We Need India More Than Ever

By Loudoun Insider

The shock of the Benazir Bhutto assasination still reverberates, and I fear that Pakistan is headed for civil war and Iraqi-style disintegration. Pakistan is prime example of a geopolitical nightmarish mish-mash of disparate and outright hostile nations, often split with other countries, much like Iraq. The biggest security difference of course is the nuclear component of the Pakistani armed forces.

India is Pakistan’s biggest rival and a shining beacon of democracy in a troubled south centra Asia. Instability in Pakistan is a clear and present danger to an Indian state with its own disparate mix of nations and a sizable Muslim component. Kashmir has been relativley quiet, but will certainly erupt into conflict if Pakistan disintegrates and/or falls into the theocracy trap. India has far exceeded Pakistan in the modernization of its armed forces and will be very tempted to strike preemptively at Pakistan’s nuclear assets should they be on the verge of falling into radical Islamist hands.

India also made the news recently with its suspension of arms sales to Burma, and it continues to play geopolitical games with China. I’ve long been interested in the Himalayan region, and there remain several border clash hotspots between India and China. Of course China is our number one current and future geopolitical adversary.

India is a shining light in this troubled and often dictatorial and inhumane region. The United States needs to move strongly towards India, without fear of further alienating Muslim countries. I frankly do not ever see any chance of a long lasting relationship with the radical Islamists, who certainly seem to be on the rise in the Muslim world.  India will need our support more than ever should Pakistan become Talibanized. We need to start now.


Comments

  • justa noone says:

    http://www.foreignaffairs.org/special/campaign2008

    “Supporting Islamic moderates and moving toward energy independence will not protect us from the terrorists who already exist. These enemies, who plot and train in small, scattered cells, can be tracked down and eliminated by the CIA, U.S. Special Forces, and the military forces of the coalition countries united to rid the world of this scourge. We can achieve a tremendous amount with swift and surgical air strikes and commando raids by our elite units. But these operations demand first-rate intelligence. When the Cold War ended, we cut back our human intelligence, just as we cut back our armed forces, and these reductions have come back to haunt us. I will strengthen both.”
    Then advocating of nation building, guess we can borrow anther few trillion from China for this?
    “As president, my goal in the Arab and Muslim worlds will be to calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. It is self-defeating to attempt too much too soon: doing so could mean holding elections that the extremists would win. But it is also self-defeating to do nothing. We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts — which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope. The United States’ strategic interests as the world’s most powerful country coincide with its moral obligations as the richest. If we do not do the right thing to improve life in the Muslim world, the terrorists will step in and do the wrong thing.”

    Hucks plan to win and influence better relations.
    “I am less hopeful that Russia will be helpful. Since Russia benefits from high energy prices, President Vladimir Putin has more incentives to keep energy markets jittery than to resolve the crisis with Iran. Russia also profits handsomely from selling weapons to Iran, mostly air defense systems intended to protect Iran from possible U.S. air strikes. I support going forward with the current plan to set up ten missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic to protect Europe from Iranian missiles. Putin opposes an antimissile system in the former Soviet satellite states (even though we have offered to share the technology with the Russians) and our potential use of Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic, as a staging ground for an attack on Iran.

    We must remember that with the collapse of the Soviet Union came the revival of Russia, which has always had both imperialist ambitions and an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the West. Tsarist history is a case study in the struggle between westernizers and Slavophiles. The push and pull will continue, bringing good days and bad in our relations with Russia. Overall, things will be better than during the Cold War because, much as we do not want another 9/11, Putin does not want another terrorist attack like the 2004 school siege in Beslan. But I see him for what he is: a staunch nationalist in a country that has no democratic tradition. He will do everything he can to reassert Russia’s power — militarily, economically, diplomatically.”

    “Whereas our failure to tackle Iran seems to be leading inexorably to our attacking it, our failure to tackle al Qaeda in Pakistan seems to be leading inexorably to its attacking us again.”
    “Iraq may be the hot war, but Pakistan is where the cold, calculating planning is going on. If al Qaeda strikes us tomorrow, the attack will be postmarked “Pakistan.” And the American people, not understanding why a supposed U.S. ally refused to help and our government put up with it, will justifiably be outraged that bin Laden and his top people got away. In fact, we almost did suffer that next attack: the plot to blow up ten airliners over the Atlantic that the British government foiled in 2006 was hatched in Pakistan, as was an attack against U.S. targets in Germany that was planned to coincide with the sixth anniversary of 9/11.

