird, chairman of Disney International.Disney has already made forays into the Indian market and currently operates three TV channels in the country.
UTV is known for its film and television production as well as gaming and animation in India. Disney said that the acquisition of the Indian firm will give it an opportunity to further enhance its presence in a market which has a growing consumer base.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 Feb 2012 10:49

NY Times editorial -

Russia’s Bad Bet on Syria

But Russia, supported by China and India, is still defending Mr. Assad and blocking constructive action. Moscow, which values arms deals with Damascus over the Syrian people, vetoed the last resolution in October.

The new draft resolution repeats demands initially made by the Arab League for Syria to withdraw troops from the cities and release all political prisoners. It also endorses the league’s proposal for a political transition that would have Mr. Assad yield power to his deputy, establish a unity government and prepare for free elections.

The Russians, Chinese and Indians — invoking Libya — insist that they will not abide foreign military intervention in Syria or let a resolution be exploited to permit the use of force.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/opini ... ef=opinion

What India needs is US sensitivity to Indian concerns in Af-Pak and elsewhere in the immediate neighborhood.

The US being weakened in west Asia it is not necessarily bad for India, and might even chasten the US into being more receptive to Indian concerns.

However, a low profile would be preferable, so that India is not seen as a problem, from the POV of folks running the show in the US. Let the Russians and the Chinese do most of the heavy lifting, on this issue, at least.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 02 Feb 2012 17:40

matrimc wrote:I think there will not be a war even under a different administration - IMHO the American people are fatigued by funding the two wars at the cost of their economy. One would see large scale (much larger than anti Iraq-war and anti Afghan-war) protests. Then there is the possibility of drafting which will bring large numbers onto the streets.

Regards

I disagree. But at the moment, I am still not sure about an attack on Iran. A lot of mind games going, state sponsored terrorism taking out-Iranian scientists etc. And as I mentioned many times, what Iran is essentially going through is a slow-motion civil war of sorts, the US is supporting its TFTA allies, the Iranian opposition, to the hilt. So this whole thing could very well end in a thusssss pataki, with the nationalists and mullahs being thrown out of power through a combination of external aided terrorism and street demonstrations.

But make no mistake about it, I have lived in US for 20+ years to understand US psyche, push comes to shove, US will use nukes to secure its interests. Don't be fooled by all this hot air talk about how US is stretched, 2 wars bla bla. The nukes US has in its basement are not for doing pooja, and like TSP, US will actually use them if need be. And unlike India, American people brim with self confidence and their sense of righteousness no mater what anybody else thinks of them. The ruling nationalists in Iran know this. They are in a damned if you don, damned if you don't situation. Witness their tepid response to the Israel/US terrorism inflicted on them. Have they retaliated? They dare not because US will use that as an excuse to hit harder. Likewise, should US/Israel start hitting Iran, and Iran retaliates, you can be rest assured that they will be bludgeoned. So their goose is cooked on way or the other.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 02 Feb 2012 17:50

Pranav wrote: What India needs is US sensitivity to Indian concerns in Af-Pak and elsewhere in the immediate neighborhood.

US is not getting weakened anywhere. And as NYT itself pontificated many many times, survival of TSP (actually TSPA) is crucial in US calculus. If that constraint weren't there this whole AfPak would have been solved by now. Thus, I don't expect any sensitivity from US visa vi to any remnants of Indian concerns regarding TSP. But what I do expect is turning on its muscle power through a combination of diplomacy, threats, and charm, to bring those recalcitrant Indians into its fold, which means India will concede all of TSP demands made through US; albeit in slow motion.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 Feb 2012 18:02

CRamS wrote: US is not getting weakened anywhere. And as NYT itself pontificated many many times, survival of TSP (actually TSPA) is crucial in US calculus. If that constraint weren't there this whole AfPak would have been solved by now. Thus, I don't expect any sensitivity from US visa vi to any remnants of Indian concerns regarding TSP. But what I do expect is turning on its muscle power through a combination of diplomacy, threats, and charm, to bring those recalcitrant Indians into its fold, which means India will concede all of TSP demands made through US; albeit in slow motion.

US influence over India depends upon many factors, including knowledge of any Swiss bank accounts and EVM rigging issues.

As regards weakening of the US influence in West Asia, let's wait and see. What's happening in Syria will have significant repercussions.

