India-US relations: News and Discussions III

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 05 Dec 2016 06:44

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... of-defense

A New Yorker reporter recounts his notes on Mattis taken 5 years ago.

It is common to observe, based on congressional testimony and other public comments he has made, that Mattis has taken a hard line toward Iran, particularly the activities of the Revolutionary Guards and other allied or expeditionary Iranian militant units in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. During our discussions, Mattis made a few comments along those lines. But mainly he seemed focussed on deepening America’s long-standing military and political alliances with Sunni Arab states—Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. During his time at Central Command, he spent many hours talking to counterparts in those countries, which tend to view Shia revolutionary Iran as a serious threat. The smaller, militarily weaker Sunni states closest to Iran—such as the U.A.E.—were and remain acutely anxious that the United States might sell out their security in some Nixon-to-China grand bargain with Tehran.

I had the sense that, in Obama’s cabinet, Mattis channelled those Sunni Arab anxieties forcefully, but I never heard him itching for another Middle Eastern war or talking up the benefits of bombing Iran preëmptively. Over all, the Mattis in my notes seemed intently focussed on stability, wary of warfare that sought to promote democracy or idealism, sentimental about the independence of the Baltic states, firmly committed to nato, and unsentimental about Russia. During our stay in Estonia, he spoke publicly at a think-tank conference and made plain his commitment to the Baltic states’ membership in nato and the obligation to defend them from Russian aggression. He was particularly emotional about the role Estonian soldiers had played as nato members in Afghanistan and the sacrifices in lives they had made there.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 05 Dec 2016 08:15

NRaoji other nations do not send ngos because India is cleaner or not. They do it to advance their nefarious agendas , it has nothing to do with India being clean or not or whether India does the right thing or not.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 05 Dec 2016 08:16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tggjdGNLXyI

Nice interview with Gen Mattis...hopefully not posted earlier

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Dec 2016 08:25

snahata wrote:NRaoji other nations do not send ngos because India is cleaner or not. They do it to advance their nefarious agendas , it has nothing to do with India being clean or not or whether India does the right thing or not.

Whenever there is a vulnerability you will invariably see an invasive move. You don't take care of your health, you fall sick. Lack of security, Pakistan attacks. Even Infosys, etc invade when they see opponents weak - my old company lost a lot of clients that a way.

NGOs that indulge in underhand activities also do the same. They claim they are doing something and do totally diff. It is this diff that I call cleaning up. Why give them a chance? Indians must take care of Indians - clean up. All areas. Corruption, timeliness, follow rules, ................ Where then is a chance for anyone to send anyone to help?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Dec 2016 08:49

Guddu wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tggjdGNLXyI

Nice interview with Gen Mattis...hopefully not posted earlier

Thanks.

Worth ('re)posting every month.

This guy - Jim - and Gen Kelly are two guys that have a head screwed on right. Should be a great asset as is. And with a good SOS they should work wonders. IMHO of course.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 05 Dec 2016 09:05

NRao wrote:
snahata wrote:NRaoji other nations do not send ngos because India is cleaner or not. They do it to advance their nefarious agendas , it has nothing to do with India being clean or not or whether India does the right thing or not.
Whenever there is a vulnerability you will invariably see an invasive move. You don't take care of your health, you fall sick. Lack of security, Pakistan attacks. Even Infosys, etc invade when they see opponents weak - my old company lost a lot of clients that a way.

NGOs that indulge in underhand activities also do the same. They claim they are doing something and do totally diff. It is this diff that I call cleaning up. Why give them a chance? Indians must take care of Indians - clean up. All areas. Corruption, timeliness, follow rules, ................ Where then is a chance for anyone to send anyone to help?

Translation:
Massa is not to be blamed.Massa is our "strategic partner".
Indians must do more navel gazing to contemplate why they are not strong like massa.
If india is strong massa will stop targeting india & will agree to "keep" india as its bestest strategic partner.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Dec 2016 09:52

All the NGO should under the control of Indian govt.
The gap between the Indian NGO and the motivation of the source of fund is too high to be left independent

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Dec 2016 10:51

Lilo wrote:Translation:
Massa is not to be blamed.Massa is our "strategic partner".
Indians must do more navel gazing to contemplate why they are not strong like massa.
If india is strong massa will stop targeting india & will agree to "keep" india as its bestest strategic partner.

