Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

[Sapiens]

Pakistan Sends Troops to Indian Border

By Shaiq Hussain
Special to The Washington Post
Friday, December 26, 2008; 4:08 PM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Dec. 26 -- Pakistan began deploying thousands of additional troops to its border with India on Friday amid rising tension in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last month.

Officials ordered army personnel on leave to report for duty and moved troops from Pakistan's border with Afghanistan and adjacent tribal areas, where they had been deployed to counter the Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgency.

Some media reports suggested that as many as 20,000 Pakistani troops were redeployed. But a senior Pakistani security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the moves involved no more than 5,000 troops.

"We are taking the minimum required defensive steps for our security in the face of Indian troops escalation at the border," he said. "Reports of heavy redeployment of Pakistani forces are false."
Pakistan and India, both nuclear-armed nations, have traded angry statements since India accused "elements" in Pakistan of planning the siege in Mumbai last month that left at least 170 people dead, including six Americans. India officials say the banned Pakistan-based group Lashkar-i-Taiba carried out the attacks and have demanded that Pakistan do more to stamp out such groups. Pakistan has denied any government role in the attacks.

...

[ricket]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

Pakistan Sends Troops to Indian Border

Let's see...

India's population: ~1.1 billion.
Pakistan's population: ~164 million.

Yeah that's a fair fight...

[Sapiens]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

Let's see...

India's population: ~1.1 billion.
Pakistan's population: ~164 million.

Yeah that's a fair fight...

CIA warns of nuclear war in subcontinent

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has warned the Bush administration of a possible nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

The turmoil in Afghanistan and Pakistan could spill over into Jammu & Kashmir, prompting Indian leaders to take aggressive and retaliatory action, according to the CIA.

In assessing the security situation in the region, a CIA report observed: "Continued turmoil in Afghanistan and Pakistan will spill over into Kashmir and other areas of the subcontinent, prompting Indian leaders to take more aggressive pre-emptive and retaliatory actions.

"India's conventional military advantage over Pakistan will widen as a result of New Delhi's superior economic position… Changing military capabilities will be prominent among the factors that determine the risk of war."

The report, titled Global Trends 2015, which is now available with Pakistan's interior affairs ministry, further observed: "India most likely will expand the size of its nuclear-capable force. Islamabad has publicly claimed that the number of nuclear weapons/missiles it deploys will be independent of the size of India's arsenal. But a noticeable increase in the size of the Indian arsenal will prompt Pakistan to further increase the size of its arsenal."

On Pakistan's economic woes, the CIA said: "Pakistan will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement. Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and Islamic parties."

...

[Sapiens]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

I remember reading this:

Pakistan: We're ready for war with India

The remarks by Pakistan's foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who also insisted he would not hand over any suspects in the Mumbai attacks, come amid mounting tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours.

India has said it is keeping all options open following last month's carnage by the Mumbai terrorists, who killed more than 170 people.

"We do not want to impose war, but we are fully prepared in case war is imposed on us," said Mr Qureshi.
"We are not oblivious to our responsibilities to defend our homeland. But it is our desire that there should be no war."

Indian officials say the hardline Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) group, which is based in Pakistan despite being banned by the government, is behind the bloodshed, and Indian media have suggested there could be Indian strikes on militant camps.

...

[Sapiens]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

Pakistani mobilisation surprises Washington

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: The mobilisation of Pakistani troops to its eastern border with India has caused some surprise here, as the US has seen little if any evidence that an Indian strike or military action against Pakistan is likely or imminent.
On the other hand, last week, the US extended an assurance to Pakistan that war could be ruled out, while urging Islamabad to begin dismantling what infrastructure may still exist that can make cross-border terrorism possible. Pakistan, which has been asking for ‘evidence’ for the Mumbai attacks, has yet to make up its mind as to what course of action it is going to opt for.
One theory here about the Pakistani mobilisation on Friday is that it is strictly for the ‘benefit of the United States’ and a ruse to have the current pressure on Islamabad eased. If India follows suit, it will overshadow Mumbai as the world would be on tenterhooks at the prospect of two nuclear-armed nations going to war.
Pakistan’s US Ambassador Husain Haqqani said in a brief statement on Friday, “Pakistan does not seek war, but we need to be vigilant against threats of war emanating from the other side of our eastern border.”
He said Pakistan’s conduct since the Mumbai attack “has been consistent with international expectations. There is no justification for threats against Pakistan. Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism and will continue to act against terrorists. We are a country of rule of law and need evidence to prosecute anyone for the crime of terrorism”.

