India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 31 Jul 2010 04:32

The Honorable Newt Gingrich:

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 31 Jul 2010 06:16

Gingrich's full 69-minute speech:

http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204/se ... pnavmode=1#

(uses embedded windows media player)

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 31 Jul 2010 07:12

Three Points of View: The United States, Pakistan and India | STRATFOR
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100427 ... 4516797773
quote
But now, U.S. and Pakistani interests not only appear aligned again, the two countries appear to be laying groundwork for the incorporation of elements of the Taliban into the Afghan state. The Indians are concerned that with American underwriting, the Pakistanis not only may be about to re-emerge as a major check on Indian ambitions, but in a form eerily familiar to the sort of state-militant partnership that so effectively limited Indian power in the past. They are right. The Indians also are concerned that Pakistani promises to the Americans about what sort of behavior militants in Afghanistan will be allowed to engage in will not sufficiently limit the militants’ activities — and in any event will do little to nothing to address the Kashmiri militant issue. Here, too, the Indians are probably right. The Americans want to leave — and if the price of departure is leaving behind an emboldened Pakistan supporting a militant structure that can target India, the Americans seem fine with making India pay that price.
----
{US will have to leave as there is no money now, just this week the bottom nearly gave way, with Obama having to rely on GoP to pass funding of troops in Afghanistan for another year. But if this is the reasoning it will be an own goal for US too.}
----
Part of Wiki leaks

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world ... .html?_r=1
Quote: Tensions With Pakistan
The flood of reports of Pakistani complicity in the insurgency has at times led to barely disguised tensions between American and Pakistani officers on the ground.

Meetings at border outposts set up to develop common strategies to seal the frontier and disrupt Taliban movements reveal deep distrust among the Americans of their Pakistani counterparts.

On Feb. 7, 2007, American officers met with Pakistani troops on a dry riverbed to discuss the borderlands surrounding Afghanistan’s Khost Province. According to notes from the meeting, the Pakistanis portrayed their soldiers as conducting around-the-clock patrols. Asked if he expected a violent spring, a man identified in the report as Lt. Col. Bilal, the Pakistani officer in charge, said no. His troops were in firm control.
The Americans were incredulous. Their record noted that there had been a 300 percent increase in militant activity in Khost before the meeting.
“This comment alone shows how disconnected this particular group of leadership is from what is going on in reality,” the notes said.

The Pakistanis told the Americans to contact them if they spotted insurgent activity along the border. “I doubt this would do any good,” the American author of the report wrote, “because PAKMIL/ISI is likely involved with the border crossings.” “PAKMIL” refers to the Pakistani military.

A year earlier, the Americans became so frustrated at the increase in roadside bombs in Afghanistan that they hand-delivered folders with names, locations, aerial photographs and map coordinates to help the Pakistani military hunt down the militants the Americans believed were responsible. Nothing happened, {India knows this very well with 26/11 dossiers} wrote Col. Barry Shapiro, an American military liaison officer with experience in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, after an Oct. 13, 2006, meeting. “Despite the number of reports and information detailing the concerns,” Colonel Shapiro wrote, “we continue to see no change in the cross-border activity and continue to see little to no initiative along the PAK border” by Pakistan troops. The Pakistani Army “will only react when asked to do so by U.S. forces,” he concluded.

{There are more than a few men Col Shapiro trying to change US policy. But do they matter? You would think any soldier who has been to Afghanistan or Iraq would not let things slide by, but just the other day, on CNN, an 'expert' ex-soldier (served in Afghanistan), analyzing that the know how for replacing the batteries for the Soviet era Stinger missiles were most likely being provided by IRAN. WTF!?. What is the need for Iran (not that they are not crazy), when Pakistan already has that know how, and used them to shoot down IAF plane in Kargil}

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 31 Jul 2010 07:46

ManuT wrote: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100427 ... 4516797773

The Americans want to leave — and if the price of departure is leaving behind an emboldened Pakistan supporting a militant structure that can target India, the Americans seem fine with making India pay that price.

If US leaves and Pakistan is the new kotwal, India can sit back and eat popcorn.
The kotwal when given power tends to shoot himself in the foot (if not head) time and again...
If real lives were not impacted, this would be a good tamasha to watch.

kubhamanyu · Post by **kubhamanyu** » 31 Jul 2010 08:55

Leaving is:
a) An economical option for the US in the short run.
b) A political solution for Obama.
c) A way to maintain geopolitical status quo via a well-fed TSPA.
d) A step in better funded TSPA.
e) A sure way to return the Taliban to Af
f) A sure way to ramp terror in India.
g) A way to further strengthen chipak relationship.

