India-US News and Discussion

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 29 Mar 2010 08:51

Census 2010: Help Your Community- Be Counted

The 2010 Census is a count of everyone living in the United States and is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Whether you are a citizen, legal or illegal immigrant, on tourist visa or H1-B visa, or even have no visa, the law encourages everyone on US soil to respond to the Census 2010 questionnaire. The Indian community in the US can “help improve schools, increase job training and get its share of over $400 billion per year in federal funds” provided every Indian household ‘answers 10 simple questions and mails the Census questionnaire back to the Census Bureau.” Large majority of people will get the short form with ten questions while some, randomly selected, will be surveyed in depth. However, the usefulness of the information will directly relate to the accuracy with which you respond to each of the questions.

http://www.indoamerican-news.com/Housto ... ensus.html

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 29 Mar 2010 08:55

Comments Re Vir Sanghvi's article: http://www.hindustantimes.com/Taking-us ... 24088.aspx

The second is Pakistan, a small country of no great consequence that has always made itself valuable to Washington by serving US interests in third countries. In the 1950s and 1960s, it served as a base for US spy planes as America kept a watch on Russia. In the 1970s, it was America’s gateway to China. (The reason for the Nixon-Kissinger ‘tilt’ towards Islamabad in 1971.) In the 1980s, it became a virtual American aircraft carrier in the battle to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. And so on.

Sanghvi resists wrapping his mind around the idea that one of these "third countries" in which the Paks serve US interests is India. Recall the recent comment by Friedman of Stratfor that the US needs the Paks to keep India on a leash (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100322 ... ng_context).

In the short-run, Pakistan and Afghanistan are important to Washington. But in the long-run it is India that America will need if it is to counter China.

Ahaa, so should India also be a rentier state, competing with the Paks to offer services that are more valuable?

While India has its own reasons to deter the Chinese, there is no need to go back to muddle-headed Nehruvian policies. Nehru collaborated with the CIA to support an insurgency in Tibet, while also voicing "Bhai-Bhai" platitudes, and hobbling the armed forces through lackeys like Krishna Menon. Finally, got slapped in 1962.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Mar 2010 09:21

A thing to note is Headley when he 'infiltrated' L-e-T was called Daoud Gilani and had served time in a US prison for drug charges. Now how did a prisoner just go back and 'infiltrate' a PAKI jihadi terrorist organization after 9/11? Was he a returnee and hence his bonafides were not doubted by the L-e-T and its handlers? Where did he go in TSP in 1996-1997 before he turned himself in to the US prison authorities?

Was he a courier for carrying drugs to finance the op in Afghanistan and had carried some on private account and was arrested in 1996?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 29 Mar 2010 09:47

shiv wrote: CRamS I am unable to find your post about this article (and unwilling to go further than the brief search I did)

Here it is

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Mar 2010 10:24

shiv wrote:Acharya's linking of the LeT as a possible US puppet is an act of serendipity that I cannot get out of my mind.

I had made this connection several years ago and nobody commented. I had many links and books which showed how US mil works with Private Military Contractors and also jihadi elements in the region.
But with Headley now being open as a US agent who worked with LeT this has become very believable.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 29 Mar 2010 10:48

I am waiting for that book on LeT to come out. Recall, some Brit in a US think tank (I can't recall who) is supposed to be an expert on LeT. Hope he at least a tad better than that "expert" moron Peter Bergen.

But indeed, the rise of LeT has been a great force multiplier for TSP. This has indeed been a great strategic investment; however diabolical it might be from India's PoV. As for US involvement, one can't tell. But this much is for sure. India would have sealed Kashmir issue by mid 90's were it not for LeT. And US does not say a word that all the mayhem in Kashmir is caused by LeT whose cadres have nothing to do with J&K. Today, all the chutzpah from TSP, including that bogus agreement of joint love-making that Mush apparently struck with MMS, was secured with LeT as collateral.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Mar 2010 10:55

Kayani and Qureshi did not go empty handed

...
Pakistan must have been reassured that US cooperation with India will stop short of tracing 26/11 to the ISI.

The biggest gain for Pakistan from the Washington parleys is the road map, which was drawn for the exit of the US from the AfPak region by 2011. This will involve greater Pakistani war efforts, for which Pakistan will be compensated by a speedy disbursement of the Coalition Support Fund.

But more importantly, Pakistan has received assurances that no dispensation in Afghanistan will be inimical to Pakistani interests and that Pakistan will have a say in the determination of the future of the region.

India would definitely not be part of the new order if the US could help it. Pakistan's gains in this area are considerable. This is where the relationship between the US and Pakistan has turned into a partnership and Qureshi has become 'a happy man, a satisfied man.'

Kayani and Qureshi have not gone back from Washington empty handed. It will now be Dr Manmohan Singh's [ Images ] turn to correct the tilt when he meets Obama in April. But the venue of the nuclear summit will not be the most conducive venue for India to work on the bilateral relationship. Obama's agenda for the summit is such that India will find it hard to make deals there.

With the Liability Bill in the doldrums, our prime minister will not have much to offer to pave the way for nuclear trade.

The tilt towards Pakistan is likely to remain intact as long as Pakistan remains crucial in Obama's calculations in the AfPak region.