[Mega]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

My guess............Britan & America wish to have a pipeline from Cetral Asia. They need to route in though Afgan & Pakastan. This "War" is to do with that...........I suspect that when Bush went to see the India PM he offered a BIG cut of the action.........If India would send the bulk of the forces required to qwell trouble along the route.

Mike

[Chomsky]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

Pakistan Sends Troops to Indian Border

Hm, could have sworn I read about this domino falling somewhere before....

“Step back and consider the situation the Mumbai attackers have created,” said George Friedman, chief executive of Stratfor, a geopolitical risk analysis company.

Mr. Friedman laid out a frightening domino theory of possible repercussions of Mumbai. Warning: it gets scary fast.

1. India’s already weak government decides it has to retaliate against Pakistan or risk falling.

India didn’t retaliate after the deadly bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul July 7. But many Indians view the Mumbai attacks the same way Americans viewed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and the Indian government is under enormous pressure to retaliate, perhaps by bombing training camps in Pakistan. Seven years ago, when gunmen attacked India’s Parliament in New Delhi, the Indian government moved forces close to the Pakistani border and brought its nuclear forces to a higher alert level, prompting a similar response from Pakistan and an intense crisis between the two nuclear rivals. Since then, the Indian government has been more restrained. But you can’t expect that restraint to dissolve were a firm link between the Mumbai attack and Pakistan’s intelligence service to emerge.

2. Pakistan responds by withdrawing forces from western Pakistan, where they can fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban, to the India-Pakistan border.

Pakistan security officials have already warned that if the situation with India worsens, they will shift troops from western areas, and pointedly noted during a news conference that such a step would likely upset the United States because it would mean resources were being moved from the fight against Islamic militants along the Afghan border. The Americans have been pressing Pakistan for more military action against the militants, not less.

While part of Pakistan’s threat was “half designed to scare the daylights out of the United States,” part of it was serious, Ms. Schaffer said. “The serious part of it is, as far as the Pakistan Army is concerned, India is still the existential threat. If it looked as if India was going to take some kind of military action, there would be a re-deployment so fast it would make your head spin.”

3. Taliban forces, freed from having to watch out for Pakistani troops, are strengthened along the Afghan border; Qaeda operatives are more secure.

A resurgent Taliban that is freed from having to fight a two-front war will turn its full attention to American and NATO troops in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama has already said he wants to send two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, where violence has climbed — allied military deaths there have reached 267 this year, the most ever. The American military plan for the war in Afghanistan assumes some help from Pakistani troops on the border. It also assumes that the United States can continue to use Pakistan for logistical support for the Afghanistan war.

4. The United States’ situation in Afghanistan goes from bad to worse.

For the American military effort in Afghanistan to succeed, the Pakistani military needs to establish control of the lawless territory between the two countries. It is virtually impossible, South Asia experts say, to envision a scenario where American soldiers themselves could establish control of the border regions, with their mountainous terrain and a local population that is sympathetic to Islamist militants. So America is seeking a greater willingness from Pakistani leaders to go after Qaeda and Taliban operatives along the border; a Pakistani government that is distracted by a new flare-up with India would not figure into those plans.

5. Iran, watching Pakistan and India rattling their nuclear sabers, concludes that it is in a better position to insist on pursuing its nuclear program.

Mr. Obama has said he will do whatever he can to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, including breaking with years of American foreign policy and sitting down with Iran’s leaders, if necessary. But for decades, some Iranians have argued that their country needs a nuclear weapons capacity to match the influence of, or deter, neighbors like India, Pakistan and Israel — not to mention Russia and China. Foreign policy experts say that persuading Iran’s leaders to stop their current uranium enrichment program before it makes such a goal attainable would only get harder if they could point to a nuclear standoff taking place between Pakistan and India.

The Mumbai attacks, said Mr. Friedman, of Stratfor, “could leave Obama’s entire South Asia strategy in shambles.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/we...dman%22&st=cse

[kartius919]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

Would this be the time to long oil? It's dirt cheap right now, itching to jump in. Demand is down, but at these prices you must expect chaos in the middle east in 2009. Long oil, short retail/real estate for 09?

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

India sees the recent Mumbai attacks as their 9/11 and is very unsatisfied with Pakistan's response to crack down on terrorist groups in country.

Just because the Soviet Union fell doesn't mean there won't be wars anymore or that history won't continue unabated. Hard to believe but India could very well invade Pakistan for various reasons, one of which could be the Pakistan grain belt. Reports are that India is massing troops including rangers along Pakistans southern region near Karachi and the mouth of the Indus River NOT the often disputed Kashmir region. In essence, India is poised to go for the throat.