India gets d*ckall from this, may be some c17s and nuclear plants at basement prices will be ok, and an opportunity to say "please restore democracy in pak"?
Real lives will be impacted, of course, more of our guys dying.

biswas · Post by **biswas** » 31 Jul 2010 08:58

Pulikeshi wrote:
biswas wrote: Many people are seeing China through the same lens as Pakistan. China is big country, it is India's national interest to be on as good relations with it as possible, with it. China is never going to be a superpower with India as its enemy and vice versa.

We need to make a decision, hostility with China or Aksai Chin. Think of the enormous benefits of being friends. There is no logical reason for them to support Pakistan, other than to attempt to counter us.
Biswas,

What is friend/enemy is Geo-Politics? There is only interests....

1. Why is China claiming AP and sitting in Aksai Chin? To show friendly intentions?
Did it provide Pakistan with Nuclear know how to show its friendliness?

2. If India becomes China's friend, then will they stop supporting Pakistan?
Is there any historical evidence from Bhai, Bhai episode?

3. India is a big country, so is China (how about without Tibet?)

4. India and China has different regions of Interest in Asia, where they collide something will have to be worked out....

Finally, this perhaps should be in India-PRC-US thread anyway....

1. As I said they can say the same for us. Why are we claiming Aksai China and sitting in AP? Because the Britishers drew a line?
2. If we can make it worth it to them, yes they would, they are a logical people. There is no way they can afford to be on bad terms with what is likely going to be (by the most pessimistic opinions) the third largest economy on their border. They are currently surrounded, Japan to their East, India to their South, Russia to their North, and US in Af-Pak. Their only allies are NoKo and Pakistan. They need us.
3. Tibet is a part of China. It also has a higher HDI than India.
4. Yes.

Yes, we can take this to another thread.

We do not have to make any decisions.In fact the Chinese have to decide whether they want peace with India/Tibet/End of sodomious relationship with pakistan or not.Kindly refrain from calling of ceding of my country's territory for whatever reasons.Not only is it uncalled for but also illegal.
TIA.
P.S If you want to debate this , be my guest.

Umm, it's already in their hands, we're never getting it back. Never. There is no debate about that, the debate that can remain is whether or not we spoil relations over it. Also India happens to be my country as well and this is my opinion.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 31 Jul 2010 09:53

biswa wrote:
Umm, it's already in their hands, we're never getting it back. Never. There is no debate about that, the debate that can remain is whether or not we spoil relations over it. Also India happens to be my country as well and this is my opinion.

I do have to disagree since 'Aksai perpetually under Chinese control' I don't see it as an open and shut case as you do.
As far as gifting Indian territory you have made your point clear and refused to accede to my requests and since I am not the repository of all Patriotism I guess that says it all.End of debate.Thank you Sir.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 31 Jul 2010 09:56

Folks, I am an odd ball who at time doesn't understand all the chanikiness of the powers that be.

So let me ask one sawal??

How is it in the interest of the Khans to cut and run from Afghanistan with its tail between its legs. Won't that embolden the Jhidies and cause them to claim victory against the Khans.

If the Jhidies are emboldened then the last ten years will have been for nothing. So what gives?

Am trying to understand but so fas am not having the light bulb moment. Could some one help me understand. Cause I feel such a Dim wit for not understanding.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 31 Jul 2010 10:05

^^^Off the cuff from only an Indian perspective For one thing we have been able to grow to a 2 trillion dollar economy and whatever that brings with it with lets say 'less hindrance' another Pakistan is doing to itself what we wanted to do to it(at least partly) and has become a $hit basket case for all the world to see With its patron-in chief Yamrika becoming the laughing stock of the world and its status as a superpower lessened by several notches.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 31 Jul 2010 10:14

Comrade biswas, enough bakwas - we have to build up our missile arsenal first, because the Chinese respect strength. As far as Tibet is concerned, the Chinese have to respect our water rights. They are already building their own equivalent of Kalabagh Dam on the Brahmaputra, so that even your fellow W.Bengal Marxists will find it hard to chant pro-Chinese slogans with parched throats (notice how the Chinese have no hesitation in backstabbing their W.Bengal flunkies by turning their homes into a desert)

Personally, I'm thinking rest of India could actually humour China on that one, so that W.Bengal Marxists will end up pincered.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 31 Jul 2010 10:19

^^^ Amen

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 31 Jul 2010 10:20

Pratyush wrote:Folks, I am an odd ball who at time doesn't understand all the chanikiness of the powers that be.

