India-US News and Discussion

[asprinzl]

Anyone remember a Scott Ritter who was the famous UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq who gained a significant notoriety as a critic of the Bush Administration's Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Well.. here is the latest on him.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... tter1.html
Arrested for child *****.
Funny how the world turns.
Avram

[pgbhat]

Gates’ visit to open doors for India, US military ties

[ramana]

Time Cycles in US history:

http://www.timepage.org/time.html

[AnantD]

Re: Gates visit above: I thought for a minute that GOTUS had it figured out that Bill Gates of MS was being sent in.

I do hope something works out that is truly fair to both countries.

[Anujan]

Time Cycles in US history:

http://www.timepage.org/time.html

I read the book. I do agree with the rough premise of the work. But the critical factor is how much effect does it have on public policy ? For example one of the authors' argument is that the GI generation (those who fought in WWII came back and enjoyed the benefits of the GI bill) took for granted that the government will take care and guide their lives. After all the government mobilized them for war, took care of the wounded and the dead, gave them the GI bill when they came back and enacted social security and medicare as they aged.

However, the critical fact is that generations coexist. Also the "mix" of generations as the cycles pass is changing -- the effect of increasing life expectancy, decreasing fertility (of those who "lived the american life"), increasing immigration, increasing people of the next generation being immigrants, coexisting with a *massive* number of people of the previous generation makes the direction of public policy hard to predict. Politicians are older. News broadcasters, opinion makers, professors, teachers, lawyers are older. All of them have a platform -- helped by information revolution, to recruit and shape the attitudes of the new generation. How does this affect the clean delineation of generational attitudes ?

Hard to say.

[arun]

Excerpt dealing with US preoccupations in the Af-Pak area and its impact on Indo-US relations from CNN/IBN interview of our Foreign Secretary Ms. Nirupama Rao:

Published on Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 01:29 ………………….

Karan Thapar: Let us turn briefly to the United States of America. You mentioned America in Part-I. I want to pick up on something that you spoke about. As the Obama Administration’s Af-Pak strategy begins to work, now it is clear to everyone that its success is critically dependent upon the cooperation President Obama gets from Pakistan. Does that mean that there could be a time when President Obama becomes sensitive to Pakistan’s view that the terror India faces is linked to Kashmir? Does that possibility worry you?

Nirupama Rao: I am not worried about that because the United States is fully sensitised to our concerns on these issues. They consulted us closely in the run up to the Af-Pak strategy’s formulation and we continue to remain in close touch with our American interlocutors on this. America is well aware of India’s approach to these issues, our concerns about terrorism emanating from Pakistan, our desire to see a secure and stable Afghanistan; and that will involve tackling the sources of terrorism in our region. And America understands that Pakistan continues to provide safe haven to a number of terrorists operating in our region.

Karan Thapar: I suppose the key issue here is the following. Is President Obama looking to play a more assertive role in sorting out Kashmir than India would be willing to accept?

Nirupama Rao: Karan, President Obama and the American Administration told us over and over again that they have no desire to play a mediatory role on issues concerning India and Pakistan.

Karan Thapar: Even though he says different things in the letters he sends to President Zardari in November, just before his December Af-Pak speech; even though in his original Af-Pak speech of March he spoke about constructive diplomacy? Despite those contradictory statements or commitments, you still believe that he does not want to play a role?

Nirupama Rao: I do not believe there is contradiction here. The relationship between India and the United States is a strategic, global partnership. There is confidence, there is trust in this communication that India and the United States have. And the United States is well aware of our position on this.

Karan Thapar: My last question to you. Is there a danger that India and Pakistan could be re-hyphenated either because of the way the Obama Administration views South Asia or because of the way events are playing out?

Nirupama Rao: Karan, the logic of the relationship and the logic of the times defies your assessment. There is no question of this relationship being re-hyphenated, as you say. Our relationship with the United States is a mature relationship. It is one of the defining partnerships of the times as President Obama said so eloquently during our Prime Minister’s visit.

Karan Thapar: Foreign Secretary, a pleasure talking to you.

Nirupama Rao: Thank you so much.

CNN – IBN

[vera_k]

How The EFF Lost Its Way By Defending Hate Mongers And Tunnel Rats

[munna]

US School Calendar Could Set Obama Visit Dates

The US school calendar holds immense interest for the Indian government these days. The reason lies in the White US President Barack Obama's forthcoming trip to India may involve a whole lot of substantive things, called "deliverables" in diplomatic parlance. But this time, it will involve a whole lot more because the president wants to visit India along with his entire family. Hence, the interest in US school holidays as Obama is likely to be accompanied by wife Michelle and daughters Sasha and Malia on his maiden trip to India.

Welcome to India Mr President and observe for yourself how a nation of a billion souls is trying to better its lot via democratic political process. If you are the idealist you profess to be then let us show to the world the power of democratic cooperation.
Padharo Maare des Re...........