How would the rest of the world respond? Not sure. Pakistan doesn't really have that many friends and India is well enough positioned diplomatically that world powers like the US and China might just look the other way. Look the other way IF India promises to give the big guys what it was Pakistan was offering.

[Chris]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

you may be forgetting the "I" word when you doubt Pakistan's support. There a millions and millions of them located all over the globe. If there is a war then India/Pakistan are not the only places there will be firestorms.

[Rajiv]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

I think the NYTimes is positing a worst case scenario -- The general feeling in India is definitely not that grim, and at the current stage I would discount the possibility of border skirmishes between India and Pakistan.

I think the general strategy of India is to put pressure on Pakistan to take care of the "Non State Actors" the are responsible for creating destabilization in India -- be it Kashmir, Bombay, Gujarat or elsewhere in India.

for example, here is NDTV's analysis of the situation

Launching strikes in Pak: Will it serve the purpose?

For the last several days, there has been talk of how the impasse after the Mumbai terror strikes could pave the way for military strikes on terror hubs in Pakistan.

Though both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart have stated that war should be avoided.

There have been reports of how both Indian and Pakistani forces remain on full alert for a military confrontation, but armed forces remain on alert even during peacetime and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that conventional military strikes cannot defeat a determined terrorist force.
In the current situation in the subcontinent, here is why a military option may achieve very little.

Bombs can destroy structures, terrorists can disperse

India's frontline fighters are armed with laser guided bombs, the bombs that can strike a target with pinpoint accuracy. But while this can be used to target structures, how can bombs eliminate terrorist groups who could be expecting such strikes and may well have dispersed from their terrorist camps.

Will India risk a war with a nuclear-armed Pakistan?

Is the government prepared to launch air strikes on the territory of a country, which is armed with nuclear weapons and where there is no clarity on who controls the weapons, civilians or the military.

Conventional war cannot destroy terrorism

In the event of a Pakistani counter-attack, which is entirely expected, a battle to target terrorists could well turn into a full-scale war between India and Pakistan. This would be fought using tanks, warships and fighter aircraft. How would this thwart terrorism?

Pakistan's army would shift away from containing terrorists

Is it in India's interests to fight an army, which is otherwise occupied in containing terrorism on the Afghanistan front?

Reserve formations not mobilised

Even if India prepares for war, it would take more than a month to have its defences in place on the western front, which requires massive mobilisation. This has not happened.

A war will be costly

Economically, a war between India and Pakistan even for a period of two or three weeks would cost thousands of crores. This would damage the foreign investment climate and affect GDP growth.

Perhaps the biggest concern for India is the game of brinkmanship being played out. There is a danger that Pakistani forces could provoke an Indian reaction thereby deflect from the real issue of emanating terrorism from its soil. This could be done through:

Massive artillery shelling in areas along the line of control or in areas such as Siachen.
Engaging Indian helicopters or aircraft operating close to the line of control or international border with missiles or gunfire.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

Perhaps it is best to view this potential conflict in the broader geopolitical context. What does India gain by invading? What do the big powers gain? What role does Pakistan play on the world stage and how important are they?

Pakistan is not all that important to the worlds big players. The Chinese keep a naval base on Pakistan's coast and if india takes that territory, I'm sure they'd extend the same privilge to the Chinese. The US is interested in tamping down al-qaeda and the Taliban. India has similar interests. Pakistan has been unable to effectively form a powerful central government, fight terrorism and their future as a nation is questionable. India would take Pakistan's southern river delta area, effectively making Pakistan a landlocked country further weakening them politically and economically. Perhaps this is the first step towards Pakistan being swallowed by its neighbors.

[KGW]

U.S. Draws India Into The Afgan "War"

Mr. Bhadrakumar has been close to the mark in all my readings of his commentary:
------------------------------
U.S. Draws India Into The Afghan "War"The time has come to carefully assess the U.S. motivations in widening the gyre of the Afghan war, which commenced seven years ago.
M.K. Bhadrakumar

December 25, 2008 "The Hindu" --- The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States armed forces, Admiral Mike Mullen, has lent his voice to the incipient idea of a “regional” approach to the Afghanistan problem. He said the over-arching strategy for success in Afghanistan must be regional in focus and include not just Afghanistan but also Pakistan and India. The three South Asian countries, he stressed, must figure a way to reduce tensions among them, which involves addressing &# 8220;long-standing problems that increase instability in the region.”

