India-US News and Discussion

arun · Post by **arun** » 30 Nov 2009 21:38

harbans wrote:............... the threat to bomb Southern and Western parts of Pakistan, indicates some seriousness and grasp within the strategic US community of the issue.

I would not necessarily draw that conclusion.

Obama on the campaign trail back in August 2007 said some belligerent things regarding the Islamic Republic of Pakistan but as history has shown has not yet acted upon it

:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1, 2007

Obama Vows To Hunt Terrorists In Pakistan

Presidential Hopeful Says He Would Send In U.S. Troops If Musharraf Doesn't Do More

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will”.

CBS News

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Nov 2009 21:47

Harbans,

I agree.

Specially IF Gen Jones went to Pakistan because they felt Prez Z was being marginalized that by itself is a quantum leap.

The WashPost article has to be better read/understood to look outside the box. This article goes way beyond earlier thinking. And I feel this is directed at some within Pakistan - specially the Army.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2009 23:10

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=obama

if you get time run through the pages..

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 30 Nov 2009 23:24

NRao wrote:Harbans,

I agree.

Specially IF Gen Jones went to Pakistan because they felt Prez Z was being marginalized that by itself is a quantum leap.

The WashPost article has to be better read/understood to look outside the box. This article goes way beyond earlier thinking. And I feel this is directed at some within Pakistan - specially the Army.

if US was trying to prop up Zardari, then it missed the bus, zardari is being thrown under it by the army as we speak. Right now, India's best bet is the Pakis' innate anti-Americanism enough to trump any digesting of US goodies by RAPE. Increased vigilance by Congress and general public outcry at the wastage of US money might lead to some sort of eye-opening.

The whole formulation of "Pakistan is indispensable" is idiotic. Sure, your enemy is "indispensable" in a war--it has to cease to be an enemy for the war to be won. Does that mean you will just fight around the enemy, while showering the enemy himself with bribes?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Nov 2009 23:46

Most likely there will be regime change in TSP to satisfy the TSPA before they acquiese to the new policy. Lets see.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Dec 2009 07:06

Ram Narayanan is doing a great job of collecting all the op-eds from the chatterati. We need to read them and make up our own mind. I Think MMS visit was a win for nothing was given away.
The expectation was a lot was on the block.
The Headley case has given some negotiating room for India. Lets see Copenhagen and the Af-Pak policy speeches.

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 01 Dec 2009 07:57

Here is one

Don't Forget About India says Christopher Hitchens in Slate

The enormous subventions given to the Pakistani elite in the "war on terror" are thus partly a subsidy to the very forces we claim to be fighting and partly a bribe to make them at least pretend to stop

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 01 Dec 2009 08:09

Not a bad article. The attack on parliament and the bombing of the Indian embassy in Afganistan morphed into a "massive car bomb attack" on parliament but his heart is still in the right place.

arun · Post by **arun** » 01 Dec 2009 09:14

Did not take very long after the ego massage dished out during our Prime Ministers official visit for the US to revert true to type and undercut Indian interests to reward the bad behaviour of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

.

The New York Times on the likely contours of US President Obama’s new Af-Pak policy which is reported as being designed to prevent India exercising influence in Afghanistan after the US pulls out

:

Obama’s Speech on Afghanistan to Envision Exit

By PETER BAKER, ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: November 29, 2009 ……………………………….

Officials of one allied nation who have been extensively briefed on the president’s plan said, however, that Mr. Obama would describe how the American presence would be ratcheted back after the buildup, while making clear that a significant American presence in Afghanistan would remain for a long while. That is designed in part to signal to Pakistan that the United States will not abandon the region and to allay Pakistani fears that India will fill the vacuum created as America pulls back. ……………….