PS: V.V Significant news item for all those who wish to read between lines

[CRamS]

munna:

Seems to me to be a waste of time. Another ego massaging trip with loads of "impending superpower BS", DDM going bersek etc etc. At best, or shall we say at worst, the only "substantive" part of the trip might me Obama and his entourage nudging MMS in private to give Kashmir to TSP.

[RamaY]

^^^

I would not be that pessimistic.

Eventhough GOI is not moving as fast as we want as a whole the system still looks after Indian interests.

JMT.

[ramana]

Anujan Thanks for the review and your thoughts. My intent was to bring out the multiple generations and the typical attitudes in those cycles for our understanding. And the conondrum that every gen thinks its differetn fromthe other. Yes it is different from its immediate predecessor but not earlier ones. Am sure we can do a similar study for Indians since 1800s and see such patterns.

From Book review thread....

Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069 (Paperback)
~ Neil Howe (Author), William Strauss (Author)
http://www.timepage.org/cyc/now.html#crisis


Paperback: 544 pages
Publisher: Harper Perennial (September 30, 1992)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0688119123
ISBN-13: 978-0688119126

Quote:
The central tenet of this book is that generations don't age the same way, and when looking at generations through history, the correct way to look at them is by cohort - that is, by groups with similar birth years - rather than by age. In other words, if you're born in 1950 and grow up in the '60s and '70s, you'll be different at age 50 than you will if you're born in 1970 and grow up in the '80s and '90s. Strauss and Howe then trace a number of generational cohorts through American History, and find evidence of a cycle of generational types - usually a four part cycle, but in one case a three part cycle. For example, they liken Gen X (whom they call "13ers"), born in 1961-1980, to the "Lost" generation born in the late 1800s.

As a trailing edge boomer, born in 1960, I was not surprised to find that the authors, both boomers, correctly identify the defining characteristics of my generation - characteristics that I happen to dislike, as I'm in the minority that don't fit the mold all that well, but that I have to acknowledge as accurate for the majority. On the other hand, the description of the Silent generation, to which my parents belong, was an eye opener - it explained well why my fathers views of what different stages in a man's life are like seemed to alien to me. The description of Gen X was likewise enlightening, both in terms of explaining some of my previous business interactions with Gen Xers (they had always seem so surprised when someone actually gave them a break - turns out it's because they hardly ever got breaks from boomers) and helped me understand and interact much better with one particular Gen X who is very important to me - my wife. The description of the Millenials seems to be accurate so far for undergraduates I work with.

Strauss and Howe have written several books since this one, expanding upon their general historical thesis. But this one is the seminal book, the important one, and the one on which the others are based.

The book basically is a theory of American history that is premised on generational behavior. The authors have been quite successful in explaining and in some instances predicting the cycles of events, values and opinions of American society. It's very much worth reading simply because the reader is likely to experience an enhanced understanding of what is happening around him/her in the body politic.

The basic insight in this book is a simple one: Instead of trying to build a theory of American history (as did Arthur Schlesinger) that is based on unexplained "cycles" and "swings" from liberal to conservative and back again, why not simply look at how American generations behave as they age? When you do that, as Strauss and Howe have found, you find that American generations behave with a certain consistency throughout their lives. If their formative experiences push them in a certain direction while young, they'll continue to act in that way as they get older. That is, if you understand that history is really the process of different generations moving through time, then the swings of American history no longer look so mysterious; they appear as predictable manifestations of the fact that different generations with different life experiences have risen to the foreground.

Of course, you don't want to take all of this too sweepingly, or else it starts to seem like astrology or historical biorhythms. Generations are diverse groups, and no two people within a generation are exactly alike. But there are clear trends of generational behavior, which Strauss/Howe substantiate quite well.

Their basic model is that there are four basic generational types, which tend to occur in this order: Idealist, reactive, civic, and adaptive.

The GI generation (born 1902-1924) that fought WWII is a classic example of a "civic" generation. Consider their life experiences; when they came of age, they were asked en masse to participate in the greatest government-directed effort imaginable, fighting and winning WWII. Then when they got done with that, many of them went to school on the GI bill. When they were young, government spending and focus was oriented on youth. When they aged, government spending and focus shifted along with them, to where it is now focused on their elderly group, through Social Security, Medicare, and the other elderly programs that dominate the federal budget. It was natural that this generation would come to think of government's priorities being oriented in their direction as the natural order of things. They are civic-minded and they tend to have a more benign attitude towards government than do other generations. Accordingly, they are generally suspicious of change in the government approaches they know (for example, strongly against Social Security personal accounts, as opposed to a government-defined benefit.) Also, as a civic generation, they didn't focus their energies on redefining the values and purpose of America, they had a job to do (win the big war), and they did it.