As regards US policy towards TSP, there are two factors. One is the need to maintain "balance" in South Asia which requires that TSP Army be supported. Second is to maintain a degree of influence in Central and West Asia, which will be undermined if TSP cuts its links with the US and associates itself with an anti-US grouping that includes China and Iran.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Feb 2012 18:06

Isn't the Iranian oil also of better, "sweeter" quality,easier to refine than Saudi crude? Iran is a key strategic nation for Induia,as it not only has the ability o choke Gulf oil supplies by sea,but also "minds" the Paki backside,essential if India needs to outflank Pak in Afghanistan.Iran also holds another card,the road/rail route to Central Asian nations for Indian products.Ck. this link.

Iran and India's Cooperation in Central Asia
products. Meanwhile, Iran sees in India a cost-effective source of high-
technology ... specifically, a trade route between Central Asia and the Iranian port
of. Chabahar ... rely on road and rail networks to connect Chabahar port and
Bandar ...

http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/F ... d3c23-fc1e...

Therefore,we need to protect and preserve our vital strategic interests,especially ties with Iran which impinge upon our immediate threats from Pak and China.The US is both unable and unwilling to give us the smallest guarantee of better behaviour from Pak,or a reduction of sale of arms and other financial and military aid to Pak.Why should we listen to its crude demands?

PS:CRam is right. Since it cannot control Pak,it wants to control India instead,because we have a spneless govt. in place,which the US believes (MMRCA defeat notwithstanding),that has yeilded to US dilomatic pressure earlier (S-al-S and the Baluchistan bombshell),added to the fact that we have a delightfully absent-minded Foreign Minister who reads out the speech of another (Portugese) envoy at the UN ,and will perhaps make an equally apalling error over J&K with Pak!

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 02 Feb 2012 18:08

Pranav wrote:
if TSP cuts its links with the US and associates itself with an anti-US grouping that includes China and Iran.

We can legitimately mock and denigrate TSP for a lot of things, but lets give the devil credit where its due. TSP RAPE may blow hot air and tallel than mountain, but they know US is the ultimate lynch pin in their strategy against India. And they are not going to let go off that. Its a win win situation for both US and TSP.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 Feb 2012 19:11

CRamS wrote:
Pranav wrote:
if TSP cuts its links with the US and associates itself with an anti-US grouping that includes China and Iran.
We can legitimately mock and denigrate TSP for a lot of things, but lets give the devil credit where its due. TSP RAPE may blow hot air and tallel than mountain, but they know US is the ultimate lynch pin in their strategy against India. And they are not going to let go off that. Its a win win situation for both US and TSP.

I submit that Pak Mil, at least at the Brigadier and Colonel level, has already had enough of the US. It is the US that is finding it hard to let go, because the balance theory is too deeply rooted.

Also, what effect, if any, will the activities of chaps like Tharoor and Mani Shankar Aiyar have. This ties in with the theories that Shiv ji is developing.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Feb 2012 19:43

^^^^

......
Cosmo ji, it is not a question of what the average fellow may take seriously or not. There should be a rational approach. There are plenty of folks who walk around with beliefs such as "Al Qaeda did 9/11". If you find yourself in that category, then you may carefully read the above mentioned thread......Having done that, I'll be happy to give pointers to answers to other questions.

"it is not a question of what the average fellow may take seriously or not. There should be a rational approach. There are plenty of folks who walk around with beliefs such as "Al Qaeda did 9/11". If you find yourself in that category..."

Are you suggesting that Al-Qaeda did not do 9/11? I hope you're not in the category of people who think that the GOTUS/Jews/Trilateral Commission did it. If you find yourself in that category I am not going to waste everyone's time by discussing this. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is also propounded by the Jihadi/Leftist nexus. The same lot who talk about 26/11 being an Indian/Hindu conspiracy.

All CT theory purveyors employ a 'rational' approach to mask the irrationality of their 'neutral' position ("Let's look at all the facts...." etc). I'll give an example of a particularly odious conflation:

"Both Islamist and Hindu extremists have been bombing their way across India in an attempt to polarise opinion, especially ahead of general elections next year. Some of these appear to have been “false flag” attacks, including by Hindu supremacists masquerading as jihadis. One of the Mumbai attackers, presumed to be Islamists, was photographed wearing a sacred Hindu thread around his wrist."