...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Mar 2010 11:51

Bravo Shiv!! Exceptional set of posts.

Given your past posts, I was wondering at the trend of your recent ones, I now see that when you failed to provoke people into giving well reasoned and articulated rejoinders, you did that to your own posts.

Of many who failed to provide what you were looking for I am certainly one. I know/felt all that you put down, but I did not take the trouble to actually provide it, I must confess though that it was partially because I was confused as to where were you heading.

Brutus is a honorable man. Yes indeed.

Great work mastero.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 29 Mar 2010 12:01

so th implication is -- US now has a direct lever on india thru LeT which it never got all these years thru arming of PAK army?

arun · Post by **arun** » 29 Mar 2010 15:33

In Afghan end-game, India gets that sinking feeling

Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:57am IST ……………………..

But the London conference on Afghanistan in January was a turning point for many in India. It ushered in the idea that Europe and the United States could accept getting certain Taliban commanders involved in a deal to bring stability to Afghanistan.

"There is a genuine sense of disappointment - even disbelief - that the US perspective on reconciling the Taliban evolved all too abruptly, contrary to what Delhi was given to understand," said M.K. Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat who has worked in Islamabad and Kabul.

While a significant number of other Afghanistan watchers say the euphoria over London was overdone, and question especially whether Washington significantly softened its position on reconciliation with the Taliban, Bhadrakumar's view is common in India……………………

Reuters

I really do not know if this rift between India and the US over policy towards the Taliban in Afghanistan is overblown because of a lack of appreciation of terminological nuances with people like Ambassador Bhadrakumar getting it wrong

.

Going by a February 4, 2010 article in the Voice of America there is apparently a significant terminological difference between “Reconciliation” and “Reintegration” when it comes to policy towards the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The US is reportedly pushing for “Reintegration” and not for “Reconciliation”. The Afghans on the other hand are pushing for “Reconciliation”. “Reintegration” which the US is pushing is defined as the “reintegration” of low-ranking Taliban members back into Afghan society and is not political “reconciliation” with Taliban leaders which is what Afghanistan is pushing for:

US, Afghanistan at Odds Over Reconciliation and Reintegration

India, just as the US, apparently has no difficulty with a policy of “Reintegration” according to a March 19, 2010 article by Indrani Bagchi in the Times of India:

India: No reconciling with Taliban, only 'reintegration'

arun · Post by **arun** » 29 Mar 2010 20:01

SureshP wrote:
US, India reach nuclear reprocessing deal
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN, Mar 29, 2010, 06.26pm IST

WASHINGTON: India and the United States have concluded a nuclear fuel reprocessing agreement, the Obama administration announced on Monday. {Snipped} .........."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 739263.cms

X Posted.

US State Department press release announcing the conclusion of a reprocessing arrangement between India and the US:

U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation - Reprocessing Arrangement

DAE Press release:

India- U.S. Civil Nuclear Cooperation – Reprocessing Arrangement

Terseness seems to be the order of the day

.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Mar 2010 21:03

Here's probably why our guy is walking on egg shells!!!

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/26/ ... -the-kids/

Obama Snubbed Netanyahu to Have Dinner with Michelle and the Kids
2010 March 26

by Michael van der Galien

I’m afraid we’ll have to take the possibility that Obama is not merely no friend of Israel, but a downright enemy, seriously now:

Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family, it emerged on Thursday…

Here’s what happened: Netanyahu thought that the worst of the crisis in Israel’s relationship with the U.S. was over. He met with Obama, believing both sides would work out their differences.

It didn’t take the Israeli prime minister a long time to realize he was wrong. Obama had no intention to be conciliatory. He,

immediately presented Mr Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem. When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.”

As he left, Mr Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. “I’m still around,” Mr Obama is quoted by Israel’s Yediot Ahronot newspaper as having said. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

As another Israeli newspaper, Maariv, reported, “there is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage. Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea.”

The fact of the matter is, of course, that Obama would not have treated the president of Guinea in this way either. No, he reserves this treatment for America’s traditional allies such as Israel, Britain and France; allies he apparently is determined to alienate.

It’s a troubling development that Obama doesn’t even feel the need to keep up appearances with Israel any longer. You have to wonder what this will mean for the security of the small Jewish nation-state, surrounded by dozens of much bigger enemies.

Exit question: any guesses as to why we have to rely on British, instead of America media to report on how badly Obama treats Israel?

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 29 Mar 2010 22:09

putnanja wrote:It will now be Dr Manmohan Singh's [ Images ] turn to correct the tilt when he meets Obama in April

I think this explains all the made up euphoria about pakis being satisfied about "strategic" dialog with US - raising Indian stakes / cost and extracting maximum during the visit. Hope babus are taking note and turn tables on short order.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Mar 2010 23:27

V_Raman wrote:so th implication is -- US now has a direct lever on india thru LeT which it never got all these years thru arming of PAK army?