Contrast that with an "idealist" generation, the "boomer" generation. Many in this generation grew up with an assumption of unlimited economic opportunity and security. They therefore turned their attention to spiritual matters, questioning and often rebelling against the values of the GI generation as well as its follow-up generation, the Silent generation. It was this "idealist" element of the boomers that unleashed the social revolutions of the late 1960s. This streak of strong opinions is visible in the boomers to this day; many of the political leaders who are regarded on both sides as being among the most shrill and uncompromising are from the boomer generation. This was also true when they were youth in the late 1960s; not only the activists on the radical left, but also those who retreated into a dyed-in-the-wool conservatism. The Silent generation prior to them didn't generally split into such poles.

The contrast between the "Silent" generation and the boomers is instructive. The "Silents" followed on the GI generation, looked up to them, generally shared their values, and sought to expand and liberalize them somewhat incrementally. The "silents" worked within the system: the 1950s, for example, saw civil rights expanding, Brown vs the Board of Education, etc. They sought to expand the blessings of liberty but at the same time were generally trustful of the leadership of previous generations. Not so the boomers; as the boomers came of age, they loudly, and often with great hostility, attacked the core value systems of the generations before them as being inadequate to progress, and sought to make a new, purer system of values. The silents wouldn't have been nearly so bold.

You can see the results in our national politics. The GI generation dominated the presidency for some time (Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder) and then handed the baton off to the Boomers (Clinton, Bush the Younger.) The Silent generation was simply skipped over.

The so-called "Generation X" (1961-81 birth years in this book) is a classic example of a "reactive" generation. These generations usually followed idealist generations, and didn't have the economic optimism of their predecessors, and thus didn't feel the same security to reimagine the spiritual basis of their nation. These generations often receive great criticism from the generation before them for failing to uphold their ideals. When the Strauss/Howe book came out, this was happening to Gen X much more than is the case now; the boomers, anxious to preserve their spiritual vision, often expressed concern and even disgust about the cynical, world-weary attitudes of the generation that followed them. But the Gen xers had had a different experience; they were not taught, as were the boomers, that life was always going to be sunny for them economicallly. The boomers were blocking the job pipeline as these Gen Xers entered the workforce for the first time. And their life experience with government is exactly the opposite of the GI generation;at every stage of the Gen Xers maturation, government's resources have been directed to benefit someone else. Whereas the GIs will get far more out of Social Security than they ever put in, Gen X will put far more in than they will ever get out; small wonder that Gen X generally wants to be given personal accounts instead of sticking with the old system.

Only over time have the Gen Xers won the respect of previous generations, just as did previous "reactive" generations of their type. A great analogy are the generations that came of age before the American Civil War. The analogues to the boomers then were the "transcendental" generation: the Thoreaus and the Lincolns and the Garrisons -- many of the abolitionists and civil disobedients who found the value system of their nation to be lacking. They unleashed a social revolution that exploded in the Civil War. Meanwhile, the generation behind them, the Ulysses Grants of the world, were thought to be mundane, unimaginative, unimpressive. But it was the Grant generation that fought and won the Civil War, relying on the resourcefulness that a tougher life had required them to learn. The Gen Xers are showing similar resilience now.

[abhishek_sharma]

http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/19/stories ... 461300.htm

India on Monday told the United States that it had no agenda in Afghanistan except seeing it emerge as a stable and peaceful country.

To this end, India would continue to work in Afghanistan on development projects but with no geo-political ambitions, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna told the visiting U.S. Special Envoy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, here.

Why do we need to explain all this?

Sources in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said Mr. Krishna indicated India’s keenness to see the situation stabilise in Afghanistan but professed disinterestedness on other issues of tactical military importance.

Probably they are asking us to send troops.

[abhishek_sharma]

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article82224.ece

“I believe that the Indians responded subsequently with a great deal of restraint and have conducted themselves in a very statesmanlike manner since that attack,” Mr. Gates told reporters on board flying with him on his three-day trip to India.

[Jarita]

^^ We have to learn to spk from both sides of mouth from them

[abhishek_sharma]

^^ We have to learn to spk from both sides of mouth from them

We should ask why US did not show similar statesmanship after 9/11?

[abhishek_sharma]

Gates: US seeks stability between India, Pakistan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00278.html

[Philip]

Amazing! Who are the fundamental jingos now? ....Jesus on your gunsight!

US troops issued with gun sights carrying coded references to Bible passages

US marines are being issued with rifle sights carrying thinly-veiled references to Bible passages, it has been disclosed.

By Matthew Moore 19 Jan 2010

A U.S soldier of the 101st Airborne Division look through his gun during a night patrol in Mandozai, in Khost province, Afghanistan Photo: AP
Troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan are firing weapons with coded inscriptions including 2COR4:6 and JN8:12, which relate to verses in the books of Second Corinthians and John respectively.

The secret markings do not sit comfortably US government rules forbidding its forces from spreading any religious faith during deployments to the two Islamic-majority countries.

Xinjiang riots: Modern Chinese army displays ancient preference for crossbow

The branded equipment was produced by the Michigan-based manufacturer Trijicon, which has a contract to supply more than 800,000 sights to the US marines and other branches of the military.