Source?
Financial Times Editorial

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b77572d0 ... z1lEWcXqkD

EOM

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 Feb 2012 19:48

Cosmo_R wrote: Are you suggesting that Al-Qaeda did not do 9/11?

(Sigh) ... As it is said, Vulgus Vult Decipi. But you are welcome to pose such questions in the appropriate thread, as was suggested to you earlier.

As regards the FT editorial ... let us recall Kabir, who praises the wise ant that picks out the sugar from the sand.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 03 Feb 2012 00:22

[Deleted as Off Topic. Please exercise some restraint in posting.]

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Feb 2012 07:28

CRamS wrote:But make no mistake about it, I have lived in US for 20+ years to understand US psyche, push comes to shove, US will use nukes to secure its interests. Don't be fooled by all this hot air talk about how US is stretched, 2 wars bla bla. The nukes US has in its basement are not for doing pooja, and like TSP, US will actually use them if need be. And unlike India, American people brim with self confidence and their sense of righteousness no mater what anybody else thinks of them. The ruling nationalists in Iran know this. They are in a damned if you don, damned if you don't situation. Witness their tepid response to the Israel/US terrorism inflicted on them. Have they retaliated?

CRamS ji

I lived in US for 25+ years and probably a lot older than you are. All that means a squat, however. Nukes will not be used. How do we know that Iran is not going to respond (albeit in an indirect manner?). So many questions - how do we know it is Israel/US behind the recent killing of the nuclear scientist?

Let us talk after 5 years - if you are a drinking man/woman I will buy you a bottle of Scotch (or Whiskey) or Gin of your choice if what you are predicting comes to pass.

Regards

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 03 Feb 2012 11:27

matrimc wrote:All that means a squat, however. Nukes will not be used.

How can you be so sure, when US is the only country in the world to have used that against a non-nuclear country in the past?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Feb 2012 12:56

Nuclear psy ops and psychology has been perfected by only uncle

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 03 Feb 2012 14:40

India important for US to limit Chinese influence: Nicholas Burns - Economic Times

Posting in full.

WASHINGTON: Noting India's strategic importance in American efforts to limit the Chinese influence, a former top diplomat today said the United States should include New Delhi in its East-Asia policy.

"Given China's challenge to America's 60-year domination of the Asia-Pacific region, Obama was smart to announce a reinvigoration of US alliances with Japan and South Korea and the stationing of US Marines in northern Australia as well as a new trade partnership for the region's democracies," Nicholas Burns wrote in The Boston Globe.

Burns, who was Bush Administration point-man for its negotiations with India on the civil-nuclear deal and left the State Department as its Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs, is now professor of the practice of diplomacy and international politics at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

"But Obama's pivot to East Asia will be incomplete if it does not include South Asia and India as well. US officials seem reluctant to link India to this policy. They should do so as a signal to New Delhi of strategic commitment and to Beijing that we are serious about maintaining a US presence in Asia for decades to come," he wrote.

If coping with a more powerful China will be the great challenge for the United States in the next half century, India may be the great opportunity, Burns said, adding that India is of immense strategic importance to the United States.

"It can help in limiting possible future Chinese expansion as we seek to maintain a preponderance of military power by the democratic countries of Asia - one of the most important American global objectives," Burns said.

India, he said, has helped the US to support the embattled President Hamid Karzai government in Afghanistan.

India's booming high-tech economy is a source of growing trade and investment for American companies. It has one of the world's most admired leaders, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all worked to build this partnership in rare bipartisan fashion, he said.

However, Burns observed, that India can also be a frustrating partner. Its diplomats have dueled with the United States unproductively on global trade talks and on other issues at the United Nations.

"It has stalled in implementing the nuclear deal with the United States and disappointed expectations it would open its economy further to foreign investment. It has not supported tough US and European sanctions against Iran and criticized NATO's successful intervention in Libya last spring," he said.

"Working with India is not easy, and some in Washington are impatient that it has, in some ways, failed to meet its obvious potential to lead globally. Our problem may not be an India that is too strong but one that is too weak and uncertain," Burns wrote.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 03 Feb 2012 15:03

kmkraoind wrote:India important for US to limit Chinese influence: Nicholas Burns - Economic Times

"But Obama's pivot to East Asia will be incomplete if it does not include South Asia and India as well. US officials seem reluctant to link India to this policy. They should do so as a signal to New Delhi of strategic commitment and to Beijing that we are serious about maintaining a US presence in Asia for decades to come," he wrote.