Some more translation: The US can never be wrong. It is the morality & conscience keeper of the world. Whenever and wherever it sees any slippage in morality or cleanliness anywhere, it sends in its army like how immunity works in our body when non-self is recognized and killer T-cells are unleashed to destroy and devour the antigens. Who is US to do this, you may ask. The US is bestowed by the rest of the 'uncivilized' world of this onerous responsibility to 'clean them' in view of its breath-taking treatment of minorities, strict adherence to morality both domestically and externally, its practice of value-based idealpolitik notwithstanding Castro, Allende, mujahideen, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Pakistan et al and the list could go on. A fine example of such cleanliness who is being resurrected from a somewhat oblivion (she never faded out, she was appointed as an assistant to Viceroy Holbrooke) is Ms. Robin Raphel. She 'cleaned up' the terrorism mess in Kashmir, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Compassion International is now being sent to clean-up the 'religious mess' & 'intolerance' within India. All excellent intentions only that none can find fault with!! India has no business to question the US.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Dec 2016 13:45

Lilo wrote:
NRao wrote:
Whenever there is a vulnerability you will invariably see an invasive move. You don't take care of your health, you fall sick. Lack of security, Pakistan attacks. Even Infosys, etc invade when they see opponents weak - my old company lost a lot of clients that a way.

NGOs that indulge in underhand activities also do the same. They claim they are doing something and do totally diff. It is this diff that I call cleaning up. Why give them a chance? Indians must take care of Indians - clean up. All areas. Corruption, timeliness, follow rules, ................ Where then is a chance for anyone to send anyone to help?
Translation:
Massa is not to be blamed.Massa is our "strategic partner".
Indians must do more navel gazing to contemplate why they are not strong like massa.
If india is strong massa will stop targeting india & will agree to "keep" india as its bestest strategic partner.

Translation, pretty much everything is turning in favor of India today.

If Modi is able to distribute, even some of the wealth he has got out of this de-mo, then I bet he can beat back the NGO scam without resorting to any control mechanisms.

On strategic partnership, as noted so many times, who really needs whom? Is it your impression that India has approached the US with some grand requests for such a partnership? (In true BR manner, rotfl)

There are a lot of small adjustments that are occurring - all in favor of India. Because? India is playing the game and cleaning up her act. There will certainly be some pain in the process, but that is to be expected.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 05 Dec 2016 13:48

http://qz.com/852853/kashmir-can-donald ... -conflict/

MSM is going to town with this. Pence never actually said what they implied in the report. But leftists take whatever meaning they want.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 05 Dec 2016 14:20

^
I read a similar one in HT where the headline was on Kashmir but the report was a re-iteration of the current position more or less perhaps with some change in words.

Let the Left wing nuts go ballistic! US/Trumpet will have to issue clarification and tamp down such expectation. OTOH, GOI will get to play the victim. Actually such goof will allows India to set the expectations *early* without sounding off note/out of place/Pushy. Theek hai.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Dec 2016 15:39

US Defence Bill Pledges $ 900 Million To Pakistan

Islamabad: The US House of Representative has passed a defence bill that pledges $ 900 million in economic and other assistance to Pakistan, a significant portion of which is dependent of a Pentagon certification that the country is taking demonstrable steps against the dreaded Haqqani Network.

The US National Defence Authorisation Act for fiscal year 2017 was passed in the House of Representatives yesterday.

The bill limits the overall amount available for reimbursement to $ 1.1 billion, of which $ 900 million is available for reimbursement to Pakistan.

It extends Congressional notification and certification requirements regarding reimbursements to Pakistan. The bill specifies that certain reimbursements to Pakistan are ineligible for a national security waiver unless Department of Defense makes specified certifications regarding the activities of Pakistan with respect to the Haqqani Network.

According to Dawn newspaper, the bill conditions $ 450 million from this assistance to a certification.

This year the amount was $ 300 million, which was not released after Defence Secretary Ashton Carter refused to certify in Pakistan's favour.

The bill is schedule for a vote in the Senate next week. Since it is a consensus bill, it is unlikely to face any opposition.

The bill notes that "the United States and Pakistan continue to have many critical shared interests, both economic- and security-related, which could be the foundation for a positive and mutually beneficial partnership."

In a conference report, which combines the House and Senate versions of a legislation, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain had underlined the importance of a continued relationship between the United States and Pakistan.

He noted that the bill "refocuses security assistance to Pakistan on activities that directly support US national security interests".

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Dec 2016 15:48

Yagnasri wrote:Pence never actually said what they implied in the report. But leftists take whatever meaning they want.

Meaning aside, what did Pence actually say?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Dec 2016 15:57

I liked the Chinese reaction to Trump's call to Taiwan. Beijing said it signalled his “inexperience” with foreign policy, urging “the relevant US side” – implying Trump’s incoming administration – to handle Taiwan-related issues “cautiously and properly” to avoid “unnecessary interference” in the China-US relationship.It followed this reaction with a complaint lodged with the United States. That is how seriously it protects its 'core issue'.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Dec 2016 16:57

SSridhar wrote:
Yagnasri wrote:Pence never actually said what they implied in the report. But leftists take whatever meaning they want.
Meaning aside, what did Pence actually say?