Adm. Mullen then referred to Kashmir as one such problem to underline that if India-Pakistan tensions decreased, it “allowed the Pakistani leadership to focus on the west [border with Afghanistan].” He regretted that the terror attack in Mumbai raised India-Pakistan tensions, and “in the near term, that might force the Pakistani leadership to lose interest in the west,” apart from the likelihood of a nuclear flashpoint. Interestingly, he gave credit to the Pakistani top brass for its recent cooperation in the tribal areas which, he said, has had a “positive impact” on the anti-Taliban operations.

The Pentagon’s number one soldier has legitimised an idea that was straining to be born — U.S. mediatory mission in South Asia. Adm. Mullen announced that the U.S. was doubling its force level in Afghanistan from the present strength of 32,000 troops. The Afghan war is about to intensify. All this comes in the wake of the recent hint by Senator John Kerry that the appointment of a U.S. special envoy for South Asia by the Obama administration is on the cards.

The time has indeed come to carefully assess the U.S. motivations in widening the gyre of the Afghan war, which commenced seven years ago as a vengeful hunt for Osama bin Laden and metamorphosed into a “war on terror.” What is in it for India? It is very obvious that the U.S. thought process on a “regional approach” to the Afghan problem and the appointment of a South Asia envoy go hand in hand. The U.S. design confronts India with a three-fold challenge: it insists that India is a protagonist in the U.S.-led war; India-Pakistan relationship is a crucial factor of regional security and stability which directly affects the U.S. interests and, therefore, necessitates an institutionalised American mediatory role; and, it asserts a U.S. obligation to be involved in “nation-building” in South Asia on a long-term footing.
Vulnerable to U.S. pressure

Islamabad will be chuckling with pleasure. The parameters of its foreign policy, which Indian diplomacy rubbished for decades, are finally gaining habitation and name. The heart of the matter is that India has made itself vulnerable to U.S. pressure. Of all Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries that are exposed to the danger of militancy, India is the only “non-combatant” threatened with a spill-over. The Central Asian countries bordering Amu Darya, though much weaker than India, have marvellously insulated themselves from the pernicious fallout from the Hindu Kush. So has China’s Xinjiang. So indeed has Iran despite robust efforts by the U.S.-British intelligence to inject the virus of terrorism into its eastern provinces. Certainly, Moscow managed to insulate Chechnya too.

Alas, India stands out as the solitary exception. If diplomacy is the first line of national defence, there have been shortfalls. The slide began, in retrospect, when the Indian foreign policy seriously erred in 2001 while assessing the implications of the U.S.’ march into Afghanistan. Except India, the regional powers that took part in the Bonn conference in December 2001 seem to have had a Plan B. Our diplomats blithely travelled in the U.S. bandwagon as one-dimensional men fixated over Pakistan, comfortable in their assumption that the underpinning of a strong “partnership” with the U.S. elevated India from the morass of its regional milieu, opening up in front of it a brave new world as the pre-eminent power in the Indian Ocean region. They remained sure that Pakistan would be a passing aberration in the U.S. regional policy, whereas India would be a life-long blissful partner. And all that was needed was for us to keep an obscure back channel to Pakistan from time to time.

The cold blast of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai scatters these facile assumptions. After all, the accumulated debris of India-Pakistan tensions did not go away and the past four years have been a chronicle of wasted time, as the relationship is in ground zero. The Mumbai attacks underscore that the Afghan war has crossed the Khyber and is stealthily reaching the fertile Indo-Gangetic plains. Our opinion still underestimates the gravity of the unfolding crisis by visualising it as merely an India-Pakistan dogfight, which it certainly is but is far from everything. Adm. Mullen has done a signal service by starkly placing the crisis in its setting.

Fortunately, we stopped in the nick of time from plunging into the Afghan cauldron via a military intervention from which there would have been no turning back. This fortuitous happenstance leaves us some options to incrementally step back from becoming part of the lethal brew that the witches are concocting in the Hindu Kush.
Way ahead

What is to be done? First, we need to realise that the Afghan war is a classic Clausewitzean affair politics by other means. The U.S. has ensured a permanent presence in the strategic highlands of the Pamir mountains. Even the current highly simulated disruption of transit routes for NATO supplies via the Pakistani territory is providing a pretext for the establishment of fresh U.S. military presence in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and in the Caucasus for the first time ever. While the U.S.’ close partnership with the Pakistani military continues intact, the search for new supply routes becomes the perfect backdrop for ruthlessly expanding American influence in the Russian and Chinese (and Iranian) backyards in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

This signifies a great leap forward for NATO, which is poised to wade ashore from the Black Sea into the Caucasus and Central Asia. Also, the U.S. is effectively undercutting the raison d’etre of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. In short, the “war on terror” is providing a convenient rubric under which the U.S. is incrementally securing for itself a permanent abode in the highlands of the Pamirs, the Central Asian steppes and the Caucasus that form the strategic hub overlooking Russia, China, India and Iran.