LeT was formed in 1986 and trained along with Afghan Mujahids.
LeT became covertly anti-India and "Kashmir freedom fighters" around 1991
LeT became overtly anti-India in 1997
LeT made direct attack in India proper from 2001 with Parliament attack.
LeT started building links with SIMI inside India.
LeT made the major attack on Mumbai in 2008

So we see that LeT has progressed in a systematic manner and each major LeT attack was used as a geopolitical game by various countries including US

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 30 Mar 2010 00:25

i had a long chat about LeT with one of my co-workers from pak. he says LeT is about being a social organization at the ground level. that it has weapons of military caliber is a different question. for a common man, LeT is not about terrorism. i dont know if others understand this. the authorities cannot act on hafiz saeed for this very reason.

IMO, the key for india is to build the wall and prevent the spreading of weapons among the populace, especially the minority groups. ideology etc is not the charter of the govt and society will have to figure that out. pak govt/army can do nothing about LeT. it is a social issue.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 30 Mar 2010 00:28

^^^

G Parthasarathy summed it up best. He said (paraphrased) "Pakistan will never act against LeT. In Punjab families one son works for the army and the other for LeT. They might do something against JeM and others, but nothing against LeT"

Edit: Found the clip. The entire clip is entertaining, the quote is from 2:00 onwards

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Mar 2010 00:35

V_Raman wrote:i had a long chat about LeT with one of my co-workers from pak. he says LeT is about being a social organization at the ground level. that it has weapons of military caliber is a different question. for a common man, LeT is not about terrorism. i dont know if others understand this. the authorities cannot act on hafiz saeed for this very reason.

That is how freedom fighter image is created. Next they will say they are social organization for all Muslims even inside India. The J-e-Dawa which is parent org is a social service for common man and also has a mission and ideology with a global ummah agenda such as - service for all the muslims of the world. In that process to protect the Muslims they will also take up arms and kill non muslims. Some of the Terrorists talking to the media during the Mumbai attack will give the clue.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Mar 2010 00:58

Hindustan Times reports:

MEA cancels Law Ministry trip to US

The trip was cancelled as it was thought it was infra dignitatum for Law Minster, CJI and Attorney General to attend a low key seminar at Uty of Georgia.

As an aside, looks like US-TSP relations are driving US-India relations even in BRF.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Mar 2010 02:08

chetak wrote:
Obama Snubbed Netanyahu to Have Dinner with Michelle and the Kids
2010 March 26

FYI: Obama was originally scheduled to be out of the country March 18-24 - Indonesia, Australia - when Netanyahu was scheduled to visit the US to address AIPAC, etc. Only the delay in the health care reform legislation kept Obama in Washington DC, so this was a meeting set up at short schedule; there would have been no meeting if Obama had kept to his original schedule.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2010 07:50

One reason why the US cannot be interested in proving LeT - Pakistani whore army nexus is because the Pakistan whore army is clearly a US ally.

Indian "proof" of a LeT- Pakiarmy nexus translates in effect to an LeT-USA nexus.

The LeT is on some banned US entity list or the other - but the meaninglessness of such lists is clear. In may ways I believe India is relatively helpless here.

It's not as if India has zero options. India has very few inexpensive options.

War is an option that everyone on here demands. I have also whined and demanded a massive hit against something, anything in Pakistan in the aftermath of the last 50 atrocities we have discussed on here. The absence of war lends traction to the idea that Indian leaders are "cowards". That is the easy explanation. It gives us a target to hate that is close to us - one that we can punish (at least verbally) for not fulfilling our desires. But as always, when my mood cools off - I try to put myself inside the head of the "cowards" and see what the world looks like.

I will not bother rehashing what I have already said - about how the cost that India imposes on Pakistan will be subsidized by the US cheaply (for the US) If the Pakistan army is a cheap option for the US, the Lashkar e Rundi is even cheaper.

The US is playing a dangerous rationality game here. Not dangerous to the US though. If India was a rational player who gets hit time and time again by Pakistani entities - rationality would demand that we hit back.

Take a game of tit-for tat

A and B face each other. Each is given one turn to slap or not slap the other

B slaps A
A slaps B
B slaps A
A does not slap
B slaps A
A does not slap
B slaps A
A slaps B
B slaps A
A slaps B
B slaps A
A does not slap
B does not slap
A does not slap

I previously mentioned this game to show that one possible outcome is that B, realizing that it is cheaper in the long term for both parties not to slap each other. It was argued that in the case of Pakistan, B (Pakistan) never stops slapping A (India).

The reason for that is that the cost to "B" is being subsidized by "C" (America).

C pays a very low cost. A pays a cost when B slaps. B pays a cost when A slaps.

This needs to be gamed out using points, but we need to point out cost if any for C (America).

Every time B (Pakistan) slaps, C (America) gets nothing. In fact it has paid B to slap A - so it can be argued that C loses a little by paying B to slap A. But when A slaps B in return, C gets increased influence over B. America, which pays Pakistan to slap someone (India now or the USSR in the past) gains influence over Pakistan if Pakistan is attacked. At the same time the attacker who attacks Pakistan pays a higher cost than the US (even though Pakistan is paying a cost)

Let me write out this game (with actual names and points gained)

Every time Pakistan or India slap they gain by slapping but pay some cost in lives, infrastructure money etc. So the act of slapping gets 0 points.

When Pakistan slaps India, India gets -1,
But when India slaps Pakistan Pakistan gets only -0.5 because the US is paying Pakistan .