From the December 4, 2016, NBC Meet the Press Transcript:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/m ... 16-n691726

CHUCK TODD:

So let me jump to Pakistan. The Pakistan prime minister on Thursday, here is the headline in the front page of the international news in Karachi, "Trump says ready to play role in resolution of issues." So let me ask you, is he offering to mediate border disputes? The pri-- I guess Pakistan wanted to imply that, that he was offering to mediate border disputes between Pakistan and India. Is that what he was trying to say?

VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT MIKE PENCE:

Well, clearly there's been great tension between India and Pakistan in recent days. It's resulted in violence along the Kashmir region. And I think what the President-elect expressed in conversations with leaders from both countries was a desire for continued U.S. engagement on building the relationship with both of those countries. These are two nuclear powers--

CHUCK TODD:

Right.

VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT MIKE PENCE:

--the President-elect recognizes that. And making sure that, that they know that when this administration takes office, that we intend to be fully engaged in the region and fully engaged with both nations to advance peace and security.

CHUCK TODD:

To be a mediator in deciding Kashmir?

VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT MIKE PENCE:

Well, I think, I think, I think in President-elect Donald Trump you've got someone who, who is prepared to advance America's interests here at home, to rebuild this economy, to fight for American jobs. But I think you're also going to see an energetic leadership in the world, prepared to engage and to look for ways that he can bring those extraordinary deal-making skills to bear on lessening tensions and solving problems in the world.

I think, based on the above, this is a fair reading of the transcript:

Deepa Prakash
‏@lightlight

Pence on @MeetthePress: #Trump intends to "bring extraordinary deal making skills" to the #Kashmir issue. God help us all!

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Dec 2016 17:07

Yagnasri wrote:http://qz.com/852853/kashmir-can-donald ... -conflict/

MSM is going to town with this. Pence never actually said what they implied in the report. But leftists take whatever meaning they want.

What Pence said - the transcript - is in the qz.com article as well. Since the report has the transcript, how "Pence never actually said"... is a bit of a mystery.

The headline of the article is: "Kashmir: Can Donald Trump solve one of the world’s most intractable conflicts?"
And the answer, per Pence is, that while Trump has a heavy domestic agenda, "...I think you’re also going to see an energetic leadership in the world, prepared to engage and to look for ways that he can bring those extraordinary deal-making skills to bear on lessening tensions and solving problems in the world."

The rest of the article is simply a vanilla western narration about the "Kashmir conflict".

Since 1947, India and Pakistan have been locked in a bloody tussle over Kashmir, with millions of troops amassed on both sides and regular exchange of fire across the border that divides the two nuclear-armed neighbours. Islamabad has also been accused of stoking and financing an insurgency in the Indian-administered parts of Kashmir, even as New Delhi’s administration in the area has been questioned for its brutality.

The United Nations has a presence in the disputed area through the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), which monitors the ceasefire on the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border between the two countries in Kashmir.

And although a legion of leaders of both sides—including incumbent prime ministers Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif—have attempted to push the peace process forward, it has invariably been derailed, for some reason or another. Most prominently, the role of Pakistan’s powerful military and militant groups have repeatedly come under the scanner for nixing talks. From the Indian side, lately, an increasingly raucous band of right-wing nationalists haven’t helped matters either. It’s an almost insoluble mess, but one that India has always insisted is a bilateral issue, despite Pakistan’s repeated attempt to bring the matter to global forums, including the UN.

In any case, it isn’t entirely clear how an offer from Trump to use his “extraordinary deal-making skills” to resolve the Kashmir issue will be received in New Delhi and Islamabad. But if it’s anything like the US president-elect’s apparent conversation with Pakistan’s Sharif, possible negotiations will make for an extraordinary event. Maybe even tremendous.

I have said on many occasions that the only organization that matches the mendacity of the Pakistani Establishment is the US Republican Party. Trump supporters do not disappoint either.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Dec 2016 18:14

A_Gupta wrote:What Pence said - the transcript - is in the qz.com article as well. Since the report has the transcript, how "Pence never actually said"... is a bit of a mystery.

Exactly. That was what I implied as well.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 05 Dec 2016 19:16

NRao wrote: If Modi is able to distribute, even some of the wealth he has got out of this de-mo, then I bet he can beat back the NGO scam without resorting to any control mechanisms.

Modi has no intentions to redistribute wealth. Why is Trump not printing billions and handing it out to the American sheeple? Why is he calling for trillion dollar infrastructure spending? 'Redistribute wealth' is what western economists have told the world to do from Marshall plan onwards. What Modi WILL do is, empower people to create wealth. He has already started. And he has figured India does not need western NGOs. Western NGOs need India to keep the charity money flowing.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Dec 2016 22:53

A_Gupta wrote:
VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT MIKE PENCE:

Well, clearly there's been great tension between India and Pakistan in recent days. It's resulted in violence along the Kashmir region. And I think what the President-elect expressed in conversations with leaders from both countries was a desire for continued U.S. engagement on building the relationship with both of those countries. These are two nuclear powers--

I think, based on the above, this is a fair reading of the transcript:

Deepa Prakash
‏@lightlight

Pence on @MeetthePress: #Trump intends to "bring extraordinary deal making skills" to the #Kashmir issue. God help us all!