New York Times

Seems like US President Obama was not reflecting US policy

when he welcomed Indian involvement in Afghanistan during the recent visit of our Prime Minister there and that Gen. McChrystals characterisation of Indian influence in Afghanistan as a dangerous thing is more reflective of American policy.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 01 Dec 2009 10:21

Comment below the Hughes article - Love em

Guys bad behavior always pays up in good booty.Neville Chamberlain Appeased Hitler resulting in WW-2.USA is appeasing Pakistan i don't know what it will bring to world.i'm sure it wont be peace and stability.coz this appeasement will sure gonna embolden Pakistani Islamic.So why not India too throw up troubles for USA and west for its interests in Indian ocean.we can sure play Russian roulette with usa in IOR.And regarding kashmir its the USA more than pakistan,which want to see kashmir go out of indian control.So that usa can get military base in there.that way usa will be more readily be able to stir up trouble in Tibet.by having foothold in Kashmir usa can keep an eye on both china and India.Thats why we are seeing all democrats of Albright school of thoughts returning in Obama administration.Its the open known fact that former USA secretary of state Ms.Albright in Clinton administration used to meet All party hurriyat conference leaders in new dehli.And she herself is back now

slog says:
Michael Hughes: you really should not be writing on a subject that reveals your abject ignorance. You write like a typical American who thinks that if the US can strong-arm this state to do that then that state will comply - LOL!!! Consider the 20 year jihad that Pak has waged on India courtesy of previous US administrations, the CIA and failed US policy. The US has behaved abominably in South Asia with the result it has diminished its clout and allowed Pak to develop as the epicenter of terrorism. Do you really think you can just "tell the Indians" what to do. Stop fantasizing and hone up on the history of the Indian sub-continent. The only way America can 'win' is by leaving Afghanistan and taking the 'war' to Pakistan because that is where all problems start and that is where all problems will have to end.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Dec 2009 10:28

Don't Forget About India says Christopher Hitchens in Slate

The visit of Prime Minister Singh should have been the occasion for a vigorous public debate on whether this growing tendency—the Pakistanization of U.S. policy in the region—is the wise or correct one.

It is a closed group of US Pentagon, CIA and State Dept officials who have maintained the supremacy of the Pak position in the US policy of AfPak

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 01 Dec 2009 11:47

Christopher Hitchens wrote: The visit of Prime Minister Singh should have been the occasion for a vigorous public debate on whether this growing tendency—the Pakistanization of U.S. policy in the region—is the wise or correct one.

needs to be highlighted.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 01 Dec 2009 21:15

Interesting snippet from Nightwatch ...

NightWatch considers ludicrous those assessments that find Russian, Chinese and Iranian leaders consider the US president weak. This administration has tried new ways of doing business, been rebuffed in all three capitals, but has only been in office less than a year. What comes next will measure its strength or weakness.

The political model is Chicago politics. It is hard ball, not bean bag. The second round is the important round, not the opening action-reaction cycle. Some analytical centers don’t get it yet and are premature in publishing conclusions because they have truncated the action.

For NightWatch Readers, consider: the history of the past decade is that leaders in China, Russia and Iran consider any US President to be unpredictable and dangerous because of the capabilities at his command and willingness to apply that power.

Historically, foreign leaders will see consistency in US policy actions more readily than change, as a matter of prudence. Thus, while they are prone to take tactical advantage of small windows of opportunity, analysts are unwise in assessing that foreign leaders consider a US president to be weak at this early time in his term of office. No responsible world leaders share that view, wisely. They see that view as baloney trying to pass for beef steak and they smell a trap.

source

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Dec 2009 03:18

C.P Bhambri in Pioneer

A public relations exercise

BTW, CPB is well known INC supporter of yore.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 02 Dec 2009 21:01

Ramanaji - Would you please let me know what you meant by "pisko insight inside my world view"?

Thanks. I asked that before.

Amber G. wrote:
ramana wrote:I find it interesting that you phrase my question as "bothered" and link the TSP Amby's hallucinations in same sentence.

Seems to be you see no difference.

Thanks for giving the pisko insight into your world view.
Ramana - sorry did not understand what exactly you mean by "pisko insight inside my world view"?