It is the Indian who do not want to be linked. If you look at some of the statements of GotUS/GoI, on this 'pivot' there is an underlying agreement.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Feb 2012 17:10

As the sole remaining superpower who is also rapidly losing that title and in need of protecting its far-flung interests, the US has to balance competing situations and countries. The India-US-TSP relationship is one such. The India-US-China equation would be another. It has a myriad other such things to handle. It has tactical and strategic interests in all these places that too burden it. It would be therefore difficult to make one full sweeping statement about the US. Increasingly, India is also having to face similar tight situations.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 03 Feb 2012 17:42

matrimc wrote:
CRamS ji

I lived in US for 25+ years and probably a lot older than you are. All that means a squat, however. Nukes will not be used. How do we know that Iran is not going to respond (albeit in an indirect manner?). So many questions - how do we know it is Israel/US behind the recent killing of the nuclear scientist?

I am not saying nukes will be used against Iran tomorrow if thats what you mean when you say nukes will not be used. But you don't have an understanding of US psyche if you think nukes will never be used. They will be if the need arises. But at the same time, depending on the situation, the threshold might differ. So given TSP's crucial role in US's geo-political strategy to balance us SDREs, the threshold is huge. In the case of say Iran, the threshold might be lower, in fact given the huffing and puffing, and should war break out, and Iran scores a few hits and denting sooper power H&D, you can be rest assured, the white Christian nationalists will start using Faux nooge to make the case as to why obliteration of Iran like what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the will of Jesus Christ himself.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Feb 2012 19:29

The US spends a lot of time and effort developing superlative conventional ability precisely so that it wil not have to use nukes. Nukes are a slippery slope because the day the US uses a nuke, every county in the world that has nukes will know that they will have to use their nukes because the "genie is out the bottle". That means China/Russia on USA and it also means NoKo against South Korea and Japan.

The US pretends to have won wars just like Pakis in order not to use nukes to actually win. But this is probably not apparent if you are sitting inside the US reading news of great American victories and total control over the world.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Feb 2012 22:46

shyam wrote:
matrimc wrote:All that means a squat, however. Nukes will not be used.
How can you be so sure, when US is the only country in the world to have used that against a non-nuclear country in the past?

(Mods, as this is OT for this thread, I will stop after this one post)

Shyam garu

That was a different era. That was at a time when no other world power had nucs. Also, the stakes were pretty high. It was a question of ending the WWII in the Asian theatre. There is no comparison between that situation and the so called Iranian crisis of today. Where I differ from CRamS ji is that IMHO American public is neither as gullible nor as religiously bigoted as he is making them out to be.

By the way, nucs were not used even during Vietnam war which was a bigger crisis than the current "Iranian Crisis". As shiv ji says, it is slippery slope which nobody wants to go down.

Regards

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Feb 2012 22:49

CRamS wrote: I am not saying nukes will be used against Iran tomorrow if thats what you mean when you say nukes will not be used. But you don't have an understanding of US psyche if you think nukes will never be used.

CRamS ji

May be I don't understand US psyche (if there is one such). On the other hand if you don't put a time limit, (algorithmically speaking) the problem is undecidable, is it not?

Regards

(Sorry mods, this is definitely the last one...)

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 04 Feb 2012 08:10

After Indian woman on fast in prison dies

WASHINGTON: Sometime between Thursday, December 29, when the world shuttered down to end 2011, and Tuesday, January 3, when it reopened after heralding in 2012, Lyvita Gomes drifted into a lonely and terrible death in a Chicago area hospital from self-imposed starvation and dehydration. Apparently, no one in 21st century America is particularly shocked by this. Regretful, yes; alarmed or repentant; no.

Gomes, who is said have lived in the Chicago area from 2004, was brought before the court on charges of resisting arrest when police showed up at her door, as ordered by a judge, to explain her absence in a jury summons case. As an immigrant without citizenship status, she did not have to do jury duty, but ignoring the summons brought the police to her house. Consequently, the jury duty case was dropped, but by this time authorities found her visa had expired and started deportation proceedings. The resisting arrest case also remained.