The US gets nothing when Pakistan slaps. It has paid for Pakistan anyway. But when India slaps Pakistan the US gets 0.5 - (0.25 for increased influence with Pakistan, and 0.25 for making India Pakistan focused)

Game 1
Pakistan slaps India (India -1, Pakistan 0, US 0)
India slaps Pakistan (India 0, Pakistan -0.5, US. 0.5)

Pakistan slaps India (India -1, Pakistan 0, US 0)
India slaps Pakistan (India 0, Pakistan -0.5, US. 0.5)

At the end of ten iterations of this game

Pakistan gets -5
India gets -10
US gets +5

But if the game is played as follows

Game 2
Pakistan slaps India (India -1, Pakistan 0, US 0)
Pakistan slaps India (India -1, Pakistan 0, US 0)
Pakistan slaps India (India -1, Pakistan 0, US 0)

At the end of 10 iterations of this game

India gets -10
Pakistan gets 0
The US gets 0

The difference between the two games is obvious. In both games India gets -10, whether we retaliate or not. But i is the US who scores more every time we retaliate.

So when we hit Pakistan we get -10 and the US gets +5 making the difference between the US and India -15

But when we do not hit Pakistan - we are losing the same amount, but the gain for the US is lower. When we don't hit Pakistan, the Pakis lose less, but the US too loses (in this game) The points difference between India and the US is only -10.

It can be argued that the US is expecting "rational behavior" from India. rational behavior when you get hit is to hit back. US spokespersons actually needle India by making statements like "It is in India's legitimate rights to retaliate" They are absolutely right (and we call that "US permission" on BRF). India is behaving irrational (losing lives, increasing internal security) by not retaliating. But that decreases US influence on Pakistan. US "permission" for India to hit Pakistan is a poisoned chalice. There are some details about some things I have said here - including "loss to India" and "gain for US" that I will deal with in another post some other time.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 30 Mar 2010 08:13

Acharya wrote:
shiv wrote:

Why on earth would a US admiral convert a bunch of freedom fighters into a bunch of terrorists and admit they attacked Mumbai? What's in it for the US? Is this is US interests? Or is this Admiral a nobody about to fade into history and is merely shooting his mouth off.
The real question is - Is some parts of LeT under the control of US mil

I have a theory. LeT has WMD capability.(Courtesy:TSPA)However crude or sophisticated it may be is a debate for another time. Unkil knows this.Headley was the missing link. He knows too much. Unkil is trying to clean up the mess in his own way.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2010 08:14

cross post

abhishek_sharma wrote:Michele Flournoy's Interview, Undersecretary of defense, US

http://www.charlierose.com/download/transcript/10934

CHARLIE ROSE: And is Pakistan -- U.S.-Pakistan, one of those that you
would point to?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: I think Pakistan is a really important country for
the United States. We are trying very hard to build a strategic
partnership with Pakistan. In the immediate term, because they are a
critical partner in the war against al-Qaeda and its allies.

CHARLIE ROSE: And the war in Afghanistan as well.

MICHELE FLOURNOY: And Afghanistan, across the border. But also
because South Asia is such a critical region. And there’s -- it’s very
important to build up the conditions for stability in that region. And for
great -- for reduction of tensions in the region. And so Pakistan has got
to be a critical partner in that -- in that equation.

CHARLIE ROSE: The impression is that the Pakistanis have become a
better partner in the last six months.

MICHELE FLOURNOY: I think that one of the things that’s happened in
the last year or so is the extremists really crossed the line. They
brought terrorism to the Pakistani heartland, to the cities of Pakistan.

And so the Pakistani public now feels very much under siege and they have
very strong domestic political support to combat those violent extremists.
So that has increased the Pakistani military’s willingness to conduct
operations, to try to clear out some of these safe havens, to work more
closely with us, coordinating operations on both sides of the border and so
forth. So I think that overreaching by the militants has actually created
a groundswell of support for counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency in --

CHARLIE ROSE: In the sense that the Pakistani government recognized
that the Taliban was an enemy of theirs, even though it had been a friend
of theirs in Afghanistan earlier.

MICHELE FLOURNOY: Well, I think there’s a network of these groups,
and some of these groups are more in these crosshairs, if you will, for
Pakistan than others. But that’s an ongoing area of dialogue where we’re
seeking to go after the syndicate (ph) writ large.

CHARLIE ROSE: Are they doing everything that the president and the
secretary of state and the secretary of defense and you want them to do?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: Well, that -- they have done a tremendous amount.
They have sacrificed a great deal. We can always both be doing more. And
that’s what we’re going to be talking about this week.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK. Fair enough, but what would be doing more mean?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: I think doing more would be -- would include going
after some of the groups that are coming across the border into Afghanistan
and targeting our soldiers. Some of the groups that are less focused on
targeting Pakistan and more focused on targeting us.

CHARLIE ROSE: This would be the Haqqani group and people like them?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: Exactly.

CHARLIE ROSE: All right. So you’ve got to get -- Because they have -- the
Haqqani group has a relationship with ISI and other Pakistani institutions,
do they not?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: Well, I think one of the--

CHARLIE ROSE: Or they did?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: Historically they have, I think one of the things
that--

CHARLIE ROSE: And with us, too, when we were all engaged in
supporting the Mujahedin --

MICHELE FLOURNOY: I think the real name of the game here is
convincing our friends in Pakistan that the U.S. is not going to leave the
scene again. We did that historically. We walked away from this area
with fairly catastrophic effects.