It is not the US job in the Indian border. US has other priority to look after in AfPak. US Pak relations is itself a problem for them with Af Pak that their hands are full.
India US relationship will be on the Asia Pacific matter and also on India US trade with India increasing Indian export to US

India has to stress what is Indian interest
India has to make Indo Pacific region as the dominant part of US India relationship.
India has to make Indian trade as the dominant part of the US India relationship

All the rest should less than 10% engagement

GShankar · Post by **GShankar** » 06 Dec 2016 00:16

So the newly elected folks are saying what they are saying. China has given a muted response about it's concerns.

What are we either saying or doing? I am hoping we would do both. At the minimum demonstrate clearly that nuclear or not, we are more than capable of "deal"ing with this ourselves. Modi has shown that he is not just a man or words. But if ever there was an opportune time to act, this is one of those moments.

Like I said in another post earlier, this time we may have to spill our blood to secure a seat at the table (all tables).

LokeshC · Post by **LokeshC** » 06 Dec 2016 02:47

^^^ Indeed. What is the worse that could happen?

Unkil has done all he can do here. We could hold on our own in the past when Kiss-(a)ssinger was in the helm we were a much weaker country with very limited means.

Times are different now. I say bring it on, enough of dhothi shivering.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Dec 2016 04:28

Back in 2008, during the election campaign, Obama suggested US mediation for India-Pakistan over Kashmir.
E.g., this from Nov 3, 2008 (election day was Nov 4).
http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2008/ ... -in-india/

“The most important thing we’re going to have to do with respect to Afghanistan, is actually deal with Pakistan,” Obama said in an interview last week with MSNBC. “And we’ve got work with the newly elected government there in a coherent way that says, terrorism is now a threat to you. Extremism is a threat to you. We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants.”

But once elected, Obama did not repeat that. E.g., by Nov 17, i.e., two weeks after Obama was elected, Outlook India was reporting:
http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/st ... ded/238955

'More Has Been Read Into Kashmir Mediation Than Obama Intended' Clinton administration's assistant secretary of state, will have much to do with South Asia policy as a key foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, Ashish Kumar Sen interviews Karl F. 'Rick' Inderfurth

Basically Inderfurth said - please interpret Obama to be saying he supports bilateral and backchannel negotiations between India and Pakistan.

It is now almost a month since Trump was elected, and these idiot remarks by Pence were made just yesterday (December 4th), not backtracking Trump's mediation offer, but repeating it.

(a) Perhaps Trump & Pence will walk back their Kashmir statement, directly or via a spokesperson, like Obama did.

(b) Obama's team responded to India's concern within 2 weeks of getting elected. Compare to Trump. Note that India is objectively more important in the world in 2016 than in 2008. I suspect Trump's team is infinitely less competent and knowledgeable.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 06 Dec 2016 04:37

ah! come on, it was and is plain vanilla diplomatic gibberish. Basically lot of words adding up to nothing, open to any and all interpretations.

Notice the naked dance of Pence and Trump team's rejoinder around the word "mediation" as if it is a nuclear bomb, its plain simple dipolomatic goobledock.

Trump in his way gives bombastic praises in a private call, what else can he say - that he will bomb Pakistan the next day? He was and is a snake oil second hand car salesman, which sold himself to his country. A salesman before screwing will always praise you, he will (and has) praise India as well. As of now, the most important benefit I see from him is he is not beholden to specific groups already in establishment - thus has a chance (note chance) to change. But realistically, I expect him to be played like a puppy by the establishment groups who are well versed in that game.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 Dec 2016 04:40

Trump can resolve Kashmir impasse with ‘dealmaking skills,’ his running mate claims. It won’t be easy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... 11287b1af5