So let me ask one sawal??

How is it in the interest of the Khans to cut and run from Afghanistan with its tail between its legs. Won't that embolden the Jhidies and cause them to claim victory against the Khans.

If the Jhidies are emboldened then the last ten years will have been for nothing. So what gives?

Am trying to understand but so fas am not having the light bulb moment. Could some one help me understand. Cause I feel such a Dim wit for not understanding.

Thats very easy. I have posted many times, and please read Surinder's post also.

Basically, after the initial adrenalin flow post 9/11 when mainstream, ultra patriotic football players and soccer moms from the heartland of USA wanted to fight the "mighty" Al Queda, and the omni potent OBL; the US govt, its mouthpiece media, think tanks, and public at large have come to the obvious conclusion. This so called "mighty" Al Queda has been decapacitated, its a non issue. Except for expatriate TSPians living in NJ/NY who could be potential sooosai mass killers, there is no terrorist threat as such to USA; especially mainland USA. And of course FBI and police are tracking the shadows of the Paki filth in their midst, and so, USA is pretty safe on that count too.

However, what is of paramount importance at the moment is USA empire's geo-political interests. And thats where we are today. So before USA withdraws, there are several objectives to be met. First, a strong enough TSP with just enough terrorist assets to keep the smarty SDREs bottled up so they don't start acting too smart beyond what US deems that their role ought to be.

Second, H&D. Here you are right. TSP and its Jihadi terrorist assets should not be so emboldened that the myth is created that just as they "defeated" one superpower (USSR), they knocked off another (USA). Furthermore, TSP's terrorist assets must not threaten the west & Israel.

Any equivalence between USSR's "defeat" and USA's impending retreat (after all the post 9/11 bravado) will be a severe H&D blow to USA. So, what US is looking for are enough military and political victories so that CNN/Fox etc can spin them as better outcomes than what the Russians achieved; and at that point, its goodbye AfPak.

I hope you get the drift.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 31 Jul 2010 10:40

I get the drift and thats the reason why I am so Konphused.

Cause the Jhidies have to be nutered if the Khantes is able to withdraw from Afpak. But what am seening is that they are seeking an accomodation with them.

Don't they know that any quest for accomodation by khans will be seen as avictory by the MMB. Or I am ascribing too much common sense to Foggy bottom.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 31 Jul 2010 11:12

No, the real problem is that America is caught in a tug-of-war between 2 rival political factions, the Atlanticists and the Jacksonians. They are like Kauravas and Pandavas, respectively.

The Jacksonians want to be patriotic and avenge the attack on their homeland and prevent repeat attacks, by defeating AlQaeda. Meanwhile the Atlanticists don't give a damn about what AlQaeda did to the US homeland, because they're fearful of taking the focus away from their preferred conflict with traditional foe Russia.

The Jacksonians are right-leaning and the Atlanticists are left-leaning. However, in order to mobilize greater support, the Atlanticists have deftly co-opted the Left to oppose the war on terror.

While the Jacksonians want to stay and fight and win, the Atlanticists want to cut and run, so that they can get back to war with Russia. Hence, the Atlanticists keep harping that the war is "unwinnable", "it looks bad", "it's inhumane", "it's imperialist", "it gives you pimples and increases cholesterol", etc, etc.
The Atlanticists don't care how America leaves, just as long as it leaves ASAP.
Well, they do care about preserving traditional proxy Pak as a useful weapon in any conflict against Russia. So they are just constantly whining for America to immediately "Leave! Do Not Pass Go! Do Not Collect $200! Get Out Right Away!"

Whether or not this leaves America in a more vulnerable position is of little concern to them, as long as they can resume hostilities with Russia, and as long as valuable anti-Russian Pakjihad proxies are preserved for this purpose.

Same Atlanticists have been hatching the 'G2' strategy for US, being discussed in the US-China-India thread. They again just want to recycle Nixon's scheme of aligning with China as a counterweight to Moscow. With USSR now gone, they need to change the wording somewhat, to claim that "USA+China can jointly run the world together!"
(aka. "Amrikhi-China Bhai-Bhai!")