In any case, I quoted your post, just because I found it really amusing the appointments are causing taqleef to TSP's Amby .. as much as that he has to show it and admit that it is "naturally making Pakistan nervous"
Not to mention last time Sonal Sha's appointment caused a major taqleef to Paki lobbyists when they complained about "terrorist appointed by Obama's" (Kid you not that was actually a headline referring to some supposedly some connection between Sonal Shah's and BJP)

S.Gautam · Post by **S.Gautam** » 02 Dec 2009 21:37

Reactions to the Obama Afghanistan speech are mostly negative. He tried to hedge and ended up pissing off most, both left and right. To the Americans, it's a dichotomy between progressive/dove position of giving up and running and the neocon/hawk position of keep sending troops and stay until victory. No one seems aware of the Paki double game and sabotage (or at least not concerned). The Americans are at least as strategically blind as the Pakis, possibly more so. They deserve the failure that's coming to them.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 02 Dec 2009 22:36

Reactions to the Obama Afghanistan speech are mostly negative.

Yep!

Here is a quote from Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, Taliban Spokesperson:

Obama will witness lots of coffins heading to America from Afghanistan.
Their hope to control Afghanistan by military means will not become reality. The extra 30,000 troops that will come to Afghanistan will provoke stronger resistance and fighting.
They will withdraw shamefully. They cannot achieve their hopes and goals.

the same BBC source also quotes reaction from Nato Secretory General, Gen. Stanley Cristal, UK's Brown, French President, and a host of US senators and many others...

Was listening to CNN's Anderson Cooper who had reporters describing the reaction of the West Point cadets after the speech which one described as "Obama was treated like a rock star" and with deep respect.

BTW it might be worthwhile to check out the transcripts of AC360, Zakaria had few insightful comments about Obama's views on Pakistan (FZ with a few others opinion journalists had lunch with Obama and they talked about that)

Added later: cut and paste from the transcripts: (FZ's quote on CNN's AC360)

The one big difference in Afghanistan which complicates it enormously is that you have this regional power that has historically-supported many of the militias that have destabilized Afghanistan. That still supports some militias and some terrorist groups. What do you do about that?

Michael Ware pointed out the leadership of the Afghan Taliban. The people who are waging war in Afghanistan against U.S. forces are all in a city called Quetta. They are called the Quetta Shura. Shura means council. The people now think many of them are in Karachi.

Al Qaeda is almost entirely, its leadership, in Pakistan. So we don't have an easy strategy. Now, I actually brought this up with the president at the luncheon. He said, "Look, the problem is we don't have an easy option in Pakistan. We can't just go in there. It's a sovereign nation. We have to work with them. We have to cooperate."

But that's -- it's a policy that is in some substantial part based on the good well of the Pakistani military and a Pakistani government that is in severe crisis.

If I were to point to one weak spot in the overall strategy, that's it. Not that it's clear that President Obama can do anything about it. But fundamentally, it's very difficult to solve this without dealing with Pakistan.

.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 02 Dec 2009 22:59

NRao wrote:This Obama strategy is better and clearer than the ones in the past. This is one that India should be able to digest.

Agree with that.

S.Gautam · Post by **S.Gautam** » 02 Dec 2009 23:30

Amber G. wrote:
Reactions to the Obama Afghanistan speech are mostly negative.
Yep! Here is a quote from Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, Taliban Spokesperson:
Obama will witness lots of coffins heading to America from Afghanistan.
Their hope to control Afghanistan by military means will not become reality. The extra 30,000 troops that will come to Afghanistan will provoke stronger resistance and fighting.
They will withdraw shamefully. They cannot achieve their hopes and goals.
the same BBC source also quotes reaction from Nato Secretory General, Gen. Stanley Cristal, UK's Brown, French President, and a host of US senators and many others...

Was listening to CNN's Anderson Cooper who had reporters describing the reaction of the West Point cadets after the speech which one described as "Obama was treated like a rock star" and with deep respect.

BTW it might be worthwhile to check out the transcripts of AC360, Zakaria had few insightful comments about Obama's views on Pakistan (FZ with a few others opinion journalists had lunch with Obama and they talked about that)

Reactions from officials count for nothing as a tool to gauge how anyone *actually* feels. The reaction to the Nobel prize from officials was all just peachy. The public reaction was one of bemusement and ridicule. That's because officials can't say what might hurt relations with the head of the U.S. government even if it's dead obvious to everyone else.