NEW DELHI — The dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has been one of the constants in South Asian affairs for decades. But President-elect Donald Trump's running mate thinks his boss might have the right touch to break the impasse.In an interview on “Meet the Press” Sunday, Vice President-elect Mike Pence appeared to suggest that Kashmir is among the spots where Trump can deploy his “extraordinary dealmaking skills to bear on lessening tensions and solving problems in the world.”He's already made ripples on both sides of the border — and not in a way that seemed to forge common ground. Trump surprised many in India last week when he told Pakistani’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that Pakistan is a “fantastic country” with “fantastic people.”But the tensions over Kashmir — elevated recently with a serious of cross-border attacks — remains one of the region’s most intractable problems. And just to make it even more delicate: both India and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals.
This year, Kashmir has been ravaged by violence since July 8, when Indian security forces killed a popular militant commander. His death triggered weeks of violent clashes between the police and angry youth protesters. More than 70 people died in the unrest and about 100 others were blinded by pellet guns fired by Indian soldiers, officials said.
The region — dotted with lakes and valleys in the shadow of the Himalayas — took an even more perilous turn in late September when Pakistani-based militants attacked an army camp, killing 19 Indian soldiers. India said Pakistan sent the militants across the border, a charge that Islamabad denied. The attack prompted India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, to carry out a strike across the border on Pakistani army posts. Dozens of soldiers have died on both sides in the exchange of heavy fire in recent weeks.India complained about Pakistan’s aggression to the United Nations, which called for a referendum to determine Kashmir’s status. The conditions for the referendum requires Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the region and India to maintain minimum military strength in the state. But the referendum has never been held.The two countries have what is called the Line of Control, a de facto border set after battles in 1972. But in reality, both countries are unprepared to accept the heavily militarized line as the permanent border.Not everybody in India's state of Jammu and Kashmir agrees about what they want. Some people in India’s Kashmir have been advocating complete independence, others want to be part of Pakistan. Another section of people want more autonomy even as they remain with India. The Hindu-majority regions of the state do not support the separatist groups.According to a poll conducted in 2010 by the London-based think tank Chatham House, 44 percent in Pakistani-administered Kashmir favored independence, compared with 43 percent in Indian-administered Kashmir.Kashmir is not just a source of clash between two sovereign nations. Over the years, many other forces have complicated the matter.There are armed Islamist groups in Pakistan that fuel and abet attacks on the Indian forces in Kashmir, experts say. And on the Indian side, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference is a coalition of separatist leaders in Kashmir demand varying degrees of independence for Kashmir. They do not participate in the state elections, but they are not waging an armed insurgency either.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Dec 2016 04:55

I thought most here were saying that a Republican President would be good for India, the distilled knowledge. But, it surely, is beginning on a very wrong foot in spite of efforts to whitewash Trump's & Pence's utterances !!

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 06 Dec 2016 05:19

not good, better - world of difference sir. The well established direct line of channels from Sunni Arab states to al Presidente's ears has been broken. What will replace them, no one knows? How much of that channel was the result of actual core interests of US versus interests of the entrenched - we dont know. There is a chance that Trump can reset them, will he? I dont expect it, it requires too much work.

But with Hillary, they have entrenched interests. Notice the funds given to the clinton foundations.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 06 Dec 2016 05:48

^^ If HRC were the president elect and her lackey had run his/her mouth like Pence did, this place would have screamed bloody murder and rightfully so, because of the baggage of her past.

Trump is an unknown quantity in this domain but as far as the noises go, he's (or at least his lackeys) making all the wrong ones from an Indian perspective. Howsoever one tries to spin it.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 06 Dec 2016 06:02

I am 100% sure India US relations will be significantly worse, under President Donald Trump, than they ever were under Barack Obama (not that they were particularly great under him, but still, I am fully expecting a severe nosedive).

The lame counterfactual of "Hillary would have been even worse" is of absolutely zero relevance to India's situation, lacking even academic value at this point. It makes no difference at all if she would have been worse. She isn't the POTUS elect, Trump is... and every signal to date, from Pakistan phone call to Mike Pence's mention of J&K mediation to the appointment of uber-Pak pasand Gen. Mattis to the re-emergence of Paul Manafort as a major player... indicates bad news for India.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Dec 2016 06:37

Virupaksha wrote: Trump in his way gives bombastic praises in a private call, what else can he say - that he will bomb Pakistan the next day?

What President-elect Obama said to Zardari back in 2008 - I had to pull this from Google cache, the original Reuters web-page is gone, so no link

Obama calls Pakistan’s Zardari, assures support
By Sanjeev Miglani
November 9, 2008

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has assured Pakistani President Asif Al Zardari of his support for democracy in the frontline nation during a telephone call on Friday, Pakistan’s official state agency said.

Obama’s conversation was part of a round of phone calls he made to world leaders including Britain, Israel, Japan, Australia, France and Germany, mainly to thank them for their messages of congratulation following his victory.

Pakistan’s The News in a report from Washington said Obama conveyed his full support to help Pakistan overcome its financial difficulties as also face down the threat from militants.

He said he was keen for better ties between the two allies in the war against militancy and to settle differences arising from U.S. missile strikes inside Pakistan, the newspaper said.

Compare and contrast to Trump.

Incidentally, during the 2008 campaign, the differences between Obama and McCain:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... cCain.html

Obama: Vows to 'snuff out' Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and do 'whatever it takes to defend our nation.' Would unilaterally bomb terror chiefs inside Pakistan if the country's leaders 'cannot or will not' act against them.

