India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 May 2011 12:45

ramana wrote: Wonder the purpose of the article?

Ramana Saar; the pressure on Indian establishment (Babu-Nuclear parts) to do "more" post J 18 announcement leading to 123 was primarily led by poison pen articles by the exact gentleman in question was it not.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 03 May 2011 11:03

US is in part responsible for all the changes that has been happening in the Middle East in the last 6 months.
I am seeing lot of dots but unable to get a picture.

The uprisings in Egypt,Libya,Syria etc makes one wonder is there an intelligent pattern here.
A General who is the supreme commander of Armed forces in most troubled region named to head the CIA.
Osama dead after 10 long years.
Pakistan,US ally and major terrorist supporting nation exposed to utter shame.

The whole complexion of Arab world is being changed. Is it well orchestrated for a singular objective or just plain coincidence?

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 03 May 2011 12:00

Altair wrote:US is in part responsible for all the changes that has been happening in the Middle East in the last 6 months.
I am seeing lot of dots but unable to get a picture.

The uprisings in Egypt,Libya,Syria etc makes one wonder is there an intelligent pattern here.
A General who is the supreme commander of Armed forces in most troubled region named to head the CIA.
Osama dead after 10 long years.
Pakistan,US ally and major terrorist supporting nation exposed to utter shame.

The whole complexion of Arab world is being changed. Is it well orchestrated for a singular objective or just plain coincidence?

My gut feeling is that US is unable to comprehend how fast China made inroads into autocratic Middle East and African dictatorships with $$$ as bribe for resources and arms to support their autocratic rule. The US had cleverly used Moroccan incident to bring a new wave. To show off its noble intention of democracy, even it scarified its ally in Egypt and it arose new democratic desire in whole region. The new democratic regimes for sometime will shift their loyalties to US and western countries for supporting their cause, and cleverly US project other third world countries who are it allies to carry away the oil and natural resources keeping aside China.

Do not be surprised if US reaches out to Shias (who are majority on major oil blocks) and will create a constant friction between Sunni and Shias to its advantage. India will benefit in all melee since it is a soft power and its business is private (unlike Chinese govt/military companies), and IMO the recent BP investment in Reliance is an indicative of it.

China might loose badly, because its source for natural resources will be curtailed. The new democratic regimes will use USD as principal currencies and want to create local industries (bad making Yuan as global currency and for Chinese exports).

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 03 May 2011 12:30

^^
There was a popular saying, "As Egypt goes, so do the Arabs". Egypt is the political keystone of the Arab region. I think Khan smelled what was up in the air and made ready to abandon Mubarak; if he toppled more dominos would fall.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 May 2011 15:10

MMRCA: The American viewpoint

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 07 May 2011 21:18

abhishek_sharma wrote:MMRCA: The American viewpoint

I am told that the US needs India more than India needing the US. So we shouldn't worry if US ignores India in all strategic decisions.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 May 2011 00:56

The overall strategic outlook of the US cannot hinge on the sale of one outdated fighter platform. That’s just plain silly.

Teresita C. Schaffer says:
May 6, 2011 at 10:33 am
Yes, this one matters. Because of the particular importance of the fighter purchase in India’s strategic planning, it was an opportunity to establish a different degree of strategic relationship – or not.

Comments are interesting from the former Amb.

With an outdated plane the current moment for strategic relationship cannot be achieved. It can happen in the future when Indian geo strategic interest are fulfilled.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 May 2011 04:21

Bin Laden data cache gives US leverage

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 May 2011 04:49

Manny wrote:
abhishek_sharma wrote:MMRCA: The American viewpoint
I am told that the US needs India more than India needing the US. So we shouldn't worry if US ignores India in all strategic decisions.

FWIW, when I tried to do my little bit on slamming Pakistan post bin Laden with local Congressional types and influential PIOs, the response always hearkened back to this decision and it was something like: "Ask GoI to get the Europeans to put Pakistan in the dock."

TS Schaffer is right for once. This was not just a litmus test by the DC crowd but also by the real influencers: Boeing, LM, Raytheon et al.

We like to use the Israeli analogy of US citizens writing in to their Reps. But what we forget is that the AIPAC push is done in tandem with followup calls by CEOs of companies and politicians like Mike Bloomberg.

The decision on purely technical terms will exact a price on the strategic level. This is what I had guessed at when I mentioned Think Tankers revving up articles. Point is GOTUS doesn't care about $15-20 bn. Drop in the bucket for them. They care about the signals and the signals are timed to be exquisitely wrong.