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 31 Jul 2010 11:16

Sanjay M,

You do come up with nuggets of useful thoughts may time, but your Jacksonians Vs Atlanticists horse manure, with all due respect, is just that, unadulterated horse manure. Read mine and Surinder's posts once again and try to digest what we are saying, while reading shove the Atlanticists into the basement of your mind.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 31 Jul 2010 11:29

CRamS, sorry but my analysis leaves yours and Surinder's in the dust.

Occam's Razor: Law of Economy of Belief

You guys are citing umpteen disjointed "facts", while I'm pointing out a coherent pattern.
The pattern is there, it's advertising itself loudly, and it's best not to ignore it.

You can't formulate a suitable counter-strategy if you're fundamentally misdiagnosing the situation.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 31 Jul 2010 11:39

CRS sir,

Please to excuse this unwashed SDRE but none of the explaination in posts made by Surenders,yours or Sanjay M make sense to me. Cause when its not in your Interest its not in your interest. What I am trying to understand is from which POV Khans action are in Khans Interest. What is the end game that it is seeking and why is it in Khans interest.

If it is to seek justice then: Aint gonna get it.
If it is to seek geopolitical space: then Aint gonna get it.
If it is to weeken Islamic Jihadic movement: Aint gonna get it.
If it is to weeken China: Aint gonna get it.
If it is to get pliant TSP: Aint gonna get it.
If it is to weeken us SDREs: Aint gonna get it.

So just what it is gonna get.

That is what I am trying to understand and none of the outcomes that khan will secure as aresult of its actions are in Khans interest.

So am left with a troubling conclusion,"The Khans goose is cooked".

habal · Post by **habal** » 31 Jul 2010 12:14

Sanjay M wrote:CRamS, sorry but my analysis leaves yours and Surinder's in the dust.

the internal debates are allowed to be shaped such like to benefit global geopolitical goals. So in essence there is not much to be read in 'internal debates' of a foreign country unless they are revisionist or have the the ability to upset status-quo. & internal players and their politics have lost the ability to revise status-quo long ago. Which is where they should become irrelevant to us except for purely academic pursuits.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 31 Jul 2010 12:58

Pratyush wrote:CRS sir,

Please to excuse this unwashed SDRE but none of the explaination in posts made by Surenders,yours or Sanjay M make sense to me. Cause when its not in your Interest its not in your interest. What I am trying to understand is from which POV Khans action are in Khans Interest. What is the end game that it is seeking and why is it in Khans interest.

If it is to seek justice then: Aint gonna get it.
If it is to seek geopolitical space: then Aint gonna get it.
If it is to weeken Islamic Jihadic movement: Aint gonna get it.
If it is to weeken China: Aint gonna get it.
If it is to get pliant TSP: Aint gonna get it.
If it is to weeken us SDREs: Aint gonna get it.

So just what it is gonna get.

That is what I am trying to understand and none of the outcomes that khan will secure as aresult of its actions are in Khans interest.

So am left with a troubling conclusion,"The Khans goose is cooked".

The war hasn't been pursued competently, because of the diluting/weakening effects of Atlanticist-instigated Political Correctness.

Originally, the US military wanted to call their operation "Infinite Justice" (meaning that the US would pursue these terrorists endlessly) but Atlanticist intellectuals quickly weighed in to say that "Onlee Allah is infinite - Musulman will be offended if you claim US military is infinite"

And so the series of climbdowns began.

Now, after having waged war in a half-assed, half-hearted, one-arm-tied-behind-the-back way, the Amrikhans are saying "hmm, we are bogged down onlee! why?"

This is like Kaangress sitting on its laurels on J&K, just handing all kinds of free cash to the do-nothing Omar Abdullah, and then wondering why they are again back to square one.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 31 Jul 2010 13:33

No matter what is explained in the world, it is all post-scripted with an example of how Kaangress is selling off the country!

Maybe BRF should also allow the two paragraph big signatures with know so well from deaf-n-dumb and other forums!

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 31 Jul 2010 21:47

Shorry, are you a Kaangress supporter? I say what I feel, and I feel that our political disposition is the biggest determining factor in how we deal with or duck from our problems. If we don't have a decent leadership projecting a viable set of values, we're simply not going to be able to meet the various challenges we face - whether economic, geo-political, security-related, etc.

I would think that should be obvious.