McCain: Also says he will find and destroy bin Laden to protect America but has criticised his rival's pledge to follow targets into ally Pakistan. Boasts of his Vietnam War experience to vaunt his national security credentials.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 Dec 2016 06:52

No one thought DT will be good for India. But all agreed that HC is the worst of the two as for as Indian interests are concerned. With regard to the statement Pence made, I read the text and there is nothing specific on Kashmir etc he made. MSM hyped it and that is all. We need to stop this dhoti shivering. DT is an unknown quality and he may only take interest in US economy etc and in that we may take some hit as he may be a protectionist. But as far as Pakis go, nothing may change.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Dec 2016 07:10

The mother of all NGOs has struck. As expected.

However,

Trump is an unknown quantity in this domain but as far as the noises go, he's (or at least his lackeys) making all the wrong ones from an Indian perspective. Howsoever one tries to spin it.

IMHO, it is not Trump, but a group that is putting him up as a convenient front. Pense I suspect is part of that group.

On my part no fear. Modi will handle this. In fact, I think India sits pretty well in this painting.

BTW, two items of interest:

1) the F-16 to India proposal has made it to the front page of Washington Post - on the pretext of job loss. Not read the article, but I suspect they are not aware of MII.
2) The republicans in the congress have given a blank check to Trump. So, I suspect all these caucuses will be suspended for a while. Return of the Wild West. One sheriff in town.

On other matters, I for one am impressed with his selection of FP team. Flynn seems to have indulged in info war during the campaign. Do not like it, but par for the course.

Interior team is a mess. But we got what we wished for.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Dec 2016 07:18

Retd. US Army P.W Lang and his crew who run the turcopolier blog are in general supporters of Trump. But even they have concerns.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semp ... y-ttg.html

But I am most concerned about what Trump will do about an Iran that is increasingly integrated into the Eurasian and Asian spheres. Trump and the Republicans are death on the JCPOA deal with Iran. Trump probably because he believes he can do better. The Republicans because the JCPOA is part of the Obama legacy. Flynn, Mattis and many others consider Iran to be the font of all evil in the world and seek to vanquish this dire threat to all things good and American. How does all this square with Trump’s desire to seek rapprochement with Russia? Will he let the events in the far corners of the world pass him by? Tis a puzzlement.

Elsewhere on the blog, a post on November 25th says:
( http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semp ... ughts.html )

...Mattis lost his job as CENTCOM commander for crowding the Iranians by sending US warships inshore where they were evidently expected to provoke a fight. This was contrary to Obama's policy and Mattis was warned about this behavior before he was replaced. Mattis should be cautioned against exceeding his authorities before being made SECDEF. Flynn's childish foolishness in going to Moscow at Russian Government expense to attend a conference and allowing his picture to be taken at table with Putin was so indiscreet as to raise questions about his maturity and judgment. He should be privately cautioned against that kind of self-indulgence. Pompaio is a tea party congressman from a great plains state who was once in the US Army for a few years and left as soon as he could. He was first in his class at USMA? So what? He was an undergraduate and that was a long time ago. He appears to be filled with a great belligerence towards Russia, Syria and Iran. If President Trump orders him to stop all assistance to the "moderate" and jihadi groups CIA has been assisting in Syria, will he carry out his orders or seek to avoid them? If Romney is made SECSTATE will he follow a policy of detente with Russia, China, etc. or will he try to go his own way?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Dec 2016 08:10

FYI: on US manufacturing
https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment ... ufacturing

The US manufacturing sector is large, strong, and growing not in spite of but to a large extent because of global engagement. The United States will maintain its comparative advantage in high-skilled manufacturing but will increasingly rely on high-performance service jobs for future employment growth.

The absolute number of jobs in the manufacturing sector is indeed declining, with a loss of almost 30 percent since 2000. But this decline in manufacturing jobs is not because the size of the US manufacturing base is shrinking.

Here comes what will be a first surprise to many: US manufacturing output has been growing rapidly in recent years. Real value added in manufacturing grew by 3.1 percent per year over the entire period 1960–2007. From 2010 into 2014 average manufacturing output growth was 4 percent per year.

What about the competitiveness of the US manufacturing sector? Here is where the second surprise emerges: Contrary to widespread hand-wringing about the loss of American competitiveness, productivity in the US manufacturing sector has been growing, both absolutely and relative to other sectors of the US economy.

The broadest measure of productivity—total factor productivity, which embodies the improvement in technical efficiency via all inputs—grew 1.18 percent faster in manufacturing than in the economy as a whole between 1960 and 2014. Over the same period labor productivity in manufacturing grew 1.51 percent per year more rapidly than labor productivity in the economy as a whole. The fact that total factor productivity and labor productivity in manufacturing have both been growing faster than in other parts of the US economy means that fewer jobs are required to generate greater output.