    Rather than wait for the next strike, I prefer to cut to the chase by going after al Qaeda’s safe havens in Pakistan. As commander in chief, the U.S. president must balance threats and risks in calculating how best to protect the American people. We are living on borrowed time. The threat of an attack on us is far graver than the risk that a quick and limited strike against al Qaeda would bring extremists to power in Pakistan.”
    “Bhutto and Sharif must be allowed to move freely about the country. Whatever happens in Pakistan next, the country’s policy toward the United States is unlikely to change significantly. General Ashfaq Kiyani, the deputy chief of staff of the army and Musharraf’s most likely successor, is a moderate who wants the military less involved in politics. As prime minister, Sharif would sound more anti-American, and Bhutto more pro-American. But in any event, our problems with al Qaeda and the Taliban will not be magically solved for us. They are our problems, and we must face up to them.

    I will assure the Pakistanis that we are with them for the long haul. When the Russians left Afghanistan in the late 1980s, we quickly lost interest in Pakistan. Many Pakistanis fear the same will happen when al Qaeda and the Taliban are no longer around to keep us engaged. They should not. Pakistan, like Iraq, is a regional problem rather than an isolated one. We must use our friendly ties with India to encourage and help it improve its relationship with Pakistan and to push for increased trade and cooperation between the two countries, all to bring greater stability to the South Asian region.”

    Hmmm lets see nationbuilding in iraq,pakistan,afghanistan and probably iran because we will have destroyed the country’s through our quest for control of oil under the guise of terrorism playing the worlds dictator… Click the enclosed link for the entire speech by Huck… Then read the other puppets speeches, they all are likely written by the same CFR puppet master!

  • *Peeve alert

    Justa, it’s “no one”. Two words. I know, I know. It’s the blog world and now one cares…

    Now back to your regularly scheduled postings.

  • rtwng extrmst says:

    Edmund, “now one”? Heheh

    LI,

    Interesting comments on India. While India is certainly far more stable than Pakistan it is not without its problems nor its potential for real religious conflict. The cast system still is a great barrier to freedom for many there and it is deeply seated in their culture and religion. While good relations with India is key in the region and in international economics, it certainly should not come at the expense of efforts to stabilize Muslim countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

  • Serves me right for trying to correct people…

  • I don’t believe we will ever “stabilize” any of the three “countries” mentioned. They are all artificial colonial constructs giving rise to continuous internal strife that is expertly exploited by radical Isalmists. India certainly has its problems, not only with internal radical Islamists, but also with nationalist Hindus and restless minorities, but it has accomplished far more in real democratization than any of the fully Islamic dominated countries. I really think the Islamic countries are a lost cause as long as fundamentalist Islam holds sway, and I see little chance that we can reverse that trend, especially after Iraq.

  • D.J. McGuire says:

    Easy there, LI. Iran is not “artificial” at all. It was Persia before the Shah (father of the fellow deposed in 1979) renamed it “Iran.”

    You have a better point on the other two, but the current Afghan government is just as friendly to India as we are.

    That brings me back to your larger point (India); on that, you are exactly right (especially your concern about Communist China).

  • rtwng extrmst says:

    Again, not to say that India is unimportant in this region, but you seem to imply that we should just give up on democracy in the muslim world and just side in with India. To do such a thing would alienate allies and probably increase problems in the region, particularly with Pakistan. We need to have a balanced foreign policy and promote democracy in all areas. As for muslim democracies not working I think Turkey would disagree with you as well. Should we back out there?

  • D.J., I know all about Iran and its former life as Persia – the commenter above me referenced Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq (not Iran). Iran is an anomoly in the region due to its generally homogenous Persian nationality, even though the present day Iranian borders take in historically Kurdish and Baluchi dominated areas. I really wish we could go back in time and redo these borders along nation state boundaries – we would have a lot less strife on our hands now (of course we would still have some, but nothing like the current mess).