The firm confirmed to ABC News that the small inscriptions – which are about the same size as the product code on the sights – relate to New Testament passages.

The company was founded by devout Christian Glyn Bindon, and its website carries pledges to live up to the "Biblical standards" that it says made America great.

A spokesman for the firm said that the scriptural references "have always been there" on the sights and insisted they did not flout any laws. US military officials said they were not aware of the markings on the Advanced Combat Optical Guides.

But secular campaigners accused the company of handing a propaganda victory to US opponents who strive to characterise its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a Crusade.

"It's wrong, it violates the Constitution, it violates a number of federal laws," Michael Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation told ABC.

"It allows the Mujahideen, the Taliban, al Qaeda and the insurrectionists and jihadists to claim they're being shot by Jesus rifles."

The US government has been at pains to keep religious language out of military affairs since George W Bush sparked anger among many Muslims by describing the campaign against terror as a Crusade in 2001.

The White House subsequently said that the then president regretted using the term in an impromptu address.

The religious passages mentioned on the rifle sights

2COR4:6
"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

John 8:12
"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."

[CRamS]

Gates: US seeks stability between India, Pakistan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00278.html

Insulting piece of sick tripe, hielding TSPA/ISI from the 26/11 barbarism. Just imagine the chuckles and glee and relief at GHQ in Rawipindi & I'bad.

[abhishek_sharma]

Gates pushes ties with India on cyber-security

http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/sns- ... 8731.story

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, moving to deepen U.S. ties to India as a key partner in a turbulent region, pushed Tuesday for expanded cooperation with New Delhi on a range of issues, from military technology to cyber security.

"This is a growing relationship between the U.S. and India," said a senior Defense official, briefing reporters after the meetings and speaking on the condition of anonymity because of diplomatic protocol. "We desire to enhance, strengthen our sharing of technology with India, we want to share more information with India, and we want to develop cooperative programs in maritime, cyberspace and space area."

But both U.S. and Indian officials believe that China is, at best, an internet mischief maker and, at worst, a potential cyber-adversary. U.S. officials hope that tighter ties with India on internet security issues can help make the networks of both countries stronger.

Defense officials describing the officials' meetings offered few details about their discussion of China. But the Obama administration, like its predecessor, has been cultivating relations with New Delhi, seeing India as an emerging democratic power and a potential counterweight to Chinese influence in the region.

On his plane en route to India, Gates told reporters he was going to talk about relaxing export control rules so that the U.S. could more easily share military technology with India. The U.S. and India also are negotiating another set of agreements to allow the two nation's military to cooperate more closely.

[abhishek_sharma]

India tells US: we're willing to boost Afghan aid

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1922305220100119

"India indicated a willingness to contribute more," said a senior U.S. defence official, briefing reporters after the talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna.

The U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said India's offer would not expand aid to new areas and "was caveated with: if ISAF and the United States think it would be helpful."

[abhishek_sharma]

Brzezinski on U.S.-India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China

http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/ ... and-china/

“We have to find a way of helping Pakistan cope with its problem in Pakistan but also help us cope with our problem in Afghanistan and that raises an extraordinarily complicated question, namely how do we give the Pakistanis the reassurance they want that if we leave Afghanistan there is not a regime in Afghanistan other than the Taliban which is more friendly to India than to Pakistan.”

[munna]

Well well well...... Prez Obama has suffered a major political loss in NE USA. Now is the chance to hand him a major diplomatic victory in form of enhanced science and technology cooperation between India and USA when he comes visiting or maybe more. Let us conclude another ground breaking deal. But no "K" word is on the table lest someone maybe mistaken.

[abhishek_sharma]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 1_nsT.OVe8

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates kicked off a two-day visit to India, holding talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna on expanding military cooperation.

“He found both meetings very productive,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters traveling with Gates, who arrived in New Delhi yesterday. “So far, the visit is off to a very strong start.”

Gates told the Indian leaders the U.S. wants the two nations to share more defense-related information and undertake more joint projects, especially in the fields of cyberspace and space technology and in monitoring the high seas, a U.S. defense official said.

In his meetings with Singh and Krishna, the two sides compared notes on issues including China, the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Gates is due to meet with Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony today.

Gates pledged the Defense Department would do more to help Indian officials understand legal agreements the U.S. needs before certain technology could be shared to accomplish more joint exercises and operations, the U.S. official said.

While the absence of agreements doesn’t hinder more joint efforts, it does limit their scope, Gates told reporters on his plane en route to New Delhi. The accords, including one for protecting technology, are standard for the U.S. when it works with military partners and may set out terms such as what information can and cannot be revealed.

[sanjaykumar]

How the hell do you lose Ted Kennedy's seat in Boston?