Mired in this judicial and immigration tangle, Gomes, who was single and had no immediate family in the Chicago area, began a hunger strike in prison.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 04 Feb 2012 08:24

Anurag wrote:X-Posting..

‘Sunni Wahhabi’ Saudi oil for ‘Shia’ Iran oil? No thanks!

http://www.firstpost.com/world/sunni-wa ... 00415.html

This article brings forth a fundamental fact to light. East of Brahmaputra India's and US interest align very well. West of Ganga they clash.

But we should not forget, Iran is also a source of Islamic fundamentalism. Just as Saudi Arabia is. They are just different variants of the same theme, Islamic fundamentalism.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 04 Feb 2012 09:19

matrimc wrote:
CRamS ji

May be I don't understand US psyche (if there is one such). On the other hand if you don't put a time limit, (algorithmically speaking) the problem is undecidable, is it not?

You sure don't, but I did put a time limit, go back and read my post. DocJi is right in the sense that 99.9% of the time, US conventional superiority is so high, that it alone is sufficient. BTW: US public is bigoted and gullible. So much so that if you were to even dress up a buffalo is a human, and declare itself a republican and thump the Bible and trump the pet social causes of reps, including bigoted attitude towards people of color, roughly 40% of public would vote for the buffalo in human mufti. Reason, logic, merit etc will fall on deaf ears for this 40%. Enough said.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 05 Feb 2012 23:05

>>BTW: US public is bigoted and gullible. So much so that if you were to even dress up a buffalo is a human, and declare itself a republican and thump the Bible and trump the pet social causes of reps, including bigoted attitude towards people of color, roughly 40% of public would vote for the buffalo in human mufti.

This is a ridiculous caricature of the American public. Is this the same US which voted in Obama, or has it morphed into this form after Obama?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Feb 2012 23:16

JE Menon wrote:>>BTW: US public is bigoted and gullible. So much so that if you were to even dress up a buffalo is a human, and declare itself a republican and thump the Bible and trump the pet social causes of reps, including bigoted attitude towards people of color, roughly 40% of public would vote for the buffalo in human mufti.

This is a ridiculous caricature of the American public. Is this the same US which voted in Obama, or has it morphed into this form after Obama?

Don't argue. You are dealing with someone who says he has 'vast knowledge' of the US.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Feb 2012 00:31

He is talking about Vote bank which has creeped into american politics.
Because of the ideological position of the conservatives this is gaining support. They dont care who the candidate is

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 06 Feb 2012 01:13

I contend that America is not as dumb as it looks. but the specific segment of EJ's like the fervent idiots who showed up at Rick Perry's "prayer meet" a few months ago make the broader American public look really stupid and delusional. that segment of the population is fanatically committed to its goals of Christian dominance and they really don't care who the candidate is as long as they get their "domination".

there is a 'new' ideology picking up among certain EJ sections in US. Dominionism, it's called. basically it says that Christians have the right and duty to dominate and rule the world. have seen some influential EJ figureheads advocating for it. perhaps, it's the EJ version of a more dumbed down and rabid mobilization tactic? the meltdown, Arab Spring, etc are happening too fast, and perhaps there are segments in US which believe it's time for a "distraction" at home. a rabid delirium induced by nonsensical theological interpretations and consequent opium-like effect on the masses might perhaps be needed, according to some well established "pillars" of American power?!?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 06 Feb 2012 01:47

JE Menon wrote:
This is a ridiculous caricature of the American public. Is this the same US which voted in Obama, or has it morphed into this form after Obama?

Don't argue. You are dealing with someone who says he has 'vast knowledge' of the US.

Sarcasm and mockery of my views aside, please read this

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... o-with-it/

In this way, whether he means to or not, Mr. Romney connects with a central evangelic fantasy: that the Barack Obama years, far from being the way forward, are in fact a historical aberration, a tear in the white space-time continuum. And let’s be clear: Mr. Obama’s election was not destiny, but a fluke.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 06 Feb 2012 01:48

Acharya wrote:He is talking about Vote bank which has creeped into american politics.
Because of the ideological position of the conservatives this is gaining support. They dont care who the candidate is

Acharya ji

That may very well be the case. But there is nothing like "US Psyche" - there is no monolithic 40% block that has a certain kind of "psyche". Even if there is a small set of people with this "psyche", surely it does not xlate into "US Psyche"?

