India-US Strategic News and Discussion

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Jul 2010 01:55

Varoon Shekhar wrote:

Stein's article is classist more than racist. The idea of all well do to Indians being geniuses is ludicrous, as also the idea that all Indians, all immigrants can be or should be doctors, engineers and scientists. Positively was not true of Irish, Jews, Italians, Poles and Chinese.

THis is known as manufacturing false image. Few people even when talking to me mentioned that why are Indians not many cooks, waiters and help.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 Jul 2010 06:37

Sure way of making China, US, KSA gang up and arm Pakistan to the hilt and ensure first strike destruction to India

You think Pukes are not armed to the hilt?

You think they have not already armed Paki's to the teeth?

They've done so because we never gave the impression that we will retaliate any more than minimum required. So they are pretty confident that public opinion will be reassured in India if India retaliates within it's subcontinental geography. Funny you say China, KSA and US have not armed Paki's to the teeth.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 16 Jul 2010 03:28

RamaY wrote:
(1) All major cities are planning for metro trains system in the next 5-10 years. It should be technically/economically possible to build a parallel under-ground tube system. (a 15 mile radius will result in >90 mile long tube - supporting ~100,000 families).

The thing is only 10-15% of Delhi Metro is underground the rest all is on the roads, infact raised above the roads.

The same problem may be in other cities too, that is digging big percentage of metro underground. Though it would be quite a potent protection from nuke attack. Stalin used Kalinin station now called Chisty prudy as his war-office during wwII.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jul 2010 03:44

Re: Nikki Haley

From India West a local magazine

http://www.indiawest.com/readmore.aspx?id=2329&Sid=1

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jul 2010 03:48

And

Indians are now the third largest immigrant group.

http://www.indiawest.com/readmore.aspx?id=2296&Sid=1

A new report by a leading Washington, D.C.-based think tank reveals that the number of Indian immigrants has surpassed those from China and Hong Kong for the first time since data has been collected in 1960. Around 1.6 million foreign born Indians now reside in the United States, which makes them the third-largest immigrant group behind Mexicans and Filipinos.

The study, by the Migration Policy Institute, is based on the statistics provided by the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008 American Community Survey and 2000 Census, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics for 2008 and 2009, one of the study’s authors, Aaron Terrazas, told India-West.

The study also shows that the current global recession has not affected Indian immigration as negatively as it has other groups, said Terrazas, who co-authored the study with Cristina Batog.

“The avenue of entry for Indians is often employment- or family-based,” Terrazas told India-West. “Or they are skilled temp workers or students, who have turned permanent residents. Half of Mexicans are here illegally, which influences where they work in the U.S. economy — at the lower end of the economic spectrum.”

The detailed study, which can be viewed online, shows that of the 2.3 million members of the Indian diaspora residing in the U.S. in 2008, 66.4 percent were born in India, including individuals born in India to at least one parent who was a native-born U.S. citizen. One-fifth (20.0 percent) were U.S. citizens at birth.

The study demonstrates that Indians are heavily concentrated in California and New Jersey. California had the largest number of Indian immigrants (303,497, or 18.7 percent of the Indian-born population) in 2008, followed by New Jersey (187,732, or 11. 6 per cent) and New York (141,738, or 8.7 per cent).

Within California, the Indian population was spread out between the San Francisco Bay Area/Silicon Valley and Southern California, unlike in the more concentrated New York/New Jersey region.

The New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island region was the metropolitan area with the largest number of Indian born residents (277,401, or 17.1 percent) in 2008, followed by Chicago-Naperville-Joliet (116,395, or 7.2 percent); San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif. (78,001, or 4.8 percent); Washington-Arlington-Alexandria (67,340, or 4.2 percent); and Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana (66,125 or 4.1 percent).

Interestingly, between 2000 and 2008, the size of the Indian immigrant population more than doubled in 10 states, including Montana, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Washington and the District of Columbia. “The data suggest a growing Indian immigrant presence in the Mountain West,” reads the report.

Terrazas explained that the figures come from a relatively new Census system that uses a smaller sample but is believed to be more accurate than the decennial U.S. Census. In 2000, residents were given two types of Census questionnaires: a short form and a long form (in 2010, only the short form was used; it does not ask the respondent’s country of origin). In contrast, the annual American Community Survey (which is mandatory, as is the U.S. Census) polls around three million U.S. residents, or one percent of the U.S. population, and asks about education levels, jobs, housing, ethnicity and immigration status.