We must, therefore, be vigilant about the veiled U.S. threat of reopening the “Kashmir file,” which Admiral Mullen held out. It aims at keeping India off balance. Plainly put, the U.S. faces a real geopolitical challenge in the region only in the eventuality of a coalition of like-minded regional powers like Russia, China, Iran and India taking shape and these powers seriously beginning to exchange notes on what the Afghan war has so far been about and where it is heading and what the U.S. strategy aims at. So far, the U.S. has succeeded in stalling such a process by “sorting out” these regional powers individually. Indeed, Washington has been a net beneficiary of the contradictions in the mutual relations between these regional powers.

If Barack Obama genuinely wants to end the bloodshed and the suffering in Afghanistan, tackle terrorism effectively and enduringly, as well as stabilise Afghanistan and secure South Asia as a stable region, all he needs to do is to turn away from the great game, and instead seek an inclusive inter-Afghan settlement facilitated by a genuine regional peace process. The existential choice is whether he will break with the past U.S. policies out of principle. Surely, as Adm. Mullen’s statements underscore, Mr. Obama will run into the vested interests of the U.S. security establishment, the military-industrial complex, Big Oil and the influential corpus of cold warriors who are bent on pressing ahead. India must, therefore, take note that the war in the Hindu Kush enters a decisive phase for the New American Century project.
Independent policy

The need arises for India to revive close consultations with Russia and Iran with which we have profound shared concerns over the Afghan problem and regional security. We must steer an independent policy towards Iran as a factor of regional stability. It is not in the interests of Russia, Iran and India to abandon Afghanistan to the U.S.-U.K.-Pakistan-Saudi condominium. They must use their influence on Afghan groups to chisel a regional peace initiative. In a helpful departure, China also took a differentiated approach to the recent U.N. Security Council move regarding Pakistani militant outfits, which we must take note of and build on. Finally, of course, while there is a time for everything, India must eventually resume the arduous search to make Pakistan a stakeholder in good neighbourly relations. The U.S. factor complicates this search, which is best undertaken bilaterally.

The wheel has come full circle. Those who sold us the dream of a U.S.-India strategic partnership are nowhere to be seen.

(The writer is a former ambassador and Indian Foreign Service officer.)

[don]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

South Asia descends into terror's vortex
By M K Bhadrakumar

South Asians will watch the year end in a pall of gloom. The region is fast getting sucked into the vortex of terrorism. The Afghan war has crossed the Khyber and is stealthily advancing towards the fertile Indo-Gangetic plains.

Whatever hopes might have lingered that Barack Obama would be a harbinger of "change", have also been dashed by US [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Secretary [COLOR=green ! important]of [/color][COLOR=green ! important]State[/color][/color][/color] Condoleezza Rice. The Financial Times of London reported on Monday that in an exclusive interview Rice prophesied that the incoming Obama administration might have little option but to follow the current US approach on a range of foreign policy issues. Significantly, her prognosis figured in the course of a foreign policy review that primarily focused on Russia, [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Iran[/color][/color] and Afghanistan.

South Asian security is at a crossroads. On the one hand, the United States made great strides in getting embedded in the region on a long-term footing. South Asia must figure as a rare exception in the George W Bush era's dismal foreign policy legacy. On other hand, the big pawn on the South Asian chessboard, [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]India[/color][/color], is heading for parliamentary elections. Almost certainly, a new government with new thinking will assume office in Delhi by May. US-India ties will also come under scrutiny.

Hype of US-India ties
The [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Bush [COLOR=green ! important]administration[/color][/color][/color] made the Indian leadership feel "special". The Indian establishment felt comfortable with the US's regional policy, which it fancied as working in favor of its aspirations to emerge as the pre-eminent power in the Indian Ocean region. Delhi had no problems with the creeping "militarization" of the Bush administration's regional policy; more precisely, the Pentagon's "muscling" or ''encroachment" into a striking number of aspects of the US government, including its foreign policy, as Thomas A Schweich, former senior State Department official with hands-on experience on Afghanistan, put it in a devastating article last Sunday in the Washington Post

What mattered to Delhi was that the US regional policy regarded India as a counterweight to China. Equally, Delhi was not perturbed that the cold warriors in Washington were relentlessly pursuing a policy of encirclement of its traditional ally Russia or pressing for a regime change in Iran, India's close friend. In fact, Delhi cut adrift from the regional politics and single-mindedly focused on its strategic partnership with the US, which, it felt, if carefully nurtured, would take care of India's two main challenges on the foreign policy front, namely, its adversarial relationships with China and Pakistan, and elevate India altogether from the morass of its regional milieu.