    As far as the current Afghan government goes, time will tell how long lasting it will be. I contend it would be gone in a matter of days should NATO forces withdraw.

    I did some more reading last night on the designs of the communist Chinese on disputed Indian border areas, particularly Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh, where China and India fought their 1962 border war. In actuality, these areas seem to be primarily Tibetan, and would therefore seem to belong with Tibet, which unfortunately has been swallowed whole by China. China has apparently made a large scale earthen model of Aksai Chin for strategic planning purposes. I suspect Kashmir will be the impetus for the next use of nuclear weapons between Pakistan and India, although it will be tough for China to stay out of any such conflict, especially if it goes nuke. China basically extorted part of Pakistani held Kashmir from the Pakistanis and they continue to have a strategic interest there. I will never ever trust the Communist Chinese government, and I do not have good feelings about the future. I believe we will see major conflict between the US and China in the next ten years.

  • Turkey is indeed a good example for the Muslim world. Unfortunately it appears that the majority of Muslim countries have firmly rejected that model in favor of more extreme methods of governance.

    I don’t believe we can simply give up, but trying to continue on the nation-building, bring democracy to the world movement favored by the neocons simply isn’t affordable anymore.

  • Ken Reid says:

    Giuliani knows what to do. He’s the man for our party, folks. Huckabee is a WANNABEE

  • Giuliani would be another Constitution-bending (or breaking) imperial president that would ignore the rule of law and push our fear buttons harder than even this current embarrassment of an administration.

    Oh, and don’t forget you would get all his best friends in the cabinet… this guy would take cronyism to levels that you thought could not be matched after Bush II.

  • 10 feet tall and Bulletproof says:

    Ed,
    Cronyism is a Clinton-era word. You’re totally entitled to your opinion, but label it as such, please. There are quite a few of us out here that are glad Bush was where he was on 9/11, and continue to support him today. Actually, at the current pace (from in-country sources – not a dishonest press corps), the proof may develop and propogate before 11/08 that he was right to do what he did.

    LI… China and the US have one thing NEITHER is willing to abandon. The economic power of the dollar. We are bound at the hip and will slap each others faces…at best. It’ll never escalate beyond that.

  • Richard Kane says:

    We are in a dangerous time and I don’t think one-sided comments concerning India and Pakistan are helpful. President Bush and Colin Powell might have stopped a nuclear-war there with their sense of firm evenhandedness. India and Pakistan in 1992 were shooting at each other in Kashmire after the Indian parliament was attacked by bin Laden inspired or 9/11 inspired terrorists. Also, after 9/11, Bush urged people not to deface Muslim businesses. An Arab cab driver was badly beat up blocks from where I lived and there were other incidents around the country that wasn’t reported on the national news. President Bush stopped this country from descending into vigilante justice.

    Bush made some terrible mistakes as well, which we hear much more about.

    Please everyone don’t make President Bush’s and Condoleezza Rice’s job harder than it is with shrill comments.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-june02/powell_5-30.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3611-2004Oct27.html/ (India denies Powell’s claim)
    http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_050215.htm (More India)
    http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/86#comment-158
    RichardKanePA@aol.com,

  • 10 feet… “Right to do what he did”?

    It would help if you passed along which thing he did you think was right. As far as sources, I guess we are all entitled to our own facts anymore… I have my insiders too.

    This administration has set the bar on cronyism. I’m happy to go point to point with you on that. We can start with the politicization of the AGs…

    When did we need to start labeling posts as opinion? I thought that was the whole idea here.

  • 10 feet tall and Bulletproof says:

    Politicization of the AGs??…Clinton had BigBird, we got Gonzales. That’s just the nature of the business. But to reference one, without including the other is just being unecessarily one-sided.
    What Bush did right??
    He responded once he got intel about WHO had hit us. He put Al Queda on notice, and shut down two countries where they operated. Three other countries that they wanted to operate out of saw us take these measures, and let Al Queda know they were not welcome in their countries, either. North Korea, who had been posturing loudly, saw our actions and put info out there that they were ready to engage in talks with us. We were , thereby, enabled to deal with these countries across a negotiating table instead of a battlefeild, because they saw that we would not hesitate to back it up if necessary. (why do you think no one takes the French seriously when they issue a threat?)
    There’s a lot of hyperbole about no WMDs being found, but if one looks deeper, they see a disturbing trend that Sadam WANTED them, and was dealing from the bottom of the deck with the UN, Russia and France to get them by buttering the big cheese’s bread from the Oil for Food funds. Aside from the FACT that we were detained by the Russians and the French from going in right away, there was plenty of time and intel regarding caravans that suggest the WMD were squirreled away to Syria.
    Alot of critique has been offered that the war in Iraq wasn’t a war with Al Queda. I suppose that’s why Al Queda came running when we went in. Totally overlooked and never reported by a liberal news (possibly because their case was stronger if they kept it under the radar) was the fact that Al Queda had been training in Iraq, and it was quite possibly where they were going to set up shop after Afghanistan was closed off to them.
    Without the opposing information of what a democrat (who reflects what those sorry excuses in Congress) would have done, we can’t factually make the case of how deep we’d be in attacks and wallowing in the mire that the Middle East would have us in right now.
    But it’d be bad. And they’d be trying to tack it to the Republicans somehow.
    Now…Bush has done some things that flat out ticked me off, too. Amnesty was a bone-headed manuvuer, as was the cloture attempts by Congress on the matter.
    But, overall..Bush and the “retreads” were thankfully where they were and we did not get to witness Kerry take a poll to find out what was popular before he acted.
    You don’t have to label your posts as opinion, but you can’t sell them as fact, either.

  • I was not aware that I was selling my opinions as fact, just as I do not take your thoughts (that I usually find agreement with) as fact — merely, your opinion.

    I’ll try to do better.

    On Mr. Bush, I can see we probably don’t have much common ground. We will just have to let history judge his and our responses to nineteen Saudi fanatics (backed by a network of fanatics in third world counties) who were able to wreck havoc on our country.

    We can stack up our arguments like cordwood on both sides of the Bush presidency argument. The fact that we can should give us pause. I would just say that anyone that favors our Constitution, right or left, D or R, knows that Bush has done great harm and has left a string of precedents that need to be corrected.

    I do have a question to you about the “liberal” media. How do you know all of this “correct” information if is isn’t reported somewhere in the media? If you say you get it from the “conservative” media (I suppose I have to use these labels since everyone else currently does), then how do you know and trust what they are saying? Because they agree with your world view?

    I would caution you: don’t go looking for news that you agree with. It’s worth it to sample a variety — or at least a diverse set of views.

    Just my opinion, of course.

    Related, the Brits have moved away from “war on terror”…

    “The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers,” Macdonald said. “They were fanaticists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way.”

    http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,159067,00.html

  • 10 feet tall and Bulletproof says:

    I’ll steer clear of ANYTHING the Brits do, thanks very much. They aren’t the brightest bunch.
    In learning of the presence of Al Queda in Iraq before our arrival, I refer to the CIA documentation on the matter.
    On what’s happening there right now, I refer to my nephew’s Captain, who I regularly correspond with. FWIW, Fox News doesn’t even do justice to report what’s actually happening on the ground . Sure, they get around to it from time to time, but it isn’t nearly enough to counter the naysayers and gloom and doom corps.

  • Which CIA documentation? The cherry-picked stuff that Cheney’s little group waved around or the reports that the majority of analyst there put forward?

    And are we talking about the CIA that produced the just-made-public NIE? Because I doubt if you’ll like that report. You should, but if you are a big Bush guy, you won’t.

    Look, anecdotes on the ground in Iraq from corporals to captains to colonels (of which I know personally) really are just that — anecdotes. Snapshots. It’s like looking at the weather today and saying Virginia is always cold and blustery.

    I refer you to this thread on my Iraq position:
    http://tooconservative.com/?p=1688

    Sorry this Pakistan/India thread got derailed. Regarding that topic, I heard a someone on the ground there comment that (and I would like to hear Richard Kane’s thoughts on this) there are many more people in New Dehli and Islamabad that know how to manipulate things in Washington than are in Washington that know how to manipulate things in those two capitals.

    I believe that is true.

  • Oh, and I’ll tell the Brits you didn’t care for the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Spice Girls.

  • 10 feet tall and Bulletproof says:

    Especially the Spice Girls. :)

Leave Comment