The estimated number of unauthorized immigrants from India has increased from about 120,000 in 2000 to about 200,000 in 2009, an increase of 64 percent, the report said. Immigration status statistics were provided by the Department of Homeland Security, since the ACS does not ask questions about status, said Terrazas.

The Migration Policy Institute study showed that compared to other immigrant groups,

the Indian foreign born are much better educated — nearly three-quarters of Indian-born adults have a bachelor’s degree or higher. In 2008, 73.6 percent of Indian-born adults age 25 and older had a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 27.1 percent among all 31.9 million foreign-born adults and 27.8 percent of all 168.1 million native-born adults. About one-quarter of Indian-born men in the labor force work in the information technology industry.

According to the report, over half of Indian immigrants residing in the United States in 2008 were men (54.8 percent) and 45.2 percent were women.

Even though the Indian-born population now rates in third place, their numbers in relation to the U.S. population overall are likely to decrease over the coming decade, said Terrazas, especially in relation to those of Latinos. “Indian fertility rates are similar to those of U.S.-born citizens,” he said. “The growing Latino population growth is due to their higher fertility in the U.S.”

That said, “I would expect [the numbers of] all immigrant groups to slow down in ’09-‘10” due to the recession, he added.

To read the entire study, visit the Migration Policy Institute’s Web site at www.migrationpolicy.org. The institute is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in Washington, D.C. dedicated to analysis of the movement of people worldwide.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Jul 2010 07:37

From the Book "Nuclear Apartheid: The Quest For American Atomic Supremacy From World War II to the Present" by Shane J. Maddock

Page 88-89

The plutonium and uranium would be stored underground in inaccessible vaults, "preferably in solution or other inconvenient form, guarded by nuclear eunuchs." Strauss's gendered language reflected a widespread practice among U.S. policymakers of coding perceived political and military threats in psychosexual terms. International "potency" hinged on nuclear strength; only non-nuclear powers( "eunuchs") could be trusted not to sully the atomic "harem" because because they had no power to do so and would long remain dependent on Western largesse to develop their own nuclear industries. Strauss also conveyed a double meaning with this language, for these eunuchs not only lacked nuclear armaments-- they often espoused neutrality in Cold War. Strauss implicitly invoked the cultural stereotype of the leading neutral nation, India, and its followers in the nonaligned movement as lacking virility and martial skill -- a bias shared by Eisenhower and his advisors, who often often referred to the "feminine hypersensitiveness" and "emotional" manner of Indian policymakers. These characteristics inspire contempt for their military and technological aptitudes and anger toward the neutrals' unwillingness to take sides in the Cold War.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Jul 2010 22:33

Islam: Unmentionable in D.C.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/foreign-policy/ ... able-in-dc

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Jul 2010 14:11

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/opinion/16brooks.html
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Gospel of Mel Gibson
By DAVID BROOKS

And the sad fact is that Gibson is not alone. There can’t be many people at once who live in a celebrity environment so perfectly designed to inflate self-love. Even so, a surprising number of people share the trait. A study conducted at the National Institutes of Health suggested that 6.2 percent of Americans had suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, along with 9.4 percent of people in their 20s.

In their book, “The Narcissism Epidemic,” Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell cite data to suggest that at least since the 1970s, we have suffered from national self-esteem inflation. They cite my favorite piece of sociological data: In 1950, thousands of teenagers were asked if they considered themselves an “important person.” Twelve percent said yes. In the late 1980s, another few thousand were asked. This time, 80 percent of girls and 77 percent of boys said yes.
That doesn’t make them narcissists in the Gibson mold, but it does suggest that we’ve entered an era where self-branding is on the ascent and the culture of self-effacement is on the decline.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jul 2010 19:00

I'm reliably informed that two individuals,important men always in the news, are getting on like a (white) house on fire thanks to their frequent and private chats across the waters, unknown to many of their counsellors.Is this heralding the dawn of a new "Pact Atl-India"?
The Messiah (for it is he) views the beturbanned "Wise Singh...sorry King of the East" (for it is also he!) as the "Prophet of Pence" aka as the "Guru of Greed".The "Wise Singh" in return appears to view the Messiah as the "Sultan of Strategy" and defers to him in all matters of "muscle".

Cometh their embrace this winter,the "Christmas coming",one might witness the consumation of this pact in the form of the exchange of "gifts",for was it not the "Kings of the East" who brought with them gifts for the "Messiah" 2000+ years ago?! Much gold therefore is expected to be given (as per tradition) to the Messiah by this eastern "Wise King" in return for his "Sermon of the Mounted",the "Battle-attitudes",and many other "fishy" miracles,the most amazing being how to make a huge mountain of gold disappear in a jiffy to be replaced by gold-plated chariots and birds of war!