Regards

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Feb 2012 02:46

CRamS,

That bit about Romney, and the assessment by the writer, is nothing close to this from you which I post again:

>>BTW: US public is bigoted and gullible. So much so that if you were to even dress up a buffalo is a human, and declare itself a republican and thump the Bible and trump the pet social causes of reps, including bigoted attitude towards people of color, roughly 40% of public would vote for the buffalo in human mufti.

The US is a vast country with a multitude of opinions, political blocs and formations and all kinds of nuances, local and national, affecting the ultimate choice made by each person who votes. To clump them as "bigoted and gullible" is nothing but an easy out. Americans are generally not bigoted, nor are they gullible. There certainly are bigoted Americans, and there are gullible ones... but that's not saying anything. Which country doesn't have these?

In my limited understanding of the US voter, the sense I get is that the average American is not much different from the Indian voter - i.e. bread, clothing and shelter are the priorities, although the desire for this is expressed in multiple ways. Of course, they too are beginning to have a sense that the best times are behind them, and hence the yearning for a more satisfying and complete (even if more recent) past. Some of the Tea Party mechanics can be viewed in this light, while the spectrum of opinion within the GOP is by no means monolithic. The same applies to the Democrats.

Foreign policy is a factor only insofar as it directly affects their day to day - i.e. soldiers overseas, terrorism in the homeland (extended to American properties and direct representations abroad). India is not a big factor, although it's prominence on the voter's radar has been steadily increasing. This has been the case only since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Before that, the voter did not give a crap about India; it was an amorphous mass out there which seemed to be aligned with the USSR - or at least aligned against the US, but basically harmless because it didn't really do anything that directly impacted the US; and they did not care either that US policy impacted India negatively, especially where Pakistan was concerned. It was more a case of careless neglect rather than active malevolence. This appears to be something that is quite hard to swallow for some of us who tend to think India had greater weight than it actually had during the cold war. India was ignored, unless there was something which they could not ignore - like a war or an imminent one, or the potential for one.

Things have changed. India cannot be ignored. The US is learning that its own power is constrained by various factors, not least of which is the fact that it has to accommodate the interests of the growing powers in one way or another. It is also learning that conflict can be a state of being, and that war does not have to be declared even though it can at the same time be violent. It will gradually recognise that one of the only answers to asymmetric war is the old fashioned total war of destruction, not the type fought under self-imposed restrictions. It has lost the war in Afghanistan, if it withdraws, and it will go back humiliated, if it pulls out. The US no longer has the capacity to "shape" events in its major interest zones entirely to its liking. It only has the capacity to generate chaos, not to resolve it in a manner of its choosing. These are all indicators that the US is facing limits to its strategic autonomy. This does not mean that the US is about to roll over and die or become less of a super-power in terms of its pre-eminent position in world affairs. It is quite capable of reviewing and remodelling its approach to suit the situation that is emerging. But it is in no position to impose its will on countries as it used to. It couldn't do so in Somalia in the early 1990s, nor could it do so in Iraq (although it is faring better there) or Afghanistan.

I'm not sure on what basis you think they will do so on India, unless you have an utter lack of confidence or regard for the Indian polity. But that's a personal issue, nothing to do with the reality of Indo-US relations at the moment, or as it is likely to evolve.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 06 Feb 2012 04:30

matrimc:

There is nothing like "US psyche"? In today's US, north to south, east to west, show me a single opinion deviating from the group think that Iran is evil, Iran is this, Iran is that, Iran must be brought to book. Show me one respectable voice arguing how much US has p!ssed on Iran. Show me one respectable piece that highlights the reality that Iran saga is more about protecting Israel than US, and you know that this is the case or are you going to disingenuously argue that indeed all the propaganda about Iran being a threat to US is true? How many contrasting views are there that argue as to what has Iran done that TSP has not, and why the hard-nosed treatment to Iran and pussy footing on TSP? This is what is called US psyche and/or group think.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Feb 2012 05:28

About a decade+ ago,I had occasion to speak with a very knowledgable former For.Min. from another land.He compared China and India and said that China had arisen,understood its potential and was executing its policies to achieve it on the global stage,while India still was appearing to be ignorant of its vast potential and inactive.Though we have come some distance from that statement,under the MMS doctrine and our policy towards Pak especially,we have acted like domestic lackeys looking at Washington for advice most of the time.Washington also looks at us mainly in the context of "limiting " or "halting " China's expanding role in the IOR/Asia,or losing US jobs to "Bangalore"!
The rise of China is unstoppable.It's own demands from its population and internal market drives it on,just like India's.How both nations can prosper without a spat is the trillion dollar Q.