That’s not going to happen again. And I think if they trust that reality,
that we are going to stay invested in the region, even as the contours of
our operations and our military footprint in Afghanistan changes over time,
that that -- if they trust that, they will be able to make a different
calculus about how to hedge their bets and make sure their interests are
protected.

CHARLIE ROSE: Are they prepared to engage in north Wazirstan as they were
in south Wazirstan?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: I think that’s something we’ll see over time. Right
now, the challenge for their military is they are very much stretched by
the operations they’ve taken on so far.

CHARLIE ROSE: Have you convinced them they should think less about India
and more about enemies within?

MICHELE FLOURNOY: Well, I think that’s something that’s a big part of the
dialogue is trying to understand their threat perception, having them
understand ours, and helping to talk that through.

munna · Post by **munna** » 30 Mar 2010 08:17

shiv wrote: Take a game of tit-for tat
<snip>
Let me write out this game (with actual names and points gained)

Every time Pakistan or India slap they gain by slapping but pay some cost in lives, infrastructure money etc. So the act of slapping gets 0 points.

When Pakistan slaps India, India gets -1,
But when India slaps Pakistan Pakistan gets only -0.5 because the US is paying Pakistan .

The US gets nothing when Pakistan slaps. It has paid for Pakistan anyway. But when India slaps Pakistan the US gets 0.5 - (0.25 for increased influence with Pakistan, and 0.25 for making India Pakistan focused)

Game 1
Pakistan slaps India (India -1, Pakistan 0, US 0)
India slaps Pakistan (India 0, Pakistan -0.5, US. 0.5)

Now let all of us put our chankian hat on and introduce some spice to Shivji's conceptualization of the Indo-Pak game. How about dynamic payoffs? Shivji has assumed static payoffs whereby over several iterations of game certain actions from certain players will produce exactly the same payoffs independent of time. In other words the payoffs are time invariant. If this were to be the case, then yes India is between a rock and a hard place. In mango jingos terminology this is like saying the negative payoffs of destroying Paqui army would be the same in the years 1971, 1975, 1980, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 (of course in real terms ie inflation adjusted: lest Vina/Hari Seldon/Suraj saars gets angry with me). The retort to that reasoning is that its hard to tell whether the payoffs will be the same or not.

In fact I will venture forth and say that the negative payoffs are marred by uncertainty and hence will not be constant over a period of time. Factors like relative economic size, overall development of the nation and creation of military industrial complex will change the payoffs over a period of time. What if after 5 iterations paqui slaps start yielding -2 or more? What if after 15 iterations Indian slap to paquis yields +5 India and -5 US?

But when we do not hit Pakistan - we are losing the same amount, but the gain for the US is lower. When we don't hit Pakistan, the Pakis lose less, but the US too loses (in this game) The points difference between India and the US is only -10.

Agreed but the confusion in the minds of our "confuciuses" is that what is tipping point? Where do the paqui hits start yielding asymmtric gains to PakUS and losses to India? In fact are we precariously close to asymmetric losses position after 26/11? The golden mean...does it exist?

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 30 Mar 2010 08:18

Altair wrote:
Acharya wrote: The real question is - Is some parts of LeT under the control of US mil

I have a theory. LeT has WMD capability.(Courtesy:TSPA)However crude or sophisticated it may be is a debate for another time. Unkil knows this.Headley was the missing link. He knows too much. Unkil is trying to clean up the mess in his own way.

quite possibly, the JDAM is already in India with some sleeper cell.. That's the logical strategy for Pakistan. With their Gadhas, Ghodis, and amputated F-Solahs, they are not in position to inflict India.. Their only chance is that the nuke-bums are not only distributed amongst "non-state-actors" but also that the bum is already deployed in enemy territory (secretly, of course) for detonation when things go out of hand..

There was a news recently that the mumbai cops held few TFTA's with Uranium in New-Mumbai..

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 30 Mar 2010 08:24

JDAM will be the final act that breaks the IM-PAK link.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 30 Mar 2010 08:26

Chiron wrote: There was a news recently that the mumbai cops held few TFTA's with Uranium in New-Mumbai..

Its possible to know from which reactor from which part of the world that Uranium comes from. Even after a JDAM it can be proved that the weaponized Uranium came from X reactor from Y country. There is no escape.The question is: Is it from Pakistan or is it Unkils??

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Mar 2010 08:29

^^

Hope our Flamingos took care of them already...

On the other hand, one of the military scenarios circa 2004-05 identifies the Shangri-la area as the ideal location for JDAM. Isn't IWT an acronym for Aman Ki Asha?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Mar 2010 08:32

Munna ji, Indian has one useful card to play. Build up her own NSAs in Pakiland /AFPak area and use them to punish Pakjabi players promoting terrorism. Its hard to imagine that Indian intelligence dont have personal Biodata of these inbreds. None of the extended family member of these yahoos ought to be going to slee without the fear and uncertainlty of impending journey to that Brothel in the Sky.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2010 08:36

Actually munnaji - the game becomes very complex even if you introduce two extra players (US and Pakistan) and try and measure costs for them versus costs for us.