Watch this space!

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 19 Jul 2010 19:20

Phillip Garu,

Frankly, I had to read your above post twice to what actually was being said....too much for me

...anyways...what does your analysis predict about "gifts" to each other?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jul 2010 19:36

It is customary during Christmas to exchange "gifts",,as the "wise men of the east" did that first Christmas.Just wait and watch this space!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2010 22:52

Its important for Indians to understand this phenomenon!

Op-Ed in NYT:

The Roots of White Anxiety

Last year, two Princeton sociologists, Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford, published a book-length study of admissions and affirmative action at eight highly selective colleges and universities. Unsurprisingly, they found that the admissions process seemed to favor black and Hispanic applicants, while whites and Asians needed higher grades and SAT scores to get in. But what was striking, as Russell K. Nieli pointed out last week on the conservative Web site Minding the Campus, was which whites were most disadvantaged by the process: the downscale, the rural and the working-class.

This was particularly pronounced among the private colleges in the study. For minority applicants, the lower a family’s socioeconomic position, the more likely the student was to be admitted. For whites, though, it was the reverse. An upper-middle-class white applicant was three times more likely to be admitted than a lower-class white with similar qualifications.

This may be a money-saving tactic. In a footnote, Espenshade and Radford suggest that these institutions, conscious of their mandate to be multiethnic, may reserve their financial aid dollars “for students who will help them look good on their numbers of minority students,” leaving little room to admit financially strapped whites.

But cultural biases seem to be at work as well. Nieli highlights one of the study’s more remarkable findings: while most extracurricular activities increase your odds of admission to an elite school, holding a leadership role or winning awards in organizations like high school R.O.T.C., 4-H clubs and Future Farmers of America actually works against your chances. Consciously or unconsciously, the gatekeepers of elite education seem to incline against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right-wing or “Red America.”

This provides statistical confirmation for what alumni of highly selective universities already know. The most underrepresented groups on elite campuses often aren’t racial minorities; they’re working-class whites (and white Christians in particular) from conservative states and regions. Inevitably, the same underrepresentation persists in the elite professional ranks these campuses feed into: in law and philanthropy, finance and academia, the media and the arts.

This breeds paranoia, among elite and non-elites alike. Among the white working class, increasingly the most reliable Republican constituency, alienation from the American meritocracy fuels the kind of racially tinged conspiracy theories that Beck and others have exploited — that Barack Obama is a foreign-born Marxist hand-picked by a shadowy liberal cabal, that a Wall Street-Washington axis wants to flood the country with third world immigrants, and so forth.

Among the highly educated and liberal, meanwhile, the lack of contact with rural, working-class America generates all sorts of wild anxieties about what’s being plotted in the heartland. In the Bush years, liberals fretted about a looming evangelical theocracy. In the age of the Tea Parties, they see crypto-Klansmen and budding Timothy McVeighs everywhere they look.

This cultural divide has been widening for years, and bridging it is beyond any institution’s power. But it’s a problem admissions officers at top-tier colleges might want to keep in mind when they’re assembling their freshman classes.

If such universities are trying to create an elite as diverse as the nation it inhabits, they should remember that there’s more to diversity than skin color — and that both their school and their country might be better off if they admitted a few more R.O.T.C. cadets, and a few more aspiring farmers.

American xenophobia increases in times of economic distress and has been shown as a pattern thru the last two centuries. So be careful and dont show off.The recent 2010 Census data will be an eyeopener on Indian Americans place in US society and will lead to more anxiety.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 20 Jul 2010 03:03

Time for the U.S. to Pursue Closer Ties With India
http://seekingalpha.com/article/215043- ... nts_header