The US is in decline,though still possessing the most massive military force in the globe.The "strategic relationship" it looks for from India is mainly military,"meshing" the Indian armed forces with its own as a loyal non-NATO ally,complementing its relationship with favourite rent-boy Pak,which like a junkie hooked onto a dangerous harmful drug or like a nymphomaniac it just cannot give up.Therein lies the problem with India,it is not possible for "my enemy's lover to be my friend".

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Feb 2012 12:54

2012: http://intelligence.senate.gov/hearings ... 2f6eac-0-1

James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

2011:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/110216/dni.pdf
(5.8 MB PDF)

Statement for the Record on the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, February 16, 2011.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 06 Feb 2012 22:42

CRamS wrote:matrimc:

There is nothing like "US psyche"? In today's US, north to south, east to west, show me a single opinion deviating from the group think that Iran is evil, Iran is this, Iran is that, Iran must be brought to book.

CRamS ji

There may very well be a case to be made. But IMHO you are overstating the case. Group think in policy circles is not equal to "US psyche". The former consists of several small groups (which have their own group thinks and not necessarily same across the board) whereas the latter applies to all the people in US and is a broad generalization. When you make generalizations, please consider making most specific generalizations. This is going seriously OT, so let us take it to some other thread.

Edited : If you want, that is.

Regards

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 06 Feb 2012 23:03

Why India prefers Paris to Washington -- KP Nayar

Washington, Feb. 5: When Pratibha Patil travelled to Europe last October, she and others in her entourage had a pleasant surprise in the sky. At one point along the air space that the President’s flight was using, half a squadron of Eurofighters appeared on both sides of her Air India plane.

In the graceful style of these sleek war machines, they escorted the presidential aircraft to its safe landing at Patil’s next destination. Even so, those manning the Eurofighters could not resist showing off.

When the Eurofighters displayed the prowess of this advanced new-generation, multi-role combat aircraft to the President, members of Parliament and senior officials accompanying her, New Delhi’s quest for 126 planes of its kind could not have been far from the minds of their pilots.

The competition for the biggest military aviation deal in history, which began 11 years ago when the defence ministry initiated its “request for information” or RFI, had just entered its final and decisive phase.

But the impromptu decision to send the Eurofighters across European skies to impress the President was typical of what cost some rivals of Dassault Aviation — last week’s winners — the lucrative Indian Air Force contract.

It was somewhat reminiscent of Henry Kissinger’s disastrous invitation to defence minister Jagjivan Ram to visit Washington in 1971 as the sub-continent was heading into war, as recounted by Rukmini Menon, who was then joint secretary for the US in South Block.

“Why should I visit Washington?” Ram asked a non-plussed Kissinger and proceeded to tell him how American arms supplies had emboldened Pakistan to ruthlessly suppress East Pakistanis.

Partly, it was a similar approach that resulted in Boeing’s F-18E and Lockheed Martin’s F-16E being turfed out of the competition for the IAF deal earlier in the race. Not solely with the multi-role combat aircraft deal in mind, the Obama administration had made too much noise bereft of substance about the first state visit of his administration and Barack Obama’s first state dinner in honour of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

There was a time when India’s rulers could solely be influenced by gimmicks. But theatrics and atmospherics can no longer substitute hard policy options. This is one lesson New Delhi has hopefully absorbed firsthand from intense, albeit under the radar interaction with Israelis — especially in defence matters — in the last 20 years.

Then there was A.K. Antony, whom the losers in the bid for the IAF deal had not reckoned with. Antony, by nature, is averse to being the public face of decision-making. This has been the case throughout his tenure as defence minister, especially during scandals such as the Adarsh housing scam that rocked the army. Each time it was clear that the defence minister had made up his mind, but the decisions were put out as if they were taken elsewhere, along the proper channel.

Such an approach came through clearly in his most detailed statement on January 31 on the controversy about the army chief’s age. Ending months of virtual silence in the matter, Antony blamed the army for sitting on the problem for 36 years and then dealing with it in its own wisdom. So much so the army chief Gen. V.K. Singh had to agree with the minister.