[neeraj]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 761115.JPG
Indian Defence Minister AK Antony with his visiting American counterpart Robert Gates

Notice the background picture

Edited to fix link

[Sriman]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 761115.JPG
Indian Defence Minister AK Antony with his visiting American counterpart Robert Gates

Notice the background picture

Fixed url:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 761115.JPG

[rsingh]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 761115.JPG
Indian Defence Minister AK Antony with his visiting American counterpart Robert Gates

Notice the background picture

Made my day

[sum]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 761115.JPG
Indian Defence Minister AK Antony with his visiting American counterpart Robert Gates

Notice the background picture

Loved it...

Want to see the same background pic whenever any Paki is hosted by our netas!!!

[ramana]

We will soon see posts on how GOI shouldn't have that picture for it humiliates the Pakis!

[SwamyG]

Is Gates there to just sell more arms? IIRC, I read that India was one of the few countries decades ago that did not sell arms to any other country.

[abhishek_sharma]

Gates, in India, Warns of Regional Militant Threat

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/world ... gates.html

Speaking in New Delhi at a news conference after meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India and the country’s defense and external affairs ministers, Mr. Gates said that Taliban groups and other militant groups operating under the umbrella of Al Qaeda intended to destabilize not just Afghanistan and Pakistan but India as well. Mr. Gates, who was in the middle of a two-day visit to India’s capital, said the groups could provoke conflict between India and Pakistan, and that focusing on only one extremist group for elimination was not the solution.

“It’s dangerous to single out any one of these groups and say, ‘If we could beat that group that would solve the problem,’ because they are in effect a syndicate of terrorist operators,” Mr. Gates said. In short, he said, “the success of any one of these groups leads to new capabilities and a new reputation for all.”

Mr. Gates said he welcomed India’s support in the war in Afghanistan — perhaps including a small role in training Afghan security forces — but implicitly rejected the deployment of any Indian troops in the country because of the reaction of Pakistan.

[abhishek_sharma]

Gates says India might abandon restraint if terrorists strike again

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and- ... 7528.story

Even as he warned against allowing extremist groups to provoke a regional clash in South Asia, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today that he would not expect the Indian government to show restraint should it be attacked again by terrorist groups based in Pakistan.

Gates has praised the "statesmanship" of India in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, which have been attributed to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based extremist group aligned with Al Qaeda. At a news conference today in New Delhi, Gates repeated those comments but said India's ability to continue that policy would be "in question" should militants strike again.

"I think it is not unreasonable to assume Indian patience would be limited were there to be further attacks," Gates said.

[abhishek_sharma]

India and US discuss defence cooperation

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=57114

Shri Antony conveyed to Dr. Gates the Indian concerns regarding denial of export licenses for various defence related requirement of the Armed Forces and also regarding the inclusion of some Indian Defence PSUs and DRDO labs in the ‘Entity List’ of the US Government. Shri Antony expressed the view that such restrictions were anomalous in the context of the steady improvement in the bilateral defence relations between both countries. The US Secretary of Defence informed Shri Antony that President Obama has intiated a comprehensive reform of US export control regulations and assured that this would involve facilitation in the supply of defence technology and equipment to India.

Defence Minister Shri AK Antony convyed the view that the bilateral defence trade relations between India and the USA should move from a purely buyer-seller relationship to a more comprehensive relationship covering transfer of technology and co-production. Further referring to the US Government’s proposal to conclude certain umbrella agreements like CISMOA, etc. Shri Antony expressed the view that the proposed agreements would need to be assessed from the view point of the benefits which would accrue to India.

[rohitvats]

Even as he warned against allowing extremist groups to provoke a regional clash in South Asia, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today that he would not expect the Indian government to show restraint should it be attacked again by terrorist groups based in Pakistan.

Gates has praised the "statesmanship" of India in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, which have been attributed to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based extremist group aligned with Al Qaeda. At a news conference today in New Delhi, Gates repeated those comments but said India's ability to continue that policy would be "in question" should militants strike again.

"I think it is not unreasonable to assume Indian patience would be limited were there to be further attacks," Gates said.

Has a very public message, announced from most visible platform,been just handed out to the "Non-State Actors" in TSP? And can the guarantee of unforgettable 72 hours love-fest by IA given by Gen. Deepak Kapoor be seen in context of the message by Monsieur Gates? The intel and security agencies are expecing the baloon to go up any time now and the power that be are very clearly trying to prevent another Mumbai type attack in India and some one in TSP is equally itchy to press the 'go' button.

IMHO, the public message from Gates also means that USA has had to really spend quite lot of political capital to prevent India from fcuking TSP and TSPA after 26/11. It is no longer there and hence the open declaration - We will not be able to hold India down if another yahoo tries to act funny.

[ramana]

If its so dicey then TSP is like the West Asia where the crab(TSP) bites the swan(India), which is transporting it to shelter, in the middle of the lake because that is its nature.

So threats/advice from others wont stop the crabby TSP from doing its thing.

[RamaY]

If its so dicey then TSP is like the West Asia where the crab(TSP) bites the swan(India), which is transporting it to shelter, in the middle of the lake because that is its nature.