think he's completely right about this. Christopher Hitchens has also argued this point vehemently a number of times. India is a largely-secular, largely-democratic, largely-open country in South Asia of rising economic and security importance. It would be disastrous if the U.S. were to waste the chance to become strong allies with India. Still, there are two reasons why the U.S. hasn't spent as much time on India as it has with China, and both have to do with time constraints. First is the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, whom the U.S. continues to view as a short-term ally of necessity in the fight for Afghanistan. Publicly cozying up to India could jeopardize what little cooperation we've gotten from Islamabad, and would make an already-difficult task much harder. I wouldn't leave the point there, though. The U.S. has an opportunity to leverage its potential relationship with India to pressure Pakistan to do much more than it has done, and it should consider doing so. If Pakistan doesn't play ball, then the U.S. can turn to India or threaten to, further isolating Pakistan from the rest of Asia. And if the AfPak effort fails, cooperation between Pakistan and the U.S. will likely dry up anyway. In the short run, then, treading water with India makes sense.
Second is the related fact that India isn't going anywhere. Opportunities for building rapport with India will continue to be available over the next decade and beyond. India already has fairly close ties with Europe, and won't turn against the West to join with China, say. The U.S. has some time to try to deal with more pressing short run concerns before turning to a longer-term relationship with India. I'm not sure that the Obama administration is thinking at that level of abstraction, but I do think it's true.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 20 Jul 2010 05:46

From the above article's comment section,

1979 - China partially opens up for investment
1992 - India opens up for investment slowly
2000 - China is growing tremendously but still hasn't grabbed US attention economically
2000 - India is where China was in 1990 - everybody knows its growing but nobody thinks too seriously about her
2009 - China is one of the greatest powers on earth and US realizes its not in a position where it can demand stuff from China - US reaches out to China but eventually gets slapped in the face
2009 - Still economically growing at a brisk pace and being in the same position China was in 2000, India reaches out to the US to be economic, military and strategic partners. Nobody bothers in Washington because India isn't that big a power yet.
Between 2020 - 2025 - guess whats gonna happen?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 20 Jul 2010 05:58

Rony wrote:From the above article's comment section,

2009 - Still economically growing at a brisk pace and being in the same position China was in 2000, India reaches out to the US to be economic, military and strategic partners. Nobody bothers in Washington because India isn't that big a power yet.
Between 2020 - 2025 - guess whats gonna happen?

Both US and China will approach doing Ustat with folded hand.If all things remain same, Our economic engagement with world will cross T mark in 2-3 years and then double again in next 5 years . Rest will be left for historians to do their work .

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 20 Jul 2010 06:17

Philip wrote:It is customary during Christmas to exchange "gifts",,as the "wise men of the east" did that first Christmas.Just wait and watch this space!

Philip ji, Obama is a creature of his handlers - the Rahm Emmanuels and David Axelrods, and furthermore, major policy decisions are taken on advice from think tanks set up by the elites. So Obama's personal equation with the good doctor is unlikely to yield much for SDREs.

arun · Post by **arun** » 20 Jul 2010 07:55

X Posted.

putnanja wrote:DIFFERING STANDARDS- The US must not wink at a Sino-Pak nuclear deal by Kanwal Sibal

......If, as the Chinese argue, they and Pakistan are respecting their international obligations and the new power plants will be under IAEA safeguards, where was the need for India to be put in the wringer of a tortuous, conditions-laden process by the US? Why did the US pressure others not to cooperate with India until the US cleared the way? We too could have obtained nuclear cooperation by simply agreeing to put internationally assisted reactors under IAEA safeguards.The US cannot have different standards for China/Pakistan and for us. Like China, the US, too, has supported over the years ‘strategic stability’ in South Asia. It has overlooked in the past Sino-Pakistan nuclear transfers as it needed Pakistan’s support for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and was reluctant to impose sanctions on China. History is in danger of repeating itself at India’s expense again. India must convey suitably to the US that the newly established strategic relationship with it will develop a huge fissure if it sacrifices India’s interests to protect its Sino-Pakistan relationship.
...

A very valid question.

Why did India have to put through hoops and rings for what Pakistan and China are demonstrating is a simple straight forward matter?

Sensible advise from Kanwal Sibal as well on what India needs to tell the US if the Sino-Pakistan deal for Chashma 3 and 4 goes through without NSG clerance.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2010 08:33

UCSC Prof's blog:

Four Power Networks

Sounds like a new caste system!

This document explains why and how organizations are the starting point for understanding power. It focuses on four main organizational networks -- ideological, economic, military, and political -- as the building blocks for power structures. To provide a backdrop for understanding the American power structure, it then briefly applies the theory to Europe from the Middle Ages to the 19th century, showing how the economic and political networks gradually subordinated the ideological and military networks. Finally, it shows how the theory explains the class domination that characterizes the American power structure.

The theoretical starting point for power structure research is a seemingly mundane one, but that's what makes it very useful: power is rooted in organizations. From that humble beginning we can soon reach classes, states, the military and the ideological organizations that provide the basis for the collective search for meaning and forgiveness (organized religions).