The US-India nuclear agreement signed in September, the burgeoning military-to-military cooperation, the prospect of "inter-operability" between the two armed forces - all this elevated US-India ties to the level of a veritable alliance.

Delhi took in its stride the status of a key "non-NATO ally" that the US regional policy ascribed to India's arch-rival Pakistan - comfortable in the estimation that the Pakistani connection after all was a passing need of the US in the context of the Afghan war, whereas India was the US's "natural ally".

Meanwhile, Delhi systematically began harmonizing its own regional policies with the US's strategy, especially with regard to rolling back its cooperation with Iran while boosting security ties with Israel, distancing itself from the trilateral format involving Russia, China and India, and reducing to a minimum its involvement with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

India signed up with a "quadrilateral alliance" involving the US, [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Japan[/color][/color], Australia and India in a bizarre containment strategy toward China, which, of course, annoyed Beijing. Some in the Indian strategic community openly threatened to play a "Tibet card" against China, confident in the strength of the US-India strategic partnership. Hubris crept into the Indian mindset, which was indeed a startling sight, altogether new to the millennia-old largely benign Indian civilizational temper.

The Indian leadership paid heed to US and Israeli opposition to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project despite its immense significance for India's energy security, besides holding the potential of realizing a long-lost dream of making Pakistan a real "stakeholder" in good-neighborly relations. In a dramatic illustration of how much Delhi's policies shifted, the Indian security czars took the visiting Israeli army chief in September to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, almost signaling that India was joining hands with the US-Israeli fight against "Islamic terror".
It was a calibrated act of strategic defiance, extraordinary for Delhi's traditionally cautious West Asia policy or power projection in the Arab world. Delhi was showing its thumb's up at the Muslim opinion regarding the US-led war against "Islamic terror". It didn't seem to care how much antagonism was building up against the US's war on Islamic terror or against Israel's state terrorism within Pakistan and in the neighboring regions of the Muslim Middle East.

Israel's influence on the Indian foreign and security establishment peaked. Most important, Delhi overlooked all pressing evidence that the US-led war in Afghanistan was closely linked to the containment strategy towards Russia and Iran (and China) and the eastward advance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into the Asian theater.

In February, when visiting US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates suggested an Indian [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]military[/color][/color] deployment in Afghanistan, it was received with careful attention and empathy. Some Indian analysts argued that this was actually a good thing as it would inevitably lead to the US and India joining hands to cleanse Pakistan's body polity of its Islamic fervor and make it a truly civilized, [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]democratic[/color][/color] country.

Indian illusions shaken up
Then the terrorists struck on the western Indian city of Mumbai, India's financial capital, on November 26. The horrific violence came as a chilling reminder to Delhi that the more things seemed to change in the power equilibrium in South Asia, they have remained much the same as they were through past decades. India quickly sobered up to the realization that its security is ultimately defined by its neighborhood and there is no running away from the hard realities of life.

The past four-week period has also shaken up Indian illusions regarding Washington's regional policies. It is plain to see that the US never really abandoned its "hyphenated" policy towards India and Pakistan as South Asia's two important rival powers, both of which are useful in their own ways for the pursuit of the US's geostrategies.

Within hours of the Mumbai attacks, Rice rushed to Delhi to commiserate. She promised quick action to bring the terror machine to book. She urged Delhi to exercise restraint while she worked on the Pakistani leadership to cooperate with India. She then flew to Pakistan. Two other top US officials followed up Rice's mission in the following weeks. Delhi waited patiently though evidence began to pile by the hour that the terrorists had set out from Pakistani soil in a well-orchestrated operation of high professional skill that would have been possible only with the connivance and support of the security establishment in Islamabad.

Meanwhile, Pakistan, which is vastly experienced in handling Washington's "pressure", began ably working on Rice and the [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]US [COLOR=green ! important]military[/color][/color][/color] and political establishment. By last week, Islamabad seemed to have concluded that the US pressure had all but run its course. Actually, by gently holding out the threat to the US that the Afghan operations would grievously suffer unless Washington restrained Delhi from precipitating any tensions on the India-Pakistan border, Islamabad seems to have neatly pole-vaulted over Rice to appeal straight to the Pentagon, where there is abiding camaraderie towards the Pakistani generals.