In the real world most people look at "cost for me". What is the cost for me to take a particular action over some other action.

In India's case costs are

1) Cost of lives that may be lost in a given scenario.
2) Cost of internal security
3) Cost of developing overwhelming military superiority
4) Cost of nuclear war

The cost in lives is the most overrated item. Lives are only as cheap or as costly as you make them. Lost lives are often cheaper despite the Christian ethos of valuing this one available life as supreme and needing protection as being invaluable and irreplaceable. If you shed that thought lives are cheap. Only Christianity pretends that humans can be made to value lives differently. Islam too makes lives as cheap as convenient. This only helps US lawyers. The cost of protecting every life is far higher than allowing some lives to be sacrificed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2010 08:37

Prem wrote:Munna ji, Indian has one useful card to play. Build up her own NSAs in Pakiland /AFPak area and use them to punish Pakjabi players promoting terrorism. Its hard to imagine that Indian intelligence dont have personal Biodata of these inbreds. None of the extended family member of these yahoos ought to be going to slee without the fear and uncertainlty of impending journey to that Brothel in the Sky.

Prem - better still is to get these people to hit the US. The entire ummah is the prostitute of the US and the Pakistan army is the pimp. Now spread the word around. Focusing on Pakistan is letting off the puppeteer.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 30 Mar 2010 10:35

US-Pakistan dialogue with a difference

President Barack Obama promised to put Pakistan on the top of his agenda. Now after 15 months of intense engagement, dozens of visits to Islamabad by American officials and unrelenting pressure, the Obama administration has finally got the Pakistanis to open up.
Now, said officials from both sides, everything was on the table. That is important right now. Even though Pakistan may be a crumbling state unable to provide its people with electricity, water, security or jobs, the army's bargaining power with the US has increased dramatically.
That is due to increases in its nuclear arsenal, its stepped-up fight against the Pakistani Taliban after years of dithering and its influence over the Afghan Taliban as the US and Nato prepare to start pulling out of Afghanistan next year.

At the end of two days of talks, Mr Qureshi said he was satisfied as both sides ''move from a relationship to a partnership'.' US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared his optimism. However, the real dialogue was with Gen Kayani and the army which had prepared Pakistan's briefs, with no objections from Mr Qureshi or the civilian government. The army tried and failed to make US acceptance of its major demands as pre-conditions for the success of the talks. The US insisted on discussing every issue and conceded little.

The US offered nothing new, but the most concrete results were reflected in a sector-by-sector dialogue by relevant ministries on each side, as to how the US can help rally Pakistan's faltering economy, lack of energy and improve its agriculture and infrastructure.

To India's chagrin, the US has acknowledged that Pakistan has a major role to play in peace talks between Kabul and the Afghan Taliban and that India and Pakistan need to come to an understanding over their mutual competition in Afghanistan.
When Afghan President Hamid Karzai visited Islamabad in early March, he was bluntly told by the army that he would have to remove two Indian consulates in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border, before the army offered him help to talk to the Pakistan-based Afghan Taliban leaders.

For Pakistan, one measure of success of the talks is the degree to which they have rattled India. India feels snubbed by the US because its officials have not been given access to David Headley. Delhi is opposed to any dominant Pakistani role in Afghanistan and is nervous about any US-Pakistan nuclear talks.

The US will now have to do some fence-mending with India. However the complex triangular relationship between the US, Pakistan and India depends for success on the US getting the two enemies to talk turkey about their conflicts. It also depends on getting the Pakistani army to undertake a real rather than an imagined strategic U-turn, because backing extremists of any hue to carry out foreign policy goals is no longer internationally acceptabl

arun · Post by **arun** » 30 Mar 2010 12:28

Prem wrote:
SSridhar wrote:Pakistan to get two nuclear reactors from China

Has China got IAEA & NSG approval for this ?
It was expected news . Paki will go to any false length to save their H&D.

X Posted. Talk of P.R. China supplying the 3rd and 4th nuclear reactors for the Chasma power plant in defiance of their NSG and IAEA obligations have been around since October 2008.

Wall Street Journal: Pakistan Secures China's Help to Build 2 Nuclear Reactors

CBS News: China To Help Pakistan Build 2 Nuke Plants

Notwithstanding the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s dubious record of fabricating civilian nuclear deals where none exist (Which is not the case in this instance. See paragraph after next.) such as in the case of France, the timing of the resurfacing of the story of P.R. China supplying nuclear power reactors is interesting.

The resurrection of the story within days of the conclusion of the strategic dialogue between the US and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in which Pakistan asked for an Indo-US like civilian nuclear deal, leaves me with the nagging doubt that the US may have agreed to pacify the Islamic Republic by indicating that it would not obstruct a P.R. China – Pakistan nuclear deal even if it was not in conformity with the NSG and IAEA rules that P.R. China was obliged to follow. So will this eventually turnout to be a covert US gambit to indulge in some India Pakistan equal = equal type behaviour?