Organizations at their most basic are simply sets of rules, roles, and routines developed to accomplish some particular purpose. They are ways of doing something together that people agree on, or at least accept for the time being. Religious rituals, for example, are routines that become the basis for the institutions called churches. The established routines for face-to-face economic exchanges become one basis for the more complex economic system of markets.

This too sounds very banal. But organizations can quickly become hierarchical and/or fierce when they begin to grow larger or face an outside threat. People will fight to hold on to their organizations. They like their roles and routines, which often become rituals.

Since human beings have a vast array of "purposes," they have formed an appropriately large number of organizations. But only a few of these purposes and organizations weigh heavily in terms of generating power.

According to sociologist Michael Mann's theory -- in my opinion, the theory that best suits power structure research -- the power structures within Western civilization, and probably other civilizations, too, are best understood by determining the intertwinings and relative importance at any given time of the organizations based in four "overlapping and intersecting sociospatial networks of power" (Mann, 1986, p. 1). These networks are ideological, economic, military, and political -- "The IEMP model" for short.

It is important to stress right away that the theory is not derived from any psychological assumptions about the importance of different human purposes. Instead, the point is strictly sociological: these four networks happen to be the most useful organizational bases for generating power. In Mann's (1986, p. 2) words, "Their primacy comes not from the strength of human desires for ideological, economic, military, or political satisfaction but from the particular organizational means each possesses to attain human goals, whatever they may be."

In focusing on these four networks, Mann's concern is therefore with the "logistics" of power (1986, pp. 9-10, 518). In terms of human history, no one network comes first or is somehow more "basic" than the others. That is, each one always has presupposed the existence of the others. However, that does not mean that the networks are usually equal in their importance. Generally speaking, one or two networks usually are more dominant than the others. For example, as I explain later in this document and elsewhere on this website, the economic network is predominant over the others in the United States, leading to class domination......

And they want to talk about Hindu India's caste system!

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 20 Jul 2010 19:48

Krishna, Clinton discuss Obama visit, India-Pakistan talks

...
...
Krishna also told Clinton about his talks with his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi in Islamabad last week, sources said.

He conveyed India's position that Pakistan needs to take tangible action against the militants behind the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack so that the dialogue process becomes meaningful in days to come, said the sources.

The two also briefly touched on preparations for Obama's state visit to India in November and reviewed the recent visit of US National Security Adviser James Jones to New Delhi.

India is hoping for the easing of US high-tech exports, including dual-use technologies, as a major gain during Obama's visit.

...
...

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 20 Jul 2010 20:23

Gurus, wasn't Wholebrooke persona non grata in India ?

Mike Mullen, Holbrooke on way to India
2010-07-20 05:30:00
It is set to be a week of India-US diplomacy as the US' topmost military commander, Admiral Mike Mullen, and Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke come here for talks with Indian officials ahead of US President Barack Obama's visit to New Delhi in November.

Holbrooke, Obama's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, flies in in here from Kabul Wednesday.

Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), arrives here Thursday to discuss expanded defence cooperation between the two countries.

Holbrooke's visit comes close on the heels of the discussions between External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Kabul Tuesday.

Holbrooke is likely to meet Krishna, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and senior officials in the external affairs ministry.

The two sides are likely to review the situation in Afghanistan following Tuesday's Kabul conference that focused on handing over security of the country to Afghan forces by 2014.

The recent foreign-minister level discussions between India and Pakistan, which also figured in talks between Clinton and Krishna, will come up for detailed discussions.

The talks between Krishna and Qureshi July 15 deadlocked on issues of terror and Jammu and Kashmir, without any visible roadmap for dialogue.

In view of the July 2011 deadline for beginning phased withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, the US is keen that India and Pakistan continue their dialogue as it will deprive Islamabad of an excuse not to concentrate on targeting the insurgents' sanctuaries inside its territory.

Mullen is likely to meet Defence Minister A.K. Antony and National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon.

Mullen's visit comes at a time when both sides are looking at expanding defence cooperation across a swathe of areas.

The visit also coincides with intensified lobbying for the $10 billion contract for 126 fighters for the Indian Air Force (IAF).

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2010 21:42

Rony wrote:From the above article's comment section,

1979 - China partially opens up for investment
1992 - India opens up for investment slowly
2000 - China is growing tremendously but still hasn't grabbed US attention economically
2000 - India is where China was in 1990 - everybody knows its growing but nobody thinks too seriously about her
2009 - China is one of the greatest powers on earth and US realizes its not in a position where it can demand stuff from China - US reaches out to China but eventually gets slapped in the face
2009 - Still economically growing at a brisk pace and being in the same position China was in 2000, India reaches out to the US to be economic, military and strategic partners. Nobody bothers in Washington because India isn't that big a power yet.
Between 2020 - 2025 - guess whats gonna happen?