The Pakistani generals' calculation proved correct when the Pentagon made it abundantly clear to Delhi that it wouldn't allow the Pakistani generals to be "distracted" at this juncture. Speaking from Camp Eggers in Afghanistan on December 20, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, laid down the ground rules for India. He said the overarching strategy for success in Afghanistan must be regional in focus and include not just Afghanistan, but also Pakistan and India. Continuing in this seemingly innocuous vein, Mullen explained that the three countries must "figure a way" to decrease tensions between them and the "regional strategy" here is aimed at addressing long-term problems that increase instability in the region.

Mullen then referred specifically to Kashmir as a problem where reduction of tensions "allowed the Pakistani leadership ... to focus on the west [border with Afghanistan]". He expressed apprehension that the terror attack in Mumbai might "force the Pak leadership to lose interest in the west", apart from bringing India and Pakistan closer to a nuclear flashpoint. Curiously, Mullen gave credit to the Pakistani top brass for cooperation in the Afghan war, which "has had a positive impact" on the ground.

US hinting at Kashmir mediation
Mullen probably hoped to rattle Delhi by confirming what many American "experts" have been recently suggesting, namely, the US is working on a "regional strategy" in South Asia, which grouped Afghanistan, Pakistan and India together. He virtually corroborated a recent hint by US Senator John Kerry (who is expected to chair the powerful Senate Committee on Foreign Relations) that Obama would be appointing a special envoy for South Asia in an unprecedented move.

Delhi finds such ideas completely unacceptable. Delhi traditionally rejected any outside "third-party" mediation in India-Pakistan disputes. Having said that, successive governments in Delhi tacitly acquiesced with a US mediatory role in India-Pakistan relations in the recent years since the Kargil conflict in 1999. To be sure, Delhi's pragmatism was based on the belief that it wouldn't be a bad idea if the US used its influence on Pakistan to moderate its policies on the range of issues generating India-Pakistan tensions - Pakistani support for cross-border militancy and terrorism, in particular. In other words, Delhi preferred to selectively avail of the US mediatory role in areas where it stood to gain.

But an institutionalized US mediatory mission in South Asia hyphenating Afghanistan, Pakistan and India is an altogether different proposition. It not only linked India and Pakistan but it also held out the danger of constant US meddling in Indian policies. The intriguing thing is why the US has projected its "regional strategy" doctrine at this juncture, knowing fully well that Delhi will find it disagreeable.

One possible explanation is that the US is attempting pressure tactics by appointing a special envoy to discuss Kashmir. Washington has been strongly pitching for a fair share of the multi-billion dollar arms deals that are in the Indian pipeline. A single deal for the procurement of 126 aircraft and related supplies including co-production alone can be worth anywhere up to US$16 billion. The Bush administration hoped to clinch the deal before year-end.

Gates visited Delhi in February with the arms merchants and unabashedly canvassed for awarding the contracts through direct negotiations rather than international tender. But the Indians are sticking to their cumbersome tender procedures which require the US companies to compete with Russia and France and other arms manufacturers.

Not only that, Delhi recently overlooked the Pentagon's sales pitch and awarded a lucrative contract for helicopters to Russia worth $1.3 billion. A leading pro-American newspaper promptly wrote an editorial condemning the Indian government's decision.

Indeed, Mullen's statement rings a warning bell for Delhi. But then, a difficult choice lies ahead for Obama. Will he rake up the Kashmir issue as a pressure tactic? It is certain that Delhi will reject any US attempt to mediate on Kashmir. An extraordinarily high voter turnout in the current election to the provincial legislature in Srinagar vindicates Delhi's stand that there is no need or scope for any outside intervention in the Kashmir issue.

Defying all doomsday predictions and despite the prevailing impression of widespread political alienation among Kashmiris, the voters in the state have affirmed an extraordinary faith in India's democratic process. The voter turnout touched as high as 60% in the election, which has been held in a atmosphere free of violence and coercion. Therefore, Delhi will see no reason to give in to any third party mediation.

Pakistan seizes initiative
Clearly, there are several templates to the terror attacks on Mumbai. No matter who planned and executed the Mumbai attacks from Pakistani soil and with what complicated motives, the recent events have immensely helped the generals in Rawalpindi at this juncture to correct the imbalances they perceived in the US's South Asian policies during the past three to four years, which they regarded to be weighed in [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]India's[/color][/color] favor, despite Pakistan being the key US ally in the "war on terror" and its armed forces having taken a heavy beating with hundreds of casualties.