So threats/advice from others wont stop the crabby TSP from doing its thing.

Very true. This picture has been released to remind the crabby about the consequences

Indian Defence Minister AK Antony with his visiting American counterpart Robert Gates

Notice the background picture

[abhishek_sharma]

http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/21/stories ... 580100.htm

Dr. Gates said that at his meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and Defence Minister A.K. Antony, both sides shared each other’s perception of the regional and global security, including China.

While the discussion on China was generic in nature, both sides talked about Beijing’s military modernisation plan and its intention. In the same breath, Dr. Gates said, Washington preferred to engage more with China to avoid any miscalculations.

He also stressed the need for closer cooperation in areas such as maritime, cyberspace and space.

[Rupesh]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 761115.JPG

I strongly protest the use of such pictures by the Indian Defence Minister. Isn'tthe IPL humiliation not enough. I demand the picture be replaced with that of peace loving citizens on both sides of the border holding candle light vigil at Wagah.

[abhishek_sharma]

Press Conference with Secretary Gates from India

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/tran ... iptid=4540

Q Mr. Gates. My question is about the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum that you have signed. How different is it from the existing Defense Framework Agreement that you had? And will it include weapon systems, nuclear weapon systems and cyber security as well?

SEC. GATES: The communications, part of the growth in the relationship between the United States and India has been the sale of high technology weapons and military equipment. Associated with that, with those sales, are additional agreements associated with protecting the technology within that equipment or those weapons.

For example, the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement is an agreement that would allow the highest in U.S. cryptologic information to be provided along with the C-130Js that India has bought.

The agreement that has to do with basic exchange cooperation in the geospatial area is about providing the aircraft that India has bought with the highest technology possible in terms of navigational capability, not to mention targeting.

So these agreements, which we believe are preponderantly in India’s benefit because they give high tech systems additional high tech capabilities, are enablers, if you will, to the very highest quality equipment in the Indian armed forces.

I think we have not done an adequate job on the American side in spelling out for our Indian partners the benefits to India of signing these agreements. The agreement that you mentioned, the Communication Interoperability and Security agreement, is an agreement we have with dozens of our closest allies including some here in Asia. And so this is not an out of the ordinary request, it is not an unreasonable request, and really at the end of the day is focused on protecting the technology of both India and the United States. I’m not aware that the agreements bring any specific new weaponry to the systems that we’ve sold. My sense is that it’s principally about giving them additional capabilities.

Q I wonder if you could talk a little bit about your discussions with India on China, whether there is a joint cyber threat that both India and the U.S. face from elements within China, and what you see as India’s role in sort of a counterweight to China in Asia.

SEC. GATES: We didn’t talk about China at length. We did talk in more generic terms about a common interest in security of the Indian Ocean and security of the global commons, and the global commons meaning the air, sea, space, and if you’re talking about the internet, the ether, I suppose.

There was a discussion about China’s military modernization program and what it meant and what the intentions of that military buildup were. And a desire, I won’t speak for the Indian side, but certainly a desire on our part to engage China in a more routine, in-depth dialogue about our strategic intentions and plans so as to avoid any miscalculations or misunderstandings down the road. As I’ve long said, I was involved with the strategic arms talks with the Soviet Union for many many years. I’m not sure those talks ever actually reduced any arms, but the dialogue over a long period of time with great candor about nuclear capabilities, thinking about nuclear options, thinking about how each side looked at nuclear weapons and at their military modernizations, I think played a significant role over time in preventing miscalculations and mistakes in the relationship between these two super powers during the Cold War. I think that kind of a dialogue with China would be most productive and frankly in the best interests of global stability.

Q With regard to the Logistics Support Agreement, there seems to be some reluctance on the part of India to go ahead with it. During the course of your meeting with the top Indian leadership have you been able to convince them of the benefits of this agreement?

SEC. GATES: The Logistics Support Agreement was the third of the agreements that we talked about, and it is, and what I promised the Prime Minister last night was that we would do a better job of putting on paper and using concrete examples of the benefits to India of all of these agreements.

No agreement between sovereign states and especially I would say sovereign democracies is going to be worth the paper it’s written on if it isn’t of real advantage to both sides. I think what we need to do is be more concrete and more persuasive about the benefits to India of these three agreements.

These three agreements have been laying around for quite a while at this point. This is not some new requirement that has just emerged. The Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement, was first put on the table in 2002. I remember discussing it with the Defense Minister here during my last visit in 2008. So this is not a new requirement that has just come up, but has been known for quite some time.

I just think we need to - these agreements I see as enablers to allow a defense trade and a defense cooperation relationship to expand significantly, because it will lead to greater interoperability and a greater capability of our forces to work together, whether they’re working together to provide Indian Ocean security, whether they’re working together in a humanitarian assistance, disaster relief activity or any number of other military operations, these agreements will provide additional technology to India and additional benefits that I think will then enable the broader defense relationship between the two countries.