I think this is a survival-level concern - an existential issue. Obviously you don't.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jul 2010 22:01

I am neither a INC nor a BJP supporter. What I do think is whoever is the GOI they do the best they can to do a tradeoff and arrive at a balanced decision which appears strange to us as we don't have the facts they based their decisions. And its often scary what the facts are. One has to smile while there is a knife held in your back by apparent friends. The smile is to not scare your own.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 31 Jul 2010 22:07

Sanjay M wrote:Shorry, are you a Kaangress supporter?

No jee, I yam naat a Kaangress sapporter jee!

Sanjay M wrote:I say what I feel, and I feel that our political disposition is the biggest determining factor in how we deal with or duck from our problems. If we don't have a decent leadership projecting a viable set of values, we're simply not going to be able to meet the various challenges we face - whether economic, geo-political, security-related, etc.

I would think that should be obvious.

I think this is a survival-level concern - an existential issue. Obviously you don't.

There is almost never a logical strain of thought joining your argument (some of them quite good, if I may add) with Kaangress-bashing in the addendum. It is always a very-hard to follow analogy! You make a perfectly good argument into a

! Just some constructive advice. That's all!

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 31 Jul 2010 22:34

ramana wrote:I am neither a INC nor a BJP supporter. What I do think is whoever is the GOI they do the best they can to do a tradeoff and arrive at a balanced decision which appears strange to us as we don't have the facts they based their decisions. And its often scary what the facts are. One has to smile while there is a knife held in your back by apparent friends. The smile is to not scare your own.

I think that INC's priority is "Party First, Country Last"
As such, they're completely consumed with the fortunes of their party, and noticing any problems facing the nation is of an entirely lesser concern for them.
They're only attached to the country to the extent that it serves as a vessel for their precious all-important party.

For Kaangressmen, it's as if INC is their actual country - the thing that they swear allegiance to, the thing that they salute, the thing that they sing songs about. They all want to name their kids Rajeev, or the local school, library, dam, airport, bridge, etc.

INC is then a State Within a State.

Their response to such charges is to simply deflect attention towards rivals ("Look at what BJP is doing! Forget about us!")
Therefore INC will always look for opportunities to manufacture outrage against others to make them scapegoats. This then facilitates their own continuity in power.

That kind of country is not worth fighting for, and it would most likely destroy itself, if left to progress to its logical ultimate conclusion.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 31 Jul 2010 22:38

Sanjay M:

I'll leave it up to others to judge whether my analysis, based on extrapolating facts and US behavior to date, Vs your Atlanticism fiction (I haven't seen or heard that words used anywhere else, much less the kind of worthless cacophony you construct out of the notion) stands the tests of scrutiny.

You seem to ignore one obvious elementary fact. This notion of going after every single anti-west terrorist there is on the planet makes practically no sense. Terrorism thrives only there is massive state support. Thats what India has been faced with for 60+ years, TSP-sponosred terror, and thats waht could unravel India.

9/11 also was pulled off because Bin Ladin & Co had a base in Afganisthan, and they had support from TSP. What US has done is to elminate that nexus, and has pretty much obliterated Bin Ladin & Co as a force to reckone with, and has forced TSP to cuts its ties with OBL & Co. So as far as US is concerned, on the so called war on terror, its 2 sets to zero; and 4-0 in the final set. But the reason its struggling to win the final 2 games of the 3rd set is because of the elusive goals it set for itself at the start of this so called war on terror. Plus, as Surinder & I have been pointing out, the war is no longer about terror, but rather how to end this war without damaging the edifice on which this mighty US empire is built upon. And one part of that edifice is a strong enough enough TSP, so that it doesn't collapse under its own weight as it does what US wants it to do, to bottle up smarty SDREs like you.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 31 Jul 2010 22:50

Pratyush: Waging war by democratic countries is tricky. First citizens are not fully told, rightly or wrongly, about the true nature of war - the reasons and how it is waged. So the strategists and leaders have to constantly spin reasons for citizen consumption so that politicians can win elections. If it makes strategic sense for Unkil to have boots in Af-Pak, yet the Congress & The Executive have to convince people the merit of staying. When military and civilian population are dying, it is tough to sell war.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 31 Jul 2010 23:05

CRamS,

I would explain to you that the US is not an homogenous country. You keep only looking at nations, as if there is no finer level of detail. If a guy can only understand what atoms are, and doesn't understand that there are electrons, protons and neutrons within them, and that there are quarks within some of those, then he won't really understand what's going on, and instead will come up with weak explanations for physical phenomena he can't accurately describe.