Judging from your very transparent personal adoration for Obama, you might be the type who sticks to partisan sites within your comfort circle and may be unaware of more mainstream perceptions. "Rock star", yeah.... Someone tell the Germans that: Der Spiegel: Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

Prefer American sites? Here you go: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30109.html

The post-speech reaction, particularly on cable, was heavily negative.

And why wouldn't they be? He's sending a large number of troops (opposed by the left) and plans to withdraw them a mere year later (opposed by the right). Trying to strike a nuanced middle position works -- but this is a half-assed attempt to please everyone.

As far as Obama's "views" go, they mean jack squat anymore. I, and an increasing number of people, no longer give a rat's ass about what Obama *says*. That's for campaigns. Actions are the only thing that count and he's giving Pakis more money, when it's an open secret that it gets diverted to funding the murder of Indians.

Now don't get me wrong -- I'm relieved that he's not outright ditching like his party's core wanted so from our PoV it's not completely disastrous and I agree that this is something we can "digest". A lack of a surge would have hurt Indian interests very much, as Afghanistan would fall to Paki influence and all our development efforts and aid would have been for nothing, and A'stan would go a full 180 swing from a potential ally to a known enemy. And, in fact, he'll mostly likely need to discard the withdrawal plans as the date approaches and reality dawns on Washington. I was merely noting the reaction, which was very plainly negative, to show that the Americans have a 2-dimensional view ignoring Pakistan.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 02 Dec 2009 23:59

Judging your very transparent personal adoration for Obama, you might be the type who sticks to partisan sites within your comfort circle and may be unaware of more mainstream perceptions

Sorry to burst your bubble and state the obvious, yes I am not on the side of the "partisan" Talibs and their "mainstream" perceptions...Yes, those kind who think they are genius to spell Obama with an extra 'b' ..( BTW there are many other "mainstream worthies" in deaf-and dumb form who insist on spelling India with an extra b too ... as they too think they are expert on US/India policy) ...Or like the Einsteins of Paki editors those who think that any one who voted for Obama ( ) have blood on their hand for Mumbai Massacre.

Sorry boss judge all you want, I have the same respect for you (generic you), that is those who brings out the same old stale comments post after posts. (Like members writings supporting Birthers etc..)

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 Dec 2009 00:29

When you cannot defend your position rationally, then resorting to calling people who disagree with the administration "Pakees", or implying they are similar, is the hallmark of a true ******. The credibility factor is very low and all links and comments must be verified.

Its better to stick to string theory and math puzzles.

Edited by ramana. Dont call names or imply them.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 Dec 2009 00:43

I think its important to remember that POTUS sets out policy goals and it is ultimately the US Congress which controls the purse strings to implement the policy. Pay attention to the actual funding provided. Both parties said they will commit funds for the AfPak policy, but the question is how much and what amount will be at the discretion of POTUS to grease the skids in TSP? This deserves very close scrutiny since TSP is being offered some sort "strategic" engagement in terms of advanced weapon systems.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 03 Dec 2009 01:06

Mort Walker wrote:When you cannot defend your position rationally, then resorting to calling people who disagree with the administration "Pakees", or implying they are similar, is the hallmark of a true scoundrel. The credibility factor is very low and all links and comments must be verified.
Its better to stick to string theory and math puzzles.

Sir, this is not only OT it is flame bait at best.

Admins I really don't have time for that, hope you clean it up.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 Dec 2009 01:08

Amber G. wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:When you cannot defend your position rationally, then resorting to calling people who disagree with the administration "Pakees", or implying they are similar, is the hallmark of a true scoundrel. The credibility factor is very low and all links and comments must be verified.
Its better to stick to string theory and math puzzles.
Sir, this is not only OT it is flame bait at best.

Admins I really don't have time for that, hope you clean it up.

I'll quit if you quit calling people "Packees" or implying they're related to luminaries like Zaid Hamid. Criticizing the administration is not off-topic here.