[ramana]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 354920.cms


THE TIMES OF INDIA, DECEMBER 19, 2009

Desis in DC

CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA, TOI Crest

There was a remarkable moment during the recent Obama-Singh meeting in Washington that was barely captured by the cameras. As the two leaders met for their one-on-one, Singh’s principal assistant and note-taker was his private secretary Jaideep Sarkar, a young gun of the Indian Foreign Service. No surprise there. And aiding Obama? Anish Goel, a senior staffer of the National Security Council and a rising star of the US foreign service. Similarly, when the US side engaged New Delhi on Af-Pak issues, the Indians found, much to their surprise, that the Senior Defense Advisor to Richard Holbrooke, the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan was Vikram Singh.

It’s a sight that has become increasingly common in Washington - Indian-Americans and Americans of East Indian origin walking the corridors of power that were once an all-American domain, with an occasional black or latino interlude. It’s a development neither New Delhi nor Washington want to read too much into - other than the fact that the United States, like India, has the rare ability to absorb foreigners, minorities, and immigrants into the mainstream without much effort, an idea that is both foreign and anathema to countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China.

"That’s just the way this country is," an Indian-American who now holds a senior position in the Obama administration said, recoiling at the idea of a story on the new tribe of desi pols. "Just as people of European, East Asian and African ancestry made their mark without a splash, so too will people of Indian origin. To see that as anything else will be a disservice to both India and America."

ARNIE TO ALBRIGHT

Indeed, no one makes much of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Austrian origin or Madeleine Albright’s Czech lineage or Bill Richardson’s Hispanic background. The idea of America as a melting pot has advanced so much that no one even considers the fact that Barack Obama is, strictly speaking, ethnically, half Kenyan. In fact, Albright and Schwarzenegger could never become the US President because they were not born in the United States; Obama, who was born in the US, could, and so can Louisiana-born Bobby Jindal, despite their more "foreign" origins and looks.

But try telling all this to the Pakistanis, who are openly agitated at what they see as the "Indian influence" in the US, or the Chinese, who are less demonstrative but are equally leery. Last month, ahead of Manmohan Singh’s US visit, Pakistani ambassador to Washington Hussain Haqqani produced 26 as the number of Indian-Americans serving in Obama’s administration. "Pakistan is wary of the Indo-US relationship, which is robust and multifaceted," Haqqani told a meeting of US lawmakers and staffers. "Facts like these naturally make Pakistan nervous."

EDGE OVER CHINA

Twenty six might include support staff, interns etc, but it’s a fact that Obama’s has more Indian-Americans in senior positions than any US government - at least a dozen at last count. While there is some talk of Obama’s special regard for Indian-Americans (with overheated tales of his passion for desi cuisine and familiarity with its culture), the fact is there has been an incremental increase in the profile of Indian-Americans in the administration, politics, and public life in successive presidencies from Clinton to Bush to Obama, in keeping with their rising numbers (2.5 million now) and growing success. The Chinese are more numerous (3.2 million), but Indians, with their familiarity with Democratic traditions and better facility with English leading to better assimilation, seem to be doing well in the political sphere.

While young professionals and pols of Indian-origin first began to dot the Hill as interns and staffers to US lawmakers in the 1990s, the otherwise negative noughties have seen them, in large numbers, take giant positive strides into the administration, where many desi uber-whizzes are now making and executing policies while their peer Indian-Americans on the Hill oversee legislative activity. Many Indian-American parents consider it a badge of honour to have kids serving as interns on the Hill or in the White House.

PAK WORRIED

This has India’s adversaries clearly worried. Time and again during the nuclear deal, Pakistanis moaned about the "Indian lobby" on the Hill doing the heavy-lifting and allying with the "Jewish lobby." Now, they fear the influence will extend into the administration. They should not have any reason to, though. Initial accounts of the spread of the "Indian influence" in Washington DC appear misplaced and exaggerated, with no sign that that first and second generation Indians in the administration are in any way favourable to New Delhi. For instance, Anish Goel, who received his PhD in chemical engineering from MIT, has in no way influenced the outcome of the US-India nuclear deal (still in limbo over the reprocessing issue) even though that is his area of expertise and he initially served as the Desk officer dealing with the subject in the State Department. Similarly, Vikram Singh’s influential role in Af-Pak policy making hasn’t exactly endeared his boss Richard Holbrooke to New Delhi, which has balked at efforts to add "In" to Af-Pak. If anything, the fact that they are of Indian origin may have made them even more self-conscious not to be seen as favouring India. While many of the nearly one dozen Indian-Americans currently in the senior and mid-levels of the administration will go in and out of the government and the academic/thinktank spheres in a revolving door system that is typically American, a few will doubtless go on to occupy higher office. Some may even choose to run for high office, as did Bobby Jindal, who was a policy wonk in the healthcare area before running for Congress and then for governor of Louisiana. In fact, standing outside the White House on a bleak, grey morning in November when Singh arrived for his ceremonial state visit, some scribes wondered how long it would be before a person of Indian-origin occupied the Oval Office.