All the growth of China is due to 5 times+ growth of trade with US from 1980 to 2010
India is not even in this picture even after 20 years.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 20 Jul 2010 21:48

anmol wrote:Holbrooke on way to India

The visit also coincides with intensified lobbying for the $10 billion contract for 126 fighters for the Indian Air Force (IAF)

^^ that's the main reason.

satyam · Post by **satyam** » 20 Jul 2010 22:05

Acharya wrote: All the growth of China is due to 5 times+ growth of trade with US from 1980 to 2010
India is not even in this picture even after 20 years.

Well India has a trade surplus of $50 bln with US (goods, services and remittance)

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2010 22:39

satyam wrote:
Well India has a trade surplus of $50 bln with US (goods, services and remittance)

Does it matter?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 21 Jul 2010 12:24

cross post

Raghavendra wrote: Pakistan is currently a ferocious Doberman held on a leash by the US, and fed with exotic bones. It was meant to bark at and bite the USSR (and India) when the cold war was on, but the US realised recently that the dog has developed rabies and has become ferocious enough to bite the owner and the neighbours.

The idea of the US using Pakistan as a strategic leash on India is one thing, and IMO quite open to debate. I don't think it's true partly because the US has a bigger threat to contain in PRC and Russia rather than India.

For the current time frame I don't think that is the reason for US support of TSP - the reason being, I feel that Obama simply does not think strategically about foreign policy and is more motivated by short term goals and achievements. Some on this forum have argued that Obama is really the product of the brains behind him like Axelrod and Emanuel, but from most accounts, Obama has a habit of listening to his advisors and then dictating his policy to them rather than listening. Bush had ideologues in Wolfowitz and Cheney as his "brains trust" to articulate his foreign policy, who does Obama have?

Unlike Bush the idealist with an agenda, everything Obama does from cozying up to Russia to START to stopping settlements in Jerusalem to bringing good Taliban to power seem tactical decisions designed to win plaudits at home rather than serve any strategic interests the US has.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 21 Jul 2010 13:42

Neshant wrote:
anmol wrote:Holbrooke on way to India

The visit also coincides with intensified lobbying for the $10 billion contract for 126 fighters for the Indian Air Force (IAF)
^^ that's the main reason.

Since when Holbroke got mandate to intervene in military deals of unkil with yindia? If that is so , what could be the reason ? How much of this $10b goes towards $7.5b of KL for pigs?

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 21 Jul 2010 13:49

Unlike Bush the idealist with an agenda, everything Obama does from cozying up to Russia to START to stopping settlements in Jerusalem to bringing good Taliban to power seem tactical decisions designed to win plaudits at home rather than serve any strategic interests the US has.

Very true, sooner or later these tactical gains will come nowt and Obama will come to relize his foreign policy blunders. Right from increasingly pushing away Israel, trying to bully Iran instead of a more steady and long term approach, molly coddling TSP for Afghan gains, loose and diluted objectives towards Tibet and China and a confused India strategy.

All this is bound to culminate into a big strategic loss for the US in the short term (3-5 yrs.) and drive US to its decline from the status of the Worlds only superpower which is currently enjoys.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jul 2010 14:09

I wish our DM.NSA, and MEA tribe ask the US ,"strategic partner",why it has approved sales of Predator drones to Pak and is selling it lethal eqpt. that can only be used against India,while Russia "old friend" is banning sales of RD-33 engines to China for the Paki JF-17 ?

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 22 Jul 2010 04:13

Even as top US chief comes visiting, India reluctant about military pacts

NEW DELHI: The seniormost US military commander, Admiral Michael Mullen, will be in town on Thursday and Friday but India still remains cold to inking three military pacts connected with technology safeguards and logistics being pushed by Washington.