Also, Islamabad has exposed the fallacy in Indian thinking that it occupies the pride of place as the US's "natural ally" globally, while Pakistan was a mere collaborator in an anti-insurgency war on the Afghan tribal tracts. In turn, the events have also helped Islamabad highlight the complexities of the US-Pakistan relationship, which is far from a client relationship. This comes particularly helpful for Islamabad since there is an air of uncertainty about the policies towards Pakistan under the new administration in [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Washington[/color][/color]. At a minimum, Obama would have noted that the Pakistani generals are no easy pushover. The fact of the matter is that the Rice mission to the region in the wake of the Mumbai attacks brought out the limits to the US's capacity or willingness or both to "pressure" Pakistan.

Significantly, amid all the fracas over the Mumbai attacks and despite repeated Indian calls to isolate Pakistan in the world community as the "epicenter" of terrorism, Washington is quietly putting together a new multi-billion dollar aid package for Pakistan, and CENTCOM is drawing up a new five-year plan committing $300 million assistance annually to the Pakistani [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]military[/color][/color].

Kerry, while on a recent visit to Islamabad, made the commitment to speed up the "mid-life upgradation" of Pakistan's F-16 aircraft capable for delivering nuclear weapons. He said the US considered a "vibrant, strong, economically viable" Pakistan to be "vital for peace and stability in South Asia".

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Islamabad has weathered the US "pressure" over the Mumbai attacks. In Islamabad's estimation, the focus in Washington is turning to the gala inaugural ceremony of Obama on January 20, followed by several weeks during which no major US [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]foreign [COLOR=green ! important]policy[/color][/color][/color]
initiatives need to be expected as the new administration settles in. Thus, Islamabad has shrewdly judged that sooner, rather than later, the international community will begin counseling [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Delhi[/color][/color] to engage Pakistan in a spirit of dialogue.

India running out of options
With Pakistan's recalcitrance and Mullen's veiled threat of reopening the Kashmir file, a sense of frustration is gripping Delhi. Pakistan has ignored India's tough posturing. The faltering Indian security agencies, which have been in a state of appalling decline in recent years, seem to have failed to put together any hard evidence of a Pakistani involvement in the Mumbai attacks.

The Pakistani generals count on Washington to rein in India. And Delhi is fast running out of options. In the spirit of its "strategic partnership" with the US, if Delhi counted on Washington to read the riot act to Islamabad, it is dismayed to see that Washington is more interested in restraining India rather than do any arm-twisting on Pakistan. Rice increasingly looks like an angel beating her wings in vain, while the Pakistani generals have ensured that the imperatives of the Afghan war leave the Pentagon no option but to be supportive.

At the same time, India is heading for a crucial, tightly fought parliamentary election within a few months and the government cannot afford to appear to be weak and rudderless. The majority opinion in the country somehow has convinced itself that the Pakistani security establishment perpetrated the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The government faces potentially damaging criticism in the competitive domestic politics that its US-centric foreign policy has run into a cul-de-sac. The powerful pro-US lobby in Delhi's strategic community and the corporate media already looks confused. The fizz in the US-India strategic partnership is fast vanishing. The much-touted US-India nuclear deal, hailed as a historic achievement of the government, already looks jaded and something of an embarrassment.

Obama's war priorities
Thus, the challenge facing Obama is having to reconcile the almost irreconcilable contradictions in the US's South Asia policy. Surely, his number one priority will be to stave off defeat in the war in Afghanistan. Obama's Afghan strategy is to double the level of US forces in Afghanistan from 32,000 troops at present and to try to arrest and incrementally reverse the Taliban's steady gains in the recent period. Clearly, the US intends to engage the Taliban politically and is no longer averse to accommodating the Taliban in the power structure at some point in the next year or two, but this has to be from a position of strength. No doubt, 2009 is a decisive year of the war.

At the same time, Afghanistan is heading for presidential elections in 2009. Hamid Karzai has stated his intention to seek another five-year mandate. In 2004, the US was in a commanding position and could dictate the course of Afghan politics. But that is not quite the situation today. Even Karzai is showing the gumption to openly mock at the US's Afghan strategy. Asked by the Chicago Tribune last week about Obama's description of Karzai as weak and spending too much time in a bunker, the Afghan president snapped back, "Bunker? We are in