I was just fantasizing about the effect of an MMRCA decision that came 1 week after the Bin Laden episode that chose the F-16 or F/A-18 on US congressional sensibilities.

I guess timing and direction are everything. Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Silvio Berlusconi, Nicholas Sarkozy, our nation turns its hungry eyes to you.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 May 2011 06:15

Acharya wrote: With an outdated plane the current moment for strategic relationship cannot be achieved. It can happen in the future when Indian geo strategic interest are fulfilled.

+1

US wants to build a strategic relationship with India in 2020s using 1970s technology. The sad part is not only mango-abduls, even the apex leadership believed in that snake-oil

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 May 2011 08:54

Cosmo_R wrote:"Ask GoI to get the Europeans to put Pakistan in the dock."

What happened to the manufacturers of C-130 and C-17? And what happened to all this stuff?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 May 2011 09:17

Cosmo_R what if its all dramabazi and India looks like a fool forking over $10B + for a stunted capablity fighter plane?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 May 2011 09:51

well for gotus, the billions may be from left pocket, and all they care is signals, then as abhi asks, what about the signals for about $30b american companies are going to enjoy?

well, we care about those billions, and it does not come cheap. people of India have worked hard to earn that money into GoI kitty.

we are well moving in a solo NAM mode, where we drive like an elephant does. no harm done, as long as one does not mess with us.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 May 2011 09:53

RamaY wrote:
US wants to build a strategic relationship with India in 2020s using 1970s technology. The sad part is not only mango-abduls, even the apex leadership believed in that snake-oil

There are other things such as deeper CENTCOM liason and actual US strategy for Pakistan in the future. They cant be fighting this small wars with ISI to take care of this mess.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 May 2011 10:01

CENTCOM is the main construct that US developed to protect Pakis... In short term, India's entry to CENTCOM goes thru Afghanistan IMHO

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 08 May 2011 10:41

Cosmo_R wrote:
...

The decision on purely technical terms will exact a price on the strategic level. This is what I had guessed at when I mentioned Think Tankers revving up articles. Point is GOTUS doesn't care about $15-20 bn. Drop in the bucket for them. They care about the signals and the signals are timed to be exquisitely wrong.

I was just fantasizing about the effect of an MMRCA decision that came 1 week after the Bin Laden episode that chose the F-16 or F/A-18 on US congressional sensibilities.

I guess timing and direction are everything. Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Silvio Berlusconi, Nicholas Sarkozy, our nation turns its hungry eyes to you.

So, it looks like the only strategically correct decision would have been to go with the F-teens, according to you. Because, though you say that the timing of the signal underlying the rejection was exquisitely wrong, I am hard put to come up with a scenario where a negative signal would have been timed approximately, if not exquisitely, correctly.

Maybe I am missing it and you can supply such a scenario. Otherwise, it seems that the answer is always to buy American, no matter what America does or doesn't do to Indian interests.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 08 May 2011 13:16

^^

I think they were expecting a "heads up" per the article.

Anyway if the relationship is meant to be it is meant to be. It will depend on long-term convergence of interests nothing less, not a single defense sale.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 May 2011 16:33

UBanerjee wrote:
Anyway if the relationship is meant to be it is meant to be. It will depend on long-term convergence of interests nothing less, not a single defense sale.

Was the relationship based on the people who were involved with the sale. Indian interest may not be in the interest of the current set of the people.

arun · Post by **arun** » 08 May 2011 16:38

abhishek_sharma wrote:MMRCA: The American viewpoint

From the article:

the nuclear deal is the clearest example of the United States taking a major risk to accommodate India

How is dismantling a control regime that the US actively supported to establish for the purpose (amongst others?) of shackling India supposed to be a great “accommodation” of India when it merely corrects a hostile act of penalizing India for acts India was not treaty bound to follow?

Let the US make a small beginning to establish its bonafides of “accommodating” India by a complete cessation of military and civil aid to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Given that the US has for some time now been victim of the duplicitous behaviour of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that should not be a great ask.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 May 2011 17:08

@KLNMurthy^^^: I think the point TS is making and the few people (not involved in the sale) I talked to are also making is that no one doubts that the down select was made on technical grounds and no one I talked to questions the process.

What they are questioning is why they should expend political capital the way they did for the nuke deal when there is no strategic reciprocity. Read TS' article carefully and you'll see the reference to deer in the headlight metaphor WRT to PMO.

Like it or not, the real lobbying power lies with corporate America and disproportionately with Boeing/LM/GE. They can get both the calls in to the Congress and follow up with one on one conversations. PIOs in the US naturally want to see more trade with India that creates jobs for Americans.