You are not seeing the finer internal geometries within these countries, and why they tilt in the directions they do.
If you only see Pakistan as a single homogeneous entity, then how will you notice the influence of Pakjabis, or the dynamics of Pashtuns, Baloch or Sindhis?

Likewise, I've noticed a particularly stubborn refusal here on BRF to look at the internal geometries of US politics, including phenomena which stem from its past history and heritage.
We are like desi tourishts onlee, just reading a few news stories here and there, and drawing superficial conclusions from the cosmetic information they give us.

If you would examine the deeper thread of Atlanticist influence and how it has shaped US policymaking at critical junctures, then you would understand that it's not a mere tinfoil-hat conspiracy about Freemasons or Da Vinci Codes. The thing is that Atlanticism has gone through its own evolution and changes in its own internal factional hierarchy, influenced by events around it. Atlanticists do, after all, reflect their parent European nationalities. Blood is thicker than water.

I think that Goldman-Sachs has recently exposed important fissures in the European polity, with its opportunistic scheme of feeding cheap, low-quality capital to the Greeks among others.
The fiscal disciplinary divide, and north-south divide, has been exposed in Europe for all the world to see.

This is another thing to look at, in learning how to grapple with the Atlanticists.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 31 Jul 2010 23:25

Mods Pls move it to another thread if deemed appropriate to do so

Fla. church plans to burn Qurans on 9 - Pew Forum on Religion ...

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source ... TVSNWnqE0A

by Maggie Hyde
Religion News Service

(RNS) A Florida church with "Islam is of the devil" signs in its front lawn plans to host an "International Burn A Quran Day," on the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks this year.

The Dove World Outreach Center, a non-denominational church in Gainesville, has marked the date in previous years with protests against Islam. The church holds protests on other issues, such as homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and abortion.

Pastor Terry Jones said members of the church plan to be at the Gainesville City Hall on Aug. 2 to protest the election of the city's openly gay mayor. Church-state groups had previously accused the church of illegal politicking for its "No Homo Mayor" signs.

Jones, who is also the author of a book titled "Islam is of the Devil," said protests are key to the mission of his church.

"We feel, as Christians, one of our jobs is to warn," said Jones.
The goal of these and other protests are to give Muslims an opportunity to convert, he said.

In response to the posting of the event on Facebook a little more than a week ago, Jones said that people have been mailing Qurans to the church to burn. He said organizers got the idea, in part, from another Facebook page, called "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day."

Sept. 11 will fall during the Eid al-Fitr holiday this year, when Muslims mark the end of the holy month of Ramadan. Local Muslims are planning to use the feast as an opportunity to share Islamic traditions and Qurans with the church members and the wider community.

"We don't want to do anything that would be reactive," said Ramzy Kilic, communications director of the Tampa Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

On May 10, a pipe bomb exploded in the Islamic Center of Northwest Florida in Jacksonville. No worshippers were hurt, but Kilic said the planned burning of Qurans could escalate tensions in the area.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So much for the ROP.America is not a Monolithic identity.Things are on the move there especially with the global financial meltdown and these are bound to affect India.My two pakistani paisa says positively but its up for debate

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 01 Aug 2010 06:21

I will start with offering my support for Sanjay M's theory. He is right on the mark. I have experienced this phenomenon first hand among Americans of east European decent. Among this faction or as Sanjay calls them, Atlantists, there is a very strong personal anti Russian sentiment, which actually in some cases hampers US national interest. This group has such a strong desire to see Russia down that they imagine that Russia is no longer a superpower. This group also has strong desire to project China as a super power, all this to make themselves believe that Russia is a non entity. This is a primary group that is keeping hostility between Russia and USA brewing. It is a fact. There may have been a time when disgruntled eastern Europeans served useful purpose against Soviets but today in absence of hostile Russia these eastern Europeans have hijacked US' Russia policy.

Similarly, we have to start studying internal dynamics within USA to identify the faction that has hijacked US' Pakistan policy. It is very clear that US is getting nothing out of Pakistan and yet US is pouring billions of dollars into Pakistan. Well, it is true that majority of Americans do not know much about Pakistan and probably they do not play a role in forming US government's policy on Pakistan. But, among the elites who formulate the country's foreign policy, there lies a desire to keep Pakistan floating. US is not supporting Pakistan just because it is weaker than India. If that were the case US would have been supporting all the weaker nations.