Interestingly, Admiral Mullen's visit comes at a time when the selection process to choose one of the six foreign aviation majors in the race to supply 126 fighters to IAF, in a lucrative $10.4-billion project, is entering the last lap. Two American companies, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, are among the contenders.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Jul 2010 06:30

U.S. keen on India playing benign role in Afghanistan

http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/22/stories ... 381200.htm

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Jul 2010 10:38

US on Headley issue: Expect India to live up to responsibility

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 199257.cms

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 22 Jul 2010 12:46

Currently america's situation is bad. It will remain bad for some more years. In this duration, it will have to take actions, which will be against India's Interest. Namely moving closer to China and depending more on Pakistan.
It was not long ago that America acknowledged the role that China has or plays in South Asia. It is locked in a mutual link with China. It needs China so that somebody buys its Securities and Derivatives. Also it has to prevent China from exercising the "nuclear" option, namely dumping trillions of American securities onto the market at once.
America is trying to free itself from the mess that is Afghanistan, by giving in to Pakistan whims. It needs Pakistan so that it can declare victory in Afghanistan, and go home. A defeat or failure or an appearance of defeat/failure would not be helpful to America.

Where as India is concerned, it was wrong to have put all its eggs in one basket. It was wrong for us to assume that US will pick our cherries in Afghanistan. It was a mistake to assume that America will help us hedge our bets w.r.t china. We should have cordial relationship with America, but it was beneficial for us to become too much identified with America and its policies.
Hopefully we will realize now that is not advisable to get too much close to US.

satyam · Post by **satyam** » 22 Jul 2010 13:07

Oil PSUs to seek legal opinion on impact of sanctions on Iran

The US administration had in May named Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, ONGC Videsh Ltd, Oil India Ltd, IndianOil, Hinduja Group and Petronet LNG among the 41 firms worldwide having energy ties with Iran, an act for which it may impose sanctions on them.

The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010 provides for sanctions against persons, including foreign firms, who invest more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector in any 12-month period.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... /102359/on

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 22 Jul 2010 13:33

satyam wrote: The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010 provides for sanctions against persons, including foreign firms, who invest more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector in any 12-month period.

The screws are tightening on Iran. It seems like America and its allies are trying to repeat the story of Iraq on Iran. Namely sanction Iran so heavily for a decade or more that it is crippled. Its, i.e Iran's, entire economy collapses and becomes so weak that an invasion is a cake walk. Or the population of Iran rises up in revolt against the mullahs of Theran and Qom.
There will be loop holes in the current round of sanctions against Iran, which India may use to its advantage. But America and its allies will come down hard on India, if it tries to exploit those. And currently we might not be able to resist the pressure. More than 50 years of our independence and yet we are still under the sway of outsiders.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Jul 2010 14:15

No less a person than CMS Adm.Verma,in an April seminar on defence acquisitions,warned about "securing" Indian interests through the DPP ( Def.Procurement Procedure) than through FMA agreements (with the US) which were "skewed sharply" in favour of the US.In this context it is understandable why there is reluctance in the establishment to sign on the "dotted line" and surrender our vital military sovereignity to the US,where we will allow the US intrusive inspections,etc. that could be of crucial importance when we are facing a threat from the Sino-Pak combine.Pak is already a "Non-NATO ally" of the US and comes first in the pecking order in the region.The US wants to have it both ways,dragging India across the "Lakshman Rekha" into the US camp,while still retaining our mortal enemy Pak close to its bosom.In this arrangement,good old "Gandhian" India ,must submit and endure everlasting terrorism from Pak,propped up with US military and economic aid,yet be subservient to US diktat in all matters of foreign (Iran especially,while Pak can sign energy agreements with it!) and military policy,where the Indiana rmed forces are by stealth and deesign to be integrated into the US's military machine,where the US can when it desires command and control our forces through the acquisition and installation of US military weapon systems and related eqpt.

Had there been genuine pressure by the US upon Pak,especially after 28/11 which has been totally absent,to stop its terror campaign against India,plus a moratorium on the sale of lethal weaponry to Pak (Pak getting more F-16s,8 P-3 Orions,AMRAAMs and other largesse),India could have accomodated the US a teeny weeny bit more.In the absence of any such remorse from pak and the actual escalation of events in J&K,it is safe to assume that the US has little control over its rent-boy and neither wishes it to stop its terror campaign against India,as it may actually be part of the US's overall strategic design (to weaken India)!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Jul 2010 23:13

Holbrooke Moves to Assuage India’s Fears
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010 ... ias-fears/