So, while manufacturing is shrinking both in terms of absolute numbers of jobs and as a share of US domestic employment, this is not because the growth of US manufacturing activity is declining, nor because the absolute or relative productivity of US firms and workers is faltering. On the contrary, the US manufacturing base is becoming bigger than ever and the productivity of firms and workers in manufacturing leads the rest of the US economy in growing stronger.

Global engagement is an important element of US competitiveness. Here is the third surprise: Increased offshoring of manufacturing by US multinationals is associated with increases in the size and strength of the manufacturing sector in the United States.

That is, an increase in outward foreign direct investment (FDI) by a US firm is associated with an increase in domestic US activities by that same firm. Specifically, increases in four variables (employment, sales, capital expenditures, and research and development or R&D) in foreign affiliates of US firms are all positively associated with increases in five variables in the United States (employment, sales, capital expenditures, R&D, and exports).

Trade or no trade, the absolute number of jobs in the manufacturing sector is indeed declining. So where will more good jobs be found in the US economy of the future? The answer is high-performance service jobs.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 06 Dec 2016 08:21

Hello.

Mike Pence, before his term as Governor of Indiana, was the Congressman representing the 6th District of Indiana.

He inherited that seat from a fellow Republican congressman whose name is well known to those of us watching US India relations since the 1990s...

Dan Burton.

Do the promised Crusade in Kashmir, AND the accelerated Evanjihadi Offensive initiated by Republican Ed Royce (on behalf of Compassion International), make more sense in light of Mike Pence's ideological lineage (parampara)?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 Dec 2016 09:14

EJ would have been in power no matter who has won. As long we have strong Indic leadership in India we can manage things.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Dec 2016 19:34

In a hurry. Someone kindly post this in the single engine aircraft thread please.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/as ... ge%2Fstory

wash post wrote:India wants to co-produce the fighter jets as part of its Make in India program, which has the lofty goal of expanding the manufacturing base to 25 percent of the gross domestic product in the next six years.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 06 Dec 2016 20:54

Rudradev wrote:I am 100% sure India US relations will be significantly worse, under President Donald Trump, than they ever were under Barack Obama (not that they were particularly great under him, but still, I am fully expecting a severe nosedive).

The lame counterfactual of "Hillary would have been even worse" is of absolutely zero relevance to India's situation, lacking even academic value at this point. It makes no difference at all if she would have been worse. She isn't the POTUS elect, Trump is... and every signal to date, from Pakistan phone call to Mike Pence's mention of J&K mediation to the appointment of uber-Pak pasand Gen. Mattis to the re-emergence of Paul Manafort as a major player... indicates bad news for India.

Will Trump be as bad as Nixon? Nixon was probably the worse one out there, wont you agree? Trump can be as bad but I do not know at the moment he will be. And neither do you. And what signals have been given? What makes you believe Mattis is Pak pasand? I have not yet encountered anything which suggests this. Please do post some information that you have that could prove this.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 06 Dec 2016 21:35

panduranghari wrote:
Will Trump be as bad as Nixon? Nixon was probably the worse one out there, wont you agree? Trump can be as bad but I do not know at the moment he will be. And neither do you. And what signals have been given? What makes you believe Mattis is Pak pasand? I have not yet encountered anything which suggests this. Please do post some information that you have that could prove this.

No need to go overboard in beating this to death. Just observe Trump and you will understand the contours. First of all he is a moron and extreme right wing white Christian nationalist thug bordering on fascism His comments on people of color are reflective of his mindset. And last but not the least, he is nothing but a mouthpiece of the US deep state. ((ll of this is perfectly fine, he won in a free and fair election).

Thus, when you look at his outlook and the behavior of the US deep state towards India and TSP past 70+ years, it is very clear that there is no strategic component to US's relations with both India & TSP except to maintain balance of power so no one country overwhelms the other. As a smaller weaker state, TSP is more of a client, and US indirectly encourages TSP to dispatch pigLeTs into India. US understand the need for TSP nukes to counterbalance India's so crap like "nuke flash-point" can be used to make both India and TSP nuke nude. In short, all US wants is manage "South Asia" to secure its interests.

No US president would have made the kind of phone call that Trump did to say Palestinians like he did to TSP and showered that effusing praise were it not for the need for equal equal (it may be artificial, but he will do the same artificial dance with India too, recall all those stupid SDRE fools who went berserk inviting him to a rally in NJ,temple etc). You think Trump would are talk so effusively of Palestinians or their leadership? Just think about it.

Finally, "South Asia" itself is a bit player in US's and Trump's white nationalist scheme of things, so no need to go overboard on what he says or does. It will just be equal equal in some form and thats what ModiJi should expect.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 06 Dec 2016 21:52

panduranghari wrote: Will Trump be as bad as Nixon? Nixon was probably the worse one out there, wont you agree? Trump can be as bad but I do not know at the moment he will be. And neither do you.