Of course, if the feeling is "to hell with the US, for reasons xyz.." We'd better start using Dassault EADS/EF and PIOs in UK/Europe to press India's case. A test will come up soon as the EU presses India to drop its opposition to a special dispensation for Pakistan on textiles.

It's not rocket science: Why wouldn't the influencers in the US be unhappy because they lost? It's not like cricket where the bowler who gets hit for a boundary says: "Great shot sir!"

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 08 May 2011 17:18

Cosmo_R wrote:@KLNMurthy^^^: I think the point TS is making and the few people (not involved in the sale) I talked to are also making is that no one doubts that the down select was made on technical grounds and no one I talked to questions the process.

What they are questioning is why they should expend political capital the way they did for the nuke deal when there is no strategic reciprocity. Read TS' article carefully and you'll see the reference to deer in the headlight metaphor WRT to PMO.

Like it or not, the real lobbying power lies with corporate America and disproportionately with Boeing/LM/GE. They can get both the calls in to the Congress and follow up with one on one conversations. PIOs in the US naturally want to see more trade with India that creates jobs for Americans.

Of course, if the feeling is "to hell with the US, for reasons xyz.." We'd better start using Dassault EADS/EF and PIOs in UK/Europe to press India's case. A test will come up soon as the EU presses India to drop its opposition to a special dispensation for Pakistan on textiles.

It's not rocket science: Why wouldn't the influencers in the US be unhappy because they lost? It's not like cricket where the bowler who gets hit for a boundary says: "Great shot sir!"

I think the Shaffer article does cover the nuances in a knowledgeable & useful way. But underlying it all is the basic question: is it only India's responsibility to make the relationship work, and send all the right signals etc. The nuke deal was a step forward by the US, we can acknowledge that, but why isn't it legitimate for India to signal that there are other key things besides the nuke deal (which was really the undoing of a hostile anti-Indian regime that was set up by US) need to be recognized and dealt with by the US?

India has always been friendly towards the US but it was far from reciprocated. There are corrections that the US needs to make, for the most part, as we explore how the two will mesh.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 May 2011 17:44

arun wrote:
Let the US make a small beginning to establish its bonafides of “accommodating” India by a complete cessation of military and civil aid to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Given that the US has for some time now been victim of the duplicitous behaviour of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that should not be a great ask.

The reply will be that it is unrealistic to expect to changes in the Pakistan policy.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 08 May 2011 18:24

Acharya wrote:
arun wrote:
Let the US make a small beginning to establish its bonafides of “accommodating” India by a complete cessation of military and civil aid to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Given that the US has for some time now been victim of the duplicitous behaviour of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that should not be a great ask.
The reply will be that it is unrealistic to expect to changes in the Pakistan policy.

Would the reply be the same if TSPA chose to conduct Nuke tests to erase the temporary memory of Abdul Pakis about Osama? Its completely logical for Pakistan to conduct a Nuclear test now more than ever.
1. Tell abdul who is the boss. Its the paki fauj. Now get back to your donkey! you abdul..
2. America would be hard pressed to do anything as it needs to accommodate TSPA's concerns about the future of the country. They would call sanctions blah blah but after six months they would open the tap again. Its the same story all over again.
3. Tell bhartis not to mess and we would nuke India if they even whisper covert action!! In fact my dear BRFites and Lurkers, Pakis would declare that the nukes were to warn India against any misadventures. Our Sadhuman Singh would still cry peace and wave white flag onlee..
4. P5 will ask India to reduce tensions with Pakistan as it is a coompletely fckedup and retarded nation and spare the world of its crap if India is to even dream of a permanent seat in SC.

arun · Post by **arun** » 08 May 2011 19:23

KLNMurthy wrote:The nuke deal was a step forward by the US, we can acknowledge that

I guess it could be acknowledged by India as a step forward by the US subject to their acknowledgement that the Nuclear Deal was a dismantling of a control regime that the US themselves actively participated in for the purpose (amongst others?) of shackling India. Thus the Nuclear Deal itself is no more than a correction of a past hostile act of penalizing India for acts India was not treaty bound to follow and the US should stow away talk of the need of being rewarded for “heavy lifting”, “taking a major risk to accommodate India” and such like.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 May 2011 13:59

It is important for all Indians to realize that the Nuclear deal was nothing more than a attempt to re-craft the shackles on India; considering that the old shackles had spectacularly failed.