My comment that this was not a case of fabrication by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is based on this May 7, 2009 Press Release by P.R. China’s State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) which is the parent of the Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research and Design Institute (SNERDI):

SNERDI SIGNED ENGINEERING GENERAL CONTRACT FOR CHASHMA III AND IV UNITS TO HELP PAKISTAN BUILD 2 MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

On April 28, 2009, Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research and Design Institute (SNERDI), a subsidiary company of the State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) signed a General Engineering Contract in Shanghai with China Zhongyuan Engineering Corporation (CZEC) to provide engineering design and technical service for Pakistan Chashma III and IV units. This is the second time SNERDI was chosen to be the general contractor responsible for overall engineering design after its successful completion of Pakistan Chashma unit I and II, which were the largest and the only nuclear export projects in China.

The signing ceremony was chaired by Mr. XU Qian, Vice President of SNERDI with the witness of nearly 30 high level management from relevant parties. Mr. ZHENG Mingguang, President of SNERDI, and Mr. MAO Xiaoming, GM of CZEC gave their greetings and jointly signed the contract.

Chashma Unit 1 and 2 (C1 and C2) were not only considered to be the most successful projects of sincere cooperation between SNERDI and CZEC, but also widely recognized as the typical model of "south-south cooperation" in the peaceful uses of atom energy between two countries. Over the past decade, SNERDI and CZEC have worked together closely and built up a brotherhood friendship with mutual support, exchanging views and open cooperation. For Chashma Unit 3 and 4, both sides are committed to continue this good relationship and make every effort to the successful of the projects as a model for the standardization of nuclear power plants. It is also expected that, through these projects, both sides can make new contributions to build a safe, reliable, economical and clean nuclear power plant in order to promote the China's nuclear industry so as to lead China to a much broader nuclear market.

Chashma NPP III and IV (C3 and C4) is located near Chashma-Jhelum (C-J) Link Canal in the north-western Pakistan province Punjab, district Mianwali. It is about 1,200 km from the first major cities of Pakistan, Karachi. The two units will be of 300 MWe Class in-land NPPs with 340 MWe capacity, the design life will be 40 years.

On March 1, 2009, SNERDI officially launched the design work for C3 and C4. To tie in with the time requirement for the long lead equipment manufacturing, SNERDI decided and has already finished the drawing in advance for the six major equipments out of seven by the end of 2008. ............................

SNPTC

Forget two fingers, P.R.China has given a whole fist to the NSG / IAEA, though possibly minus the US if they have indeed decided to look the other way following the conclusion of the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 30 Mar 2010 21:21

V_Raman wrote:JDAM will be the final act that breaks the IM-PAK link.

Don't count on that, V Raman ji.. One never knows..

JDAM won't happen until Pak's existence is threatened OR IM are mobilized in favour of Pak, whichever happens earlier. If the existence of Pak is threatened, the delinking of IM from Pak depends a lot on support of Saudi Arabia to India, than to Pak. The ideological centre for existence of Pak is still in Gangetic plains.The delinking of IM from Pak will happen when deoband and its likes are convinced that the ideology will spread more efficiently (in subcontinent) by getting rid of Paki image which is now attached to a religious Abdul. Thus, Pak might be slowly becoming a liability for image of Abdul in India.

Indics are ever ready to delink IM from Pakis, it is the IMs who are keeping that linkage. Pak is the military arm of an ideology which intends to establish its political supremacy over subcontinent. That ideology will never break its links with TSPA. The execution of JDAM in India cannot happen without tacit support of certain elite sections of IM.

The average abdul is kept frightened of aggressive Hindu majority. In case of JDAM, the average abdul will die too. But the capacity of average abdul to rise against the mullah-qazi power structure is severely limited and hence the delinking cannot be counted upon.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Mar 2010 21:36

Chiron wrote: Pak is the military arm of an ideology which intends to establish its political supremacy over subcontinent. That ideology will never break its links with TSPA. The execution of JDAM in India cannot happen without tacit support of certain elite sections of IM.

The capability of this ideology is too big and has to be reduced. The ideology should not be completely removed but should be kept small.
The ideology which is manufactured like done by Z Hamid should be shown as fake and is not reality and will not be a reality even in the future. Indian society is unable to do it and is not willing to it and lot of groups are making sure that no Indian groups or the state removes this ideology

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Mar 2010 22:05

^

Indian society is unable to do it and is not willing to it and lot of groups are making sure that no Indian groups or the state removes this ideology

Indian society can be awaken but achieving this goal would require policy/structural changes. Independent India is constrained by the constitution and laws to do something like this. I do not know why our leadership did this to their society.

I see Buddha smiling.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Mar 2010 07:11

One thing that intrigues me is that the "islamic world" and the ideology which is seen as such a big threat has been used like toilet tissue by the great powers of the West and that usage has been going on since the 1920 and continues to this day. Western powers find some idiot Islamic leader (Sultan/Genera/Wazir/) who can get his ummahnic followers to go wild in the name of Islam and they (Western powers) bribe or threaten that leader - after which the leader is eating out their hands.

How come western "ideology" is not being eaten up by these Islamic Yahoos while India is said to be tearing apart because of an alien ideology. Are we stupid or is the West stupid.

The more I look at history the more I feel like ROTFL at the ummah and its leaders. They are all hot air. They have been used worse than condoms. The word condom to describe a people is pejorative - but does not sufficiently describe how western powers have comprehensively fEDITed the ummah via control of their leaders.