S.Gautam · Post by **S.Gautam** » 03 Dec 2009 01:17

Amber G. wrote:
Judging your very transparent personal adoration for Obama, you might be the type who sticks to partisan sites within your comfort circle and may be unaware of more mainstream perceptions

Sorry to burst your bubble and state the obvious, yes I am not on the side of the "partisan" Talibs and their "mainstream" perceptions...Yes, those kind who think they are genius to spell Obama with an extra 'b' ..( BTW there are many other "mainstream worthies" in deaf-and dumb form who insist on spelling India with an extra b too ... as they too think they are expert on US/India policy) ...Or like the Einsteins of Paki editors those who think that any one who voted for Obama ( ) have blood on their hand for Mumbai Massacre.

Sorry boss judge all you want, I have the same respect for you (generic you), that is those who brings out the same old stale comments post after posts. (Like members writings supporting Birthers etc..)

And in one move, you paint those not enamored with Obama as Pakis, Taliban, and "Birthers". Astonishing brilliance. I'll recede and cry the night away.

Wake up and smell the coffee. It's extremely obvious from your posts that you love Obama to a fault. It's like you have a vested personal interest in upholding his plunging reputation. Now, I don't care one bit about U.S. partisan politics as, unlike you, I'm not an American. I'm just stating what I see. Obama's decline is obvious to everyone not off in the lala land of Nov. 4 and Jan. 20. You merely confirmed what I said if you genuinely think the critics of Obama's Afghanistan speech/plan consists of Taliban.

Anyway, our good friend Herr Musharraf chimes in with this gem in the WSJ: The Afghan-Pakistan Solution

At the end of the day, it is civilians, not soldiers, who have to take charge of their country.

But bizarrely, he did get something right: "An exit strategy must be predicated on achieving military and political goals, not dictated by time limits." Let's hope the Obama administration understands this. I hope this 2011 withdrawal nonsense is just for the consumption of the party base.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 Dec 2009 01:45

Mort Walker wrote:When you cannot defend your position rationally, then resorting to calling people who disagree with the administration "Pakees", or implying they are similar, is the hallmark of a true ******. The credibility factor is very low and all links and comments must be verified.

Its better to stick to string theory and math puzzles.

Edited by ramana. Dont call names or imply them.

Ramana,

Will do and my apologies to you, but what can I say since I have a "Pakee" brain.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Dec 2009 01:52

I want everyone to understand some thing here. We are on BR because we want to be together, believe in India and learn from each other. Now all that we say might not be agreeable. However let that not be a further cause for division. So when you dont like some thing, someone says pause and don't get into a to and from exchange.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 Dec 2009 10:49

About Bhopal Gas disaster
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/opinion/03mehta.html

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 04 Dec 2009 03:41

TO BE A SUITABLE BOY - India must abide by the US’s conditions to get its support - Ashok Mitra

...
New Delhi is in a bit of a jam. The prime minister has gone on record; in this region, the Taliban do represent global terror as much as the Laskar-e-Toiba does. Going a step further, he has implored the US and its allies not to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan at this juncture. The American riposte can well be — and presumably has been — to ask India to take the logical next step and send its own troops to Afghanistan. The US is in a position to use even another ploy. The Americans have been wanting India and Pakistan to come to a deal on the Kashmir issue. The problem here, in the American view, is more at the Indian end: New Delhi’s concern about possible domestic reactions to a settlement over Kashmir which rendered the valley into something less than an “inalienable” part of India. The hint may already have been dropped: bury the hatchet with Pakistan and come to an arrangement over Kashmir, the nuclear deal will be through.