In that sense nuclear deal is a correction of a hostile act, but not in the way it is expressed. It is now attempting to hide the poison pill inside sugar coating instead of trying to directly bludgeon to death.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 09 May 2011 14:17

arun wrote:I guess it could be acknowledged by India as a step forward by the US subject to their acknowledgement that the Nuclear Deal was a dismantling of a control regime that the US themselves actively participated in for the purpose (amongst others?) of shackling India. Thus the Nuclear Deal itself is no more than a correction of a past hostile act of penalizing India for acts India was not treaty bound to follow and the US should stow away talk of the need of being rewarded for “heavy lifting”, “taking a major risk to accommodate India” and such like.

The nuke deal is a lot more than restoring pre-1974 status of India, that much needs to be acknowledged..For all practical purposes, the nuke deal has conferred upon India the status of an official sixth nuke weapon power...Which opens the door for us to sit on the governing table for the global nuke order - all the alphabet soup councils - NSG, MTCR et al...

It is also true that no one other than the US had the political capital to pull tgether a consensus in NSG, so credit is due there..they did it fully knowing that the same consensus will be near impossible to create to undo the arangement - which is also where credit is due...

How much is "due" to the US as quid pro quo is a spearate question - I geuss the payoffs are already happening in the commercial domain..Whether the MRCA deal is THAT big - I am not so convinced..Temporary disappointment, yes.But its hardly "strategic" enough..For the US, selective access to Walmart in India's retail sector will be far more useful and "strategic"..

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 May 2011 14:30

somnath wrote:For all practical purposes, the nuke deal has conferred upon India the status of an official sixth nuke weapon power...

Can some one really think any one can confer power upon some one else? "Khairat baat rahe hain kya?" (are they handing out charity?)

Which opens the door for us to sit on the governing table for the global nuke order - all the alphabet soup councils - NSG, MTCR et al...

We sit on global table with conferred power? At the master's heels, for crumbs?

It is also true that no one other than the US had the political capital to pull tgether a consensus in NSG,

Obviously since US is the prime culprit in the consensus to keep us out. It was a consensus of one. The others are either their munna's or were already willing and only waiting for US to get out of the way.

so credit is due there..they did it fully knowing that the same consensus will be near impossible to create to undo the arangement - which is also where credit is due...

This statement of credit to US of giving us power in Bheekh (alms) is the sort of thinking that clouds understanding. They did it knowing fully well that Munna's et al will sing their song again when the time comes. Since they control the tap of power at NSG. After all those who confer can also take away, right.

How much is "due" to the US as quid pro quo is a spearate question - I geuss the payoffs are already happening in the commercial domain..Whether the MRCA deal is THAT big - I am not so convinced..Temporary disappointment, yes.But its hardly "strategic" enough..For the US, selective access to Walmart in India's retail sector will be far more useful and "strategic"..

US and its lackey expect India to get paid for accepting a second rate power situation in Bheekh, when we are a first rate power by our strength already.

Talk about the Anglo-Saxon view of buying lands from local in America and Africa's for trinkets.

Sorry, kiddos, last time you won power over us, you did it with gun boats and genocide, you don't expect us to fall for this.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 09 May 2011 15:20

Apparently the Russians and the Chinese have no say in the NSG, it is a unipolar world only.

But I wonder why the Soviets built the Chinese nuclear program, but not ours!

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 May 2011 15:27

UBanerjee wrote:Apparently the Russians and the Chinese have no say in the NSG, it is a unipolar world only.

But I wonder why the Soviets built the Chinese nuclear program, but not ours!

Boss why dilute the model?

Bringing in real world variables destroys the nice little doll house where the Great Satan gives "bheek" to its "munna". And "munna" is restrained - but only just - by valiant "desh bhakts" who fight against all odds and, organise for eg., protests against nuclear power plants being built with French technology. A life lost to senseless violence doesn't matter and of course "munna" can always be blamed for the same.

The narrative stands as it is, why bring in complications! Just sit back and enjoy!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 May 2011 15:29

UBanerjee wrote:Apparently the Russians and the Chinese have no say in the NSG, it is a unipolar world only.

In this context yes. Because Russians never had a problem with our nuclear program but US had. It was US insistence locking us out. US was the primary craftsman of NSG.

But I wonder why the Soviets built the Chinese nuclear program, but not ours!

Because by the time we became friendly with the Soviets, we ALREADY had built our own nuclear program. We did not need anyone helps in building it (barring the initial sourcing from Canada to shorten the cycle).

After they became friendly they did help in many ways. In fact had it not been for Soviets the Tarapur unit would have had to be shut down. It is Soviets who helped with Uranium for Kundkulam, for the Nuclear sub program yada yada.