Antony has maintained in public throughout that the multi-role combat aircraft acquisition process is a technical matter that would be decided by professionals in uniform. But such a public position overlooks the reality that Antony’s core support team in his ministry is much more ideological than in any other wing of the present government. Like civil servants, men in uniform are not immune from ministerial winds blowing in a particular direction.

Ideological considerations have prevented Antony from visiting Israel and from signing at least three defence agreements with the Americans which his core team views as compromising India’s strategic autonomy.

If the Russian plane on offer, MiG-35, had not clearly failed the tests, it was conceivable that it would very much have been in the reckoning. With the Russians out of the way, it did weigh with the political leadership in the defence ministry that France favours a multi-polar world and that India is a beneficiary of such an approach.

France won the bid for the entire order because it supplemented the requirements of the global tender with sweeteners that in the real world of strategic engagement, only three countries can offer India: Russia and Israel, in addition to France itself.

The collaborations that France has offered India in recent years in the field of intelligence sharing and upgrade are without parallel. Naturally, this is an area where co-operation cannot be publicised by the very nature of such engagement.

India and France face somewhat similar threats of domestic terrorism, vastly different from the threats faced by the US, Russia or even Israel. The assistance that Paris has offered New Delhi in preparing the country against such threats and the constant upgrading of their assistance went a long way towards creating an environment that favoured the French on the aircraft deal.

It was in direct contrast to Washington’s approach: the bulk of India’s intelligence community and key bureaucrats at decision-making levels believe that the Americans two-timed New Delhi on David Coleman Headley, their double agent in Chicago who played a major role in the Pakistan-supported terrorist attack on Mumbai in 2008.

In addition, spread across India’s entire political spectrum that includes much of the Opposition, is a firm conviction that India would not have come out unscathed from the decision to conduct the 1998 nuclear tests if it were not for the steadfast backing that President Jacques Chirac — and Nicolas Sarkozy after him — offered India in an hour of great need.

It is not widely known that during the Kargil war in 1999, the French approved with lightning speed the adaptation of Indian Air Force Mirages in tandem with equally speedy Israeli supplies of laser-guided bombs which they delivered in Srinagar: without such French and Israeli support, India could have lost Kargil to Pervez Musharraf’s perfidy.

No honourable Indian in uniform can forget that in such a situation, the US or Britain would have probably suspended all military supplies to the combatants to prove their bona fides as honest brokers for peace.

Policies may be the result of collective decision-making in governments, but within that framework, individuals do matter. One such individual who has left a mark on Franco-Indian relations is Jean-David Levitte, whose critical role in securing the Rafale deal for his country will never become a matter of public record because of the nature of his job.

Levitte is diplomatic adviser and “Sherpa” to Sarkozy, who made amends for the temperamental mistakes during his President’s first visit to India as chief guest during Republic Day celebrations in New Delhi and organised a second trip that turned out to be one of most productive and substantive visits by any head of state to India.

Levitte was senior diplomatic adviser to Chirac too when Brajesh Mishra, the then principal secretary to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, flew to Paris as his first stop abroad seeking diplomatic support after the Pokhran II nuclear tests. Mishra found such support in Paris before he extracted reluctant support from Moscow.

Soon afterwards, Levitte became French permanent representative to the UN in New York where he led, along with Russia, a split among the five permanent members of the Security Council on the issue of punishing India through sanctions on the nuclear issue. Later he was ambassador in Washington.

Two of the countries which have been after the multi-role combat aircraft deal, the US and Britain, were at that time in the forefront of efforts in the Security Council to choke India into submission and roll back its nuclear programme.

Within the political and civilian leadership of India’s defence establishment, there has been no doubt that other things being equal, India should reward a friend in need, in this case, France.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 07 Feb 2012 02:48

matrimc wrote:
Acharya wrote:He is talking about Vote bank which has creeped into american politics.
Because of the ideological position of the conservatives this is gaining support. They dont care who the candidate is
Acharya ji

That may very well be the case. But there is nothing like "US Psyche" - there is no monolithic 40% block that has a certain kind of "psyche". Even if there is a small set of people with this "psyche", surely it does not xlate into "US Psyche"?

Regards

There are signs of cooercion going on in the society in certain regions. voices of the opposition are being muffled. Shooting of the congress woman in Arizona is an example