Let us stick to facts again.

- India is a third world country. There is no way a third world country which neither has desire nor any means can threaten US. So, where is the need to balance anything? I can understand a need to balance China because it has both intention and means to hurt US.

- How exactly is Pakistan checking India? I do not see any visible affects of Pakistan weighing India down. If anything, things are heading towards the direction where Pakistan will have negligible impact on India. And, as things progress more and more in that direction, it will be in the interest of US to make sure that gap between India and Pakistan remains as wide as possible.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 01 Aug 2010 06:33

Obama seeks to expand arms exports by trimming approval process

Move Aimed to boost defense exports to India.

The administration's stated reason for the changes is to simplify the sale of weapons to U.S. allies, but potential spinoffs include generating business for the U.S. defense industry, creating jobs and contributing to Obama's drive to double U.S. exports by 2015.

India, which currently is seeking 126 fighter-jets worth over $10 billion, 10 large transport aircraft worth $6 billion, and other multi-billion dollar defense sales, could be among the possible beneficiaries. Allies seeking advanced U.S. weaponry and equipment, who now often buy elsewhere due to the cumbersome U.S. approval process, would draw immediate benefit from the reforms, U.S. officials said.

Obama's plan, according to top officials, is to ask Congress to streamline the bureaucratic process for approving arms sales by setting up a single new agency to oversee one list of exportable weapons, "tiered" according to the sensitivity of the technology. Currently the State and Commerce Departments maintain separate lists, and the State Department list contains many restrictions.

"Our aim is to make the system more transparent, efficient, and effective," said Ben Chang, a White House spokesman. "This means we are improving our ability to administer our controls, which improves our ability to enforce them, and equally important, improves the ability of companies to comply."

The new system would allow older technology such as Lockheed Martin's F-16 fighter to fall to a lower tier as newer, more advanced technology emerges. The staffer said that some versions of the plan currently circulating don't include the F-16 in the top tier of the secured list.

The F-16 may no longer be top technology for the U.S. Members of the Obama administration say that changes will enhance national security."In fact, our system itself poses a potential national security risk based on the fact that its structure is overly complicated, contains too many redundancies, and tries to protect too much," United States National Security Advisor General James Jones said in a speech introducing the plans.

The administration hopes that by streamlining the process, allies will be able to receive more weapons and technology faster, making their equipment more compatible with that of the United States, and making it easier to complete joint operations.

"It spells the difference between U.S. forces going it alone or having allies who are able to operate in the lethal battle space with U.S. military forces," said former Bush administration arms regulator Amb. Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., represents a district with aerospace and other manufacturers, and said reform is needed for the survival of U.S. manufacturing. "We can begin to manufacture our way out of this recession by reforming our export controls," Manzullo said in a speech at the American Enterprises Institute, a conservative think tank.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 01 Aug 2010 12:08

Karan Dixit wrote:
It is very clear that US is getting nothing out of Pakistan and yet US is pouring billions of dollars into Pakistan.

Rubbish. US is getting a lot out of TSP. Please read the latest op-ed in the NYT by a Paki. Just because TSP is courting Taliban criminals does not mean TSP is not cooperating with US. TSP is just trying to maximize its position wrt India, and hence, at times it appears to hoodwink US. And US knows this too, but goes along given the larger objective of containing India.

- India is a third world country. There is no way a third world country which neither has desire nor any means can threaten US. So, where is the need to balance anything? I can understand a need to balance China because it has both intention and means to hurt US.

Once again rubbish. India may be a 3rd world country in terms of living standards, but India does pose a threat to USA's regional objectives. India is a democracy and if its given a role in world affairs, at the UN and elsewhere commensurate with its strenght and size; it could be a pain in USA's ass. Hence the need to balance India and box it with TSP. Once USA does that, then you are right, India's 3rd world status hampers it from asserting itself.

- How exactly is Pakistan checking India? I do not see any visible affects of Pakistan weighing India down.