The idea is not all that far-fetched. Jindal himself came pretty close to an office that is considered a heartbeat away from the Presidency when John McCain shortlisted him as a Republican vice-presidential running mate. Eventually, he decided to go with Sarah Palin, but many American pundits think Jindal has a bright future in the Republican Party, particularly if he delivers in Katrina-struck Louisiana state. But while Jindal is one of few Indian-Americans in a Grand Old Party that is generally seen as anti-immigrant, the Democratic Party is teeming with them. Within months of coming to White House, Obama chose a slew of Indian-Americans, many of them from his campaign, for important jobs in his administration.

Two of his most significant choices were Aneesh Chopra to be the First Chief Technology Officer and Vivek Kundra as the Federal Chief Information Officer, appointments which endorsed the Indian presence in the technology sector. But there were also appointments in Obama’s own specialty, law, a discipline where Indian-Americans are seen in high numbers now. Among Obama’s choices - Preet Bharara as the US Attorney for New York, a job previously held by Rudy Giuliani and seen as a stepping stone to a political career; Preeta Bansal, general counsel and senior policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget; and Georgetown University Don Neal Katyal as principal deputy
solicitor general.

By far the most high-profile Indian-American appointment came just ahead of Singh’s visit when Obama named Rajiv Shah to head USAID, a job that will include disbursing massive foreign aid to Pakistan, which is already worried that the "Hinjews" are starting to control the US purse-string. A whiz-kid who served as undersecretary for research, education and economics and chief scientist in the Agriculture Department before he was bumped up to the sub-cabinet level appointment, Shah is among several desi science brains in the government, a list that includes Arun Majumdar, Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy in the US Department of Energy.

While many of Obama’s political appointees are from the academia, there is a separate stream of Indian-Americans which is coming up from the grassroots in the Democratic Party. Since Obama himself was a state legislator (from Illinois) before getting elected to the US Senate and then making the presidential bid after only four years there, he serves as an inspiration to lawmakers such as Satvir Choudhury (Minnesota Senate), and Swati Dandekar, Jay Goyal and Raj Goyle, all of whom are state level lawmakers and invitees to Obama’s state dinner banquet for Manmohan Singh.

RUNNING FOR CONGRESS

In fact, at least half dozen Indian-Americans are running for Congress in the 2010 elections to the US House of Representatives, among them Raj Goyle (D-Kansas), Manan Trivedi, (D- Pennsylvania), Ami Bera (D-California), Ravi Sangisetty (DLousiana ), Reshma Sejauni (D-New York) and Surya Yalamanchili (I-Ohio ). Only Goyle among them is said to have a realistic chance to become the third US lawmaker of Indian origin after Dalip Singh Saund and Bobby Jindal, but the fact that most aspirants are in the 27-40 age group augurs well for the Indian-American political future. Then there are others running for offices ranging from Governor (Nikki Haley Randhawa in South Carolina) to Attorney General (Kamala Harris in California) to State Comptroller (Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois). Anyone could turn out to be a future desi Obama.

There are Indian-Americans who are widely tipped as lateral entrants at a future date - among them Fareed Zakaria, who has been spoken of as a putative Secretary of State, and Indra Nooyi, whose experience as CEO of Pepsi marks out her as a future appointee in the Department of Commerce. So, to the question of a person of Indian-origin sitting behind the "Resolute Desk" in the Oval Office of the White House…it would appear the answer is not if, but when. And when it happens, the Obama success in the US will be seen as the turning point in the political history of the country.

TOP INDIANS IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

RAJIV SHAH

USAID administrator

RICHARD VERMA

Assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the state department

RO KHANNA

Deputy assistant secretary for domestic operations of the US and Foreign Commercial Service, International Trade Administration

VIVEK KUNDRA

Federal chief information officer

ANEESH CHOPRA

First chief technology officer

ARUN MAJUMDAR

Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy in the US department of energy

PREET BHARARA

US attorney for Southern District of New York

NEAL KATYAL

Principal deputy solicitor general

RAJESH DE

Deputy assistant attorney general, US department of justice

SONAL SHAH

Deputy assistant to the President, director, Office of SICP, Domestic Policy Council

FARAH PANDITH

US special representative to Muslim communities

ANJU BHARGAVA

Member, faith-based advisory council

RAJEN ANAND

Executive director, policy, USDA Center for Nutrition and Promotion

GRASSROOTS POLITICIANS TO WATCH

RAJ GOYLE

Democrat, Kansas

KAMALA HARRIS

District attorney, San Francisco

THOSE TO WATCH FROM BUSINESS AND MEDIA

INDRA NOOYI

CEO, PepsiCo

FAREED ZAKARIA

Editor of Newsweek International and host, CNN’s GPS
____________________________________________

Some know of this forum.....