The nuclear deal, Kashmir and Afghanistan thus have turned into interconnected issues. India is dying to be recognized in the comity of nations as a big and as “responsible” a power as China. It can reach that status only if the US acts as its sponsor. The Americans have set a price tag for that sponsorship: India should agree to despatch troops to Afghanistan and, at the same time, reach an accord with Pakistan on Kashmir. A Pakistan-India entente which places Kashmir on the back-burner is of crucial importance to the US on two counts: it permits Pakistan’s rulers to concentrate on the Taliban, it also lessens Pakistan’s sensitivity towards deployment of an Indian army contingent in Afghanistan.
...
...
...
Since the two conditions the US has apparently set are difficult to swallow, India is likely to continue to hem and haw. The prospects, the realization is dawning, are not very hopeful. Played into an awkward corner, our prime minister turned into a pityingly self-righteous mood before an American audience: his country may not have as huge an economy as China’s, India’s gross domestic product growth may not be as remarkable as China’s, but it is a free multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic democracy, it respects all human rights. Thank heaven for little mercies, the prime minister’s speech writer did not drag in five thousand years of civilization, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi.
...
...
Not that New Delhi does not comprehend the nitty-gritty of realpolitik. In their feeble way, Indian authorities have been transmitting messages to the Americans. The directive to profit-making public undertakings to shed 10 per cent of their equity and the compulsory registration of all public sector corporate units in the stock exchanges constitute an open invitation to international — and especially American — finance capital to come and partake of the grand Indian spread. The banking and insurance sectors too have been offered on a platter to external — meaning American — parties. India might even toe, unabashedly, the American line at Copenhagen.
...
...

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 04 Dec 2009 07:01

Found this book. It might be relevant for the great game thread as well.. You'll see that the most imp. country is not mentioned much but you'll understand
You can download for free from the site

http://www.takeoverworld.info/grandchessboard.html

Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Grand Chessboard

American Primacy And It's Geostrategic ImperativesKey Quotes From Zbigniew Brzezinksi's Seminal Book

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power."

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Dec 2009 07:48

I think Ashok Mitra is needlessly paranoid. However, such pessimistic articles will prevent a docile govt to do another S-e-S.

TO BE A SUITABLE BOY - India must abide by the US’s conditions to get its support - Ashok Mitra

New Delhi is in a bit of a jam. The prime minister has gone on record; in this region, the Taliban do represent global terror as much as the Laskar-e-Toiba does. Going a step further, he has implored the US and its allies not to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan at this juncture. The American riposte can well be — and presumably has been — to ask India to take the logical next step and send its own troops to Afghanistan.

Given Pakistan's concerns, do the Americans really want us to send troops?

The US is in a position to use even another ploy. The Americans have been wanting India and Pakistan to come to a deal on the Kashmir issue. The problem here, in the American view, is more at the Indian end: New Delhi’s concern about possible domestic reactions to a settlement over Kashmir which rendered the valley into something less than an “inalienable” part of India. The hint may already have been dropped: bury the hatchet with Pakistan and come to an arrangement over Kashmir, the nuclear deal will be through.

The Americans have been asking us to "solve Kashmir" since 1950s. We did not accept any concessions after 1962 when JFK took special interest. Why would India in 2009 accept any bad deal?

The nuclear deal is already complete. French and Russian technology is good enough. USA has to think if it wants to encourage its exports and decrease its trade deficit. Even the Canadians have agreed to sign a deal with us.

Since the two conditions the US has apparently set are difficult to swallow, India is likely to continue to hem and haw. The prospects, the realization is dawning, are not very hopeful. Played into an awkward corner, our prime minister turned into a pityingly self-righteous mood before an American audience: his country may not have as huge an economy as China’s, India’s gross domestic product growth may not be as remarkable as China’s, but it is a free multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic democracy, it respects all human rights. Thank heaven for little mercies, the prime minister’s speech writer did not drag in five thousand years of civilization, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi.

Had India been in an awkward position, she would have accepted Holbrooke's role in solving Indo-Pak issues. Mr. Holbrooke has been experiencing "scheduling difficulties" since August.

PM talked about freedom and GDP because he was asked to express his opinion about the difference between Indian and Chinese models of development. These differences and trade-offs are significant questions for academic discussions and should not be belittled.

Not that New Delhi does not comprehend the nitty-gritty of realpolitik. In their feeble way, Indian authorities have been transmitting messages to the Americans. The directive to profit-making public undertakings to shed 10 per cent of their equity and the compulsory registration of all public sector corporate units in the stock exchanges constitute an open invitation to international — and especially American — finance capital to come and partake of the grand Indian spread. The banking and insurance sectors too have been offered on a platter to external — meaning American — parties.

Any individual (including Indians) can buy stocks and earn profits. India has to raise capital because we have to pay our debt (Look at Dubai.).