Meanwhile, the Indians are worried about what role Pakistan, which has given safe haven to the Taliban, will play in Afghanistan after U.S. troops pull out.India has spent more than $1.3 billion in aid for Afghanistan in the past nine years to make sure it has a stake in the country, in turn angering the Pakistan government.Mr. Holbrooke was keen to stress the U.S. believes India should play an important role in forging Afghanistan’s future.India has legitimate interests in what happens in the neighborhood,” he said. “Our goal is to have full transparency with India with what’s going on in Afghanistan.”To make the point, Mr. Holbrooke said the most important bilateral meeting that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held during the Afghanistan conference this week – the largest such gathering since the early 1970s – was with Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna.India’s chief fear is that Taliban factions with ties to Pakistan’s powerful military end up playing an outsize role in Afghanistan peace talks. Mr. Holbrooke sought to assuage these concerns: “There have been no direct talks with the Taliban leadership.”But Pakistan must also play a part in the future of Afghanistan, he said.Mr. Holbrooke stressed the U.S. sees Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba – which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks – as a “co-equal threat” to the Taliban.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Jul 2010 00:13

Prem wrote: India has spent more than $1.3 billion in aid for Afghanistan in the past nine years to make sure it has a stake in the country, in turn angering the Pakistan government.

As if for India - afghan is a strange place that it has to buy its friendlyness. Total false perception is being built into this.

India’s chief fear is that Taliban factions with ties to Pakistan’s powerful military end up playing an outsize role in Afghanistan peace talks.

Words such as India-fear is used in all these news reports.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 23 Jul 2010 10:47

Ex-U.S. Diplomat to India: Chill

Nick Burns, former U.S. undersecretary of state and a key architect of the U.S.-India civil nuclear pact, has heard those here who question the Obama administration’s commitment to India and claim India has slipped from the limelight in Washington’s view of the world. But he doesn’t buy it.

Of course, since sri Nick burns is saying it, must be true onlee.

Speaking at an Aspen Institute India gathering in New Delhi Thursday afternoon, Mr. Burns noted that it was no coincidence Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was the first official state visitor to the White House in the new administration. Nor was it happenstance that President Barack Obama showed up at the State Department to speak at the strategic dialogue led by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and India’s foreign minister, S.M. Krishna. There, he announced his own visit to India in November.

yap yap blah blah. Gestures and chweet words are all so nice and all but actions speak louder than words, sri burns. I would've thought a seasoned (seasonal?) diplomat would know that.

He also said he had been asked whether India didn’t deserve a special Washington envoy.

As it happened, Richard Holbrooke, Washington’s special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan also was in New Delhi yesterday. But Mr. Burns said that’s the last thing India should wish for. Not Mr. Holbrooke exactly, but a special envoy. Mr. Burns noted such appointments are made for relationships, and countries, that are in serious trouble.

“You are not in crisis. You are doing just fine. You don’t need an American special envoy to tell you what to do,” Mr. Burns said.

Aah, the dilli billi craving for a viceroy to fawn on has gone unmet for a long time since at least the 1950s onlee..... what to do only. We are like that only.

He also said that the U.S. and India need to better define the terms of their relationship. It’s no doubt special, just like the one U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron wants to have with India, but the precise contours are blurred. India will never be an ally like the U.S.’s NATO allies. It is too proud, too unique, too big, and too traditionally non-aligned. But nor is it an uneasy partner, like Russia and China. It is something in between but which the language of U.S. foreign policy doesn’t have a term for – yet.

Whoa! sui generis, anyone?

India could recognize that it has a great responsibility to contribute to global peace and security. “We need India’s shoulder behind this wheel,” he said in reference to efforts to bring Iran in line.

How 'bout unkil demonstrate good faith first w.r.t. tsp? arming them for free with umpteen weapon systems, wiking at their N-acquisitions etc and then you want dilli to pounce on iran? what for?

And the U.S. could back India’s bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. “I hope the U.S. will say clearly in the next couple of months that India should be a permanent member of the UNSC” along with Japan, Brazil and at least one African country, Mr. Burns said.

Ultimately, he said, it is a partnership that needs to be defined by the scope of its ambition, not by cautious steps: “Incremental change will not be enough to sustain the momentum of in this relationship.”

UNSC seat carrot dangled, all other right buttons pushed, dilli is a sealed deal now, sri burns ji. chill!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Jul 2010 16:22

Hari Seldon wrote:Ex-U.S. Diplomat to India: Chill

How 'bout unkil demonstrate good faith first w.r.t. tsp? arming them for free with umpteen weapon systems, wiking at their N-acquisitions etc and then you want dilli to pounce on iran? what for?

You hit the nail on the head there. What have we got in return from the US? Is our northern borders any safer? Last I heard US continues to arm TSP. TSP continues to use some of its US doled money in our eastern borders too.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 23 Jul 2010 16:53

Prem wrote:Holbrooke Moves to Assuage India’s Fears
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010 ... ias-fears/

There fellows need to understand that India does not have fears but pure facts with proofs. What is there to assuage.