Panduranghari ji,

I am not sure what your argument is here. You are arbitrarily saying Nixon was the "worse one out there"... do you mean that Nixon is some eternal low-water mark, and no US president could ever be worse for India than him? I see this as a rhetorical assertion at best, because it is not only of questionable relevance in the present day, but completely impossible to validate one way or the other. The world and India are both different now than at Nixon's time, so with what yardstick will you measure whether Trump is "worse than" Nixon? And even if Trump cannot be conclusively described as "worse" than Nixon, does that mean India should not be wary of Trump?

Worse than Nixon or better than Nixon, worse than Hillary or better than Hillary, doesn't matter... what seems pretty clear is that Trump will be much worse than Obama. That is all that matters for India... the expected trend in US-India relations is downward, possibly dramatically downward. Exactly how much worse, we will find out.

And what signals have been given? What makes you believe Mattis is Pak pasand? I have not yet encountered anything which suggests this. Please do post some information that you have that could prove this.

Originally posted by Brar_W

https://youtu.be/SCD5zHBNWG8
Watch Mattis' answer to the Pakistani journalist at 54:00
-He praises Pakistan Army to the skies for their role in the war in Afghanistan.

-He advances Pakistani propaganda ("more Paki soldiers than NATO soldiers have given their lives in the war on terror"). He does this in a public forum, the Heritage Foundation, giving Paki propaganda the weight of his authority. This is in 2014, LONG after the truth about Pakistan's duplicity in backing the Taliban and Haqqani Network had been publicly revealed, and after the OBL strike in Abbotabad had occurred.

-He applauds the election of Ashraf Ghani, who had newly come to power at the time of this lecture, as someone who will "finally be willing to work with" Pakistan. This needs to be understood in light of Paki propaganda to the effect that Hamid Karzai's alleged intransigence was the chief problem standing in the way of resolving Af-Pak. The American godfathers of Pakistan strongly favoured Ghani to replace Karzai, because they assumed that he would be amenable to a pro-Pakistan dispensation in Afghanistan following the US withdrawal.

Mattis' attitude in this matter makes it clear enough that he is one of these godfathers... or at any rate, a willing conduit of the political attitude cultivated by Pakistani propaganda regarding Karzai and Ghani.

-On intervening in negotiations between Pakistan and India, Mattis virtually suggests US help to mediate on Sir Creek and "the glacier" (i.e. Siachen). He says Kashmir would be too much for the US to try to mediate, but he departs radically from the Obama administration policy in even mentioning these two other border conflicts. Needless to say, India has never countenanced and would never tolerate third-party foreign intervention in ANY India-Pakistan border dispute.

It is highly noteworthy here that Sir Creek and Siachen were part of a formula, advanced by the George W Bush administration, as a basis for the "talks" which they pressurized the MMS government to hold with Musharraf. Once Obama came in, all these formulae melted away and the pressure on New Delhi to talk to Islamabad decreased. However, the very fact that Mattis revisits Sir Creek and Siachen as potential issues of US mediation shows that he was far more Pak-pasand than anyone else in the Obama administration at the time.

(OT: By the way, can we also admit that David Coleman Headley's anti-India terrorist activities took place 100% during the Republican George W Bush era? Yes, the Obama administration denied the GOI unlimited access to Headley, but which offense was worse? Denying us unlimited access after putting Headley in jail for life, or allowing/facilitating Headley to set up the 26/11 attack under cover of working as a DEA operative? Just saying. /OT)

-Finally, Agnimitra ji has reported:
viewtopic.php?p=2083045#p2083045

Agnimitra wrote:
GShankar wrote:Any insights on what are sec. Mattis' opinions on pakis?
At least on one occasion, he declared that the Pakis were innocent of Osama's presence in Abbotabad.

I will let you ask him directly for links to his sources, but given his stature on the forum, Agnimitra ji is a credible enough source for me!

If that's not enough here is another article detailing the cosy relationship between Mattis and the TSPA/ISI jernails:
http://thewire.in/84193/trump-defence-s ... -pakistan/

Other signals?

A_Gupta ji, earlier in this thread, has linked the NBC "Meet The Press" transcript where Mike Pence doubles down on Trump's offer to "mediate" in Kashmir.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/m ... 16-n691726

This is further corroborated in the Washington Post report linked by Prem ji:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... 11287b1af5

And finally Paul Manafort, a paid lobbyist for Pakistan's ISI, who was involved with the Ghulam Nabi Fai-led Kashmiri separatist propaganda effort, is now in a position of influence over Trump's transition team once again.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/ ... ransition/

All of this is more than enough for me to believe that Trump administration will be highly pro-Pakistan, and by extension anti-India in nature. Comparisons to Nixon, as I said, are meaningless.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 06 Dec 2016 22:00

Wait..I thought somebody here defended manafort as just a professional doing his job. Now he is suddenly a danger to India ...