India might even toe, unabashedly, the American line at Copenhagen.

India has been under pressure on the climate change issue because it will seriously affect us. We don't want Himalayan glaciers to melt. I am sure the rich countries are not exactly happy with our goals formulated in terms of carbon intensity.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 04 Dec 2009 07:59

Recent report shows that even the estimates of Himalayan glaciers melting are off. Not sure how credible climate studies are anymore

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Dec 2009 12:19

Al Qaeda is helping Lashkar to attack India: US Def. Sec. Gates

"Al Qaeda is supportive of the Lashkar-e-Tayiba.... Al Qaeda is providing them with targeting information and helping them in their plotting in India, clearly with the idea of provoking a conflict between India and Pakistan that would destabilise Pakistan," Gates told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"Al Qaeda is at the heart of it. And whether or not the terrorists are homegrown, when we trace their roots, they almost all end up back in this border area of Afghanistan and Pakistan, whether they're from the United States or Somalia or the United Kingdom or elsewhere," he said.

These are only partially true. The basic idea of defeating India (theologically and militarily) is an idea that has been germane to this and predates the creation of Al Qaeda. Neither the Taliban nor the Al Qaeda could have had this powerful reach without the sustained and enormous support of Pakistan and Pakistan did all that for the defeat of India eventually. Paksitan is therefore hand in glove in the entire drama that is going on. Pakistan has been destabilized a long time back and all that the rest of the world who want to live in peace and harmony and take care of their citizens need to do is to wipe out the war & terrorism making capabilities of Pakistan completely. That must be the principal component of the Pak-Af policy.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 05 Dec 2009 00:45

Amber: There comes a time, when it becomes frustrating to keep banging our heads against stupidity. I forced myself to not visit this thread, that was my way of handling certain comments. Every now and then fingers do get the khujli to strike the keyboard furiously

I have met people in real life who appear to come straight out of a meeting involving Glen Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Medved ithiyadi. The jaw just drops. It is impossible to have conversations.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 05 Dec 2009 01:23

hey come on guys give Obama a break....spending, printing, propping, and expanding will do wonders for the US and the world! Leave him alone! Please o pretty please...

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 05 Dec 2009 02:01

Chris Matthews in that list? Moore, Keith Olberman, Ed Schultz ithiyadi might fit the lable of inciting and playing to their audience or fear monger. But not Chris. All he does is laugh "ha" and spit at the cameras

Poor guy. He is the MSNBC equivalent of Jim Cramer of CNBC - kind of clowny. Larry Kudlow is the guy who gets my goat. Keith was fun during the campaign and elections; not any more.

The very purpose of these guys on the media is to make money for themselves. They start drinking their own kool-aid. They keep the Joes and Janes of Unkilland brainwashed.

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 05 Dec 2009 02:06

I scoffed at the idea of "blood of Indian kids on hands" earlier, but I have to say, I have changed my mind. This mort guy is right.

About 4 weeks ago, was taking my son, dressed as buzz lightyear, around the neighborhood when out of the blackness came a blaggard with a grinning Obama mask. Son got scared, ran, stumbled, and fell. Could have avoided fate but instinct took palm to knee area, and sho' enuff, blood on my hands

. Anyway, the other kid wasn't really dressed as Obama, just a skinny mixed race kid with a long face and "got hope" t-shirt. My hopes were destroyed tho...

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 05 Dec 2009 02:08

What is stopping Indians from penetrating the Tabilan

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 05 Dec 2009 02:51

prad wrote:chris matthews was the one who recently said, after the Fort Hood shootings, "It isn't illegal to try to contack Al-Qaeda is it?" also recently called West Point the "enemy camp" b/c **cadets weren't applauding with stars in their eyes when Obama was speaking**......i shall say no more.

While I have no desire to bat for clowns; for all we know even Unkil would be trying to contact keeda. As far as the enemy camp remark goes, looks like he has already apologized.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 05 Dec 2009 06:21

Jarita wrote:What is stopping Indians from penetrating the Tabilan

Indic-ness?
/Just kiddin'

But more seriously, why assume India has no assets within the myriad Taliban factions mushrooming everywhere aajkal?