Wherever you look - you find some Islamic oiseaule controlling a few yahoos who kowtows to some Western power knowing full well that if he does not do that he will be replaced in short shrift. The US is master at this. The ummah are not going to unite any more than I am going to get married to all the actresses I have been in love with since the days of Meena Kumari. They are a rowdy disunited bunch whose "switch" is Islam. When some Islamic leading light turns on that switch a bunch of yahoos will go wild for him. As long as that leading light has his testimonials firmly in the grasp of someone or the other, one bunch of Islamic yahoos will always be serving massa via their mahdi.

I believe this fact is usable by India if we can stop cowering in our dhotis at what we see as a threat. It is an opportunity, but too many of us keep our eyes shut.

Added later:

Notice how "islamic pride" and the monolithic identity of the ummah has been carefully highlighted mostly by Western sociological observers while Islamic tendency to keep screwing each other is a fact that has been kept close to their chests and utilised by the same Western powers who released sociologists everywhere. We protest at Western sociological descriptions of India but the suckers that we are - we are unable to see how the same skewed sociology has been utilised for the ummah. Truly are we dumbasses of the highest order.

It was the British who utilised the myth of ummahnic unity to pit Indians against Indians. The same thing goes on wherever you go. In actual fact the ummah is disunited and the whore leaders are under control of the west. The fact is that one of the few people who has realised this is going to die for making it public. That is Osama bin Laden. He is yet another idiot whoring yahoo who served the West loyally until the "I'm a jackass" balloon went up over his head and he turned rebel.

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 31 Mar 2010 09:22

Obama kickstarts India's nuclear deal By MK Bhadrakumar

Implementation of the nuclear deal becomes a turning point in the US-India partnership. With one stroke, Obama may have calmed the troubled waters of US-India partnership. It is a masterstroke in its timing.

The present Indian government faces no worthwhile opposition domestically to the advancement of its agenda of expanding and deepening the US-India strategic partnership. The majority opinion among the Indian elites also favors strong US-India ties. Most certainly, a tumultuous reception awaits Obama when he visits India.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 Mar 2010 09:31

shiv wrote:One thing that intrigues me is that the "islamic world" and the ideology which is seen as such a big threat has been used like toilet tissue by the great powers of the West and that usage has been going on since the 1920 and continues to this day. Western powers find some idiot Islamic leader (Sultan/Genera/Wazir/) who can get his ummahnic followers to go wild in the name of Islam and they (Western powers) bribe or threaten that leader - after which the leader is eating out their hands.

How come western "ideology" is not being eaten up by these Islamic Yahoos while India is said to be tearing apart because of an alien ideology. Are we stupid or is the West stupid.

The more I look at history the more I feel like ROTFL at the ummah and its leaders. They are all hot air. They have been used worse than condoms. The word condom to describe a people is pejorative - but does not sufficiently describe how western powers have comprehensively fEDITed the ummah via control of their leaders.

True to some extent. But only Western "Ideologies" whether that is a theocracy or democracy or socialist nation can ROTFL at Islamic Yahoos.

India is yet to do anything closer to what west has been doing to the religion of peace. Once again India self-shackled itself from protecting its interests.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 31 Mar 2010 09:35

shynee wrote:Obama kickstarts India's nuclear deal By MK Bhadrakumar
Implementation of the nuclear deal becomes a turning point in the US-India partnership. With one stroke, Obama may have calmed the troubled waters of US-India partnership. It is a masterstroke in its timing.

The present Indian government faces no worthwhile opposition domestically to the advancement of its agenda of expanding and deepening the US-India strategic partnership. The majority opinion among the Indian elites also favors strong US-India ties. Most certainly, a tumultuous reception awaits Obama when he visits India.

When American elites who are mollywcoddling TSP read the opinion of pygmies like MKB, they must be laughing their asses off not only at his naivety, but must also be contemptuous that you throw a dog bone at these SDREs, and they gyrate about their hips. What a piece of bombastic tripe at what is is an inconsequential event. And far from de-hyphenation, his views hyphenate India and TSP; so what if TSP's brazen demand for nuke deal was rejected while at the same time this development with India? Why is there any relationship between the 2 events? MKB's glee is like my daughter claiming one up over my son because she got a goodie that he didn't.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Mar 2010 09:46

RamaY wrote:
True to some extent. But only Western "Ideologies" whether that is a theocracy or democracy or socialist nation can ROTFL at Islamic Yahoos.

India is yet to do anything closer to what west has been doing to the religion of peace. Once again India self-shackled itself from protecting its interests.

Actually the West has no ideology. Ideologies are essentially ideals that tie you down. If you are looking for domination and "winner takes all" there must be no ideology. Ideology must be discarded when inconvenient and adhered to when convenient. All ideology bound groups are weak. Islamic ideology is weak, and any group that thinks Islamic ideology is a threat is weaker still. Islamic ideology binds and blinds Muslims in a way that the west uses. But we are blind to that because we are either holding on to some alternate ideals ourselves (which bind us to fear) or have not thought this thing through.

The US (and an earlier imperial Britain) had no such mental shackles.