See above. Equal equal with TSP has stymied India big time. Plus, TSP's terror machine has the potential to unravel India. Thats why despite the pig sty TSP is in, it knows it has India by its b@lls, and won't relent on terror. It is TSP's trump card and it won't give it up until India extracts a price. India TSP tug of war is a fight to the finish. Only one side wins, not both.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Aug 2010 12:20

shukla wrote:
"It spells the difference between U.S. forces going it alone or having allies who are able to operate in the lethal battle space with U.S. military forces," said former Bush administration arms regulator Amb. Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., represents a district with aerospace and other manufacturers, and said reform is needed for the survival of U.S. manufacturing. "We can begin to manufacture our way out of this recession by reforming our export controls," Manzullo said in a speech at the American Enterprises Institute, a conservative think tank.

THis is one way US can be made to remove the == out of the sub continent
Us by keeping the illusion that it is opposed to India blosters Pakistan as an == country.
This needs to be removed

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 01 Aug 2010 13:44

Karan Dixit:

In one sense you are right. What threat would a country like India pose when a premier India news portal that has so many big fish to fry has this as one of their main headlines: Chelsea Clinton weds Marc Mezvinsky. And its comical and yet tragic when you consider that in the minds of Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky, and their Amercian compatriots at large, India and Indians would at best evince exotic curiosity if at all

.

kubhamanyu · Post by **kubhamanyu** » 01 Aug 2010 19:36

Is the US the last white power?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Aug 2010 20:22

australia is the #2

archan · Post by **archan** » 01 Aug 2010 21:10

Sanjay M, nice attempt at derailing the Indo-US strategic News and Discussion thread by your hatred for an Indian political party. Good for you it didn't catch on to derail yet another thread. All this is being noted.

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 01 Aug 2010 21:36

Yes they have to start wars not fight wars. That a sure shot way US deficit will come down. I did mention this earlier, but I dont know why I repeat myself

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 01 Aug 2010 22:20

Archan,

That is not fair. I am not trying to derail the thread, I am making a fundamental and legitimate point in saying that Indo-US strategic relations are affected by the sub-structure of both countries. This thread is about Indo-US strategic relations, is it not? Please hear me out.

For instance, Indians are very quick to talk about the influence of the Jewish lobby, which is an example of a sub-national/trans-national group having influence on Washington policymaking.
One could argue that if such a group and its influence did not exist, the USA's policy towards Israel and the entire Middle East would be quite different.
But then we seem to be lazy in recognizing the influence and evolution of other similar groups who also hold great sway shaping US policy/perspectives, and what their interests are.

It doesn't take much to see that the US is in a state of fundamental internal conflict right now, due to the conflicting pulls of divergent interest groups. You can see the deep polarization between the 2 major parties, and the ferocity of the political debates there. Deep passions are being felt by both sides.

In that situation, we owe it to ourselves to see how solid/durable the existing US policy positions are.
For instance, when US first invaded Afghanistan, it looked to us that they would be there for a long time. Now, we are being forced to revise our assumptions, because they may not be panning out. Should we simply wait for US diplomats to be flashing a new set of signals before we react? Or should we not try to be anticipative of possible major changes by them that affect us, by reading more deeply into US thinking processes? This is better than being blindsided, as we usually seem to be.

Reading into US policymaking processes requires that we understand the workings of US politics and their effect on that policymaking. It is fundamental that we gain better understanding of the relevant interest groups over there who weigh in on topics of importance to us.

Otherwise, we will always find ourselves scrambling to figure out what to do when the US suddenly shows us their backside. We will just curse our luck and say, "Oh, this darn US is so unreliable! Drat!"
At that point, we are no better than the Bihari farmers who send their daughters to dance naked in the fields to appease imagined fickle gods because nobody has any idea about the finer workings of meteorology.

archan · Post by **archan** » 01 Aug 2010 23:04

Of course internal politics has bearing on international strategies. And it is OK to discuss it under that context. However any semblance of seriousness of your attempt is lost when you start the juvenile "Kangress" etc. If you are really serious about the issue, talk like grown ups do, like you did in your last post.
Further, I don't see a point in asking someone "are you a Kaangress supporter?". The way you put your point across is sometimes as, if not more important than the meat of it.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 01 Aug 2010 23:12

Alright, I will cease to call them Kaangress, I will call them INC. Notice that I have stopped using "Unmanlymohan Singh" at your request.

But I still think we need to go beyond the superficial "US feels that it's not in its interest to..." and try to find exactly who in the US feels such-and-such way, and why. We should also bear in mind that things which are attributed to a particular cause in news reports may not actually be correct, and that there is a significant amount of misdirection and spin from the various news sources.