However while appreciating Soviet help, it is important to remember that India deliberately chose the path of internal capacity building to have a self sustaining power status, rather than being anyone's lackey.

I find the whole concept seems to have gone out of the window in last 6 years, and poodledom is suddenly fashionable. Independent strength is mocked as NAM nightmares. (While crediting both Nehru and others for things they did not actually do like IITs) -- funny.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 May 2011 21:29

U Bannerjee, The debate in the Fifties was when will India make the bomb and not if. The question about PRC was never there as everyone knew that they didn't have the local technical stuff. However once the PRC did their first fission test they moved superfast to the fusion one which was a big surprise. So they had help for fission but built on it for fusion. All completed in the sixties while India/INC wondered to do or not to do like narcisst Hamlets.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 09 May 2011 23:07

Nevermind,, its old news

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 May 2011 23:10

^^^
The article itself says why the failed, the hubris that they could choose sides in India and laws of the world wont get in the way.

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 09 May 2011 23:24

The hubris continues. The author's prescription is to cut military aid to the TSP military, and use that as leverage with India to make us give Cashmere away.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 May 2011 09:21

Push for nuclear test ban treaty ratification starting soon

*This should go to nuclear thread, but some other issues are being discussed there.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 11 May 2011 23:21

Pop analysis of the Rajaratnam trial...the comments are interesting, not -ve but definitely show envy of the success of S. Asians.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Rajaratna ... -container

When I sat in on the trial in late March and early April, it struck me that the case offered an updated twist on an old story: the rise and integration of immigrants into the establishment. While the revelations were enormously embarrassing, the trial marked a sign of arrival of sorts for South Asian immigrants. Raj Rajaratnam's story is that of an immigrant meritocrat, forming bonds and networks with those from a similar background, obtaining the best education and work experience possible -- and then putting it all to ill use.

Since large-scale immigration from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka began in the 1960s, South Asians have generally been outsiders in American institutions: in politics, in the Fortune 500 and in the media. Ten years ago, perhaps the most well-known South Asian immigrant businessman was Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, the convenience store proprietor of The Simpsons. As recently as five years ago, then-Sen. Joe Biden stuck his foot in his mouth when noting: "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

But that image of South Asians has changed rapidly in the past several years. In politics, second-generation Indian-American immigrants Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley have won races for governor in Louisiana (2007) and South Carolina (2010), respectively. Aziz Ansari, a graduate of New York University's Stern School of Business and the son of Indian immigrants, plays a character on NBC's Parks and Recreation who bears the distinctly non-South Asian name of Tom Haverford. Actor Kal Penn, the son of Indian immigrants, has moved from the Harold and Kumar franchise, the movie The Namesake and the TV show House to the White House. In the corporate world, Indra Nooyi, who came to the U.S. from India to attend graduate school at Yale, was promoted in 2006 to CEO of the iconic American brand Pepsico. The following year Vikram Pandit was named CEO of Citi.

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 12 May 2011 00:49

If Raj was Indian, would this still be a "South Asian" story or just an Indian story?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 May 2011 01:33

SaiK wrote:
Post subject: Re: India selects Typhoon and Rafale for MMRCA shortlist

again a good read for George:
http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=14739

It is important for him to understand it is not an umbrella strategy just for the sake of being friends, but real business requirements, and how to contend it. If American laws prevents such sales, I think it is a lesson for both India and more so for USA, that refrain from participation based on CISMOA, and EUMA etc. and perhaps focus on technology participation.

There is a tremendous scope to ToT $$$ for AMCA sub components, and GaN radar. Wonder, if they see those as IPL infringement or a business oppty, all depends on understanding the requirements.

BTW, on requirements mgmt, 80% of the USA companies fail. Surprising Boeing did this, having the most process maturity.

Something which needs to be noted. There is a hurry in the US camp on MMRCA since developments are happening in Pakistan and what they do in India and what happens with India has a bearing on US Pakistan relations going forward. This needs to be understood very clearly and there could be some pot holes here.

For US it is not a sale only but a change in the geopolitical game changer wrt Pakistan and China.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 May 2011 01:38

^ aha!

Acharyaji - Are you saying that unkil is giving up on the whore and looking for new set of kundoms to phuk the middle kingdom?

I would say, it is all maaya onlee.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 May 2011 01:52

RamaY wrote:^ aha!

Acharyaji - Are you saying that unkil is giving up on the whore and looking for new set of kundoms to phuk the middle kingdom?

I would say, it is all maaya onlee.

I would put it this way - they want more options in the region for their long term vision.
They find this fast and cheap since India have allowed the region to be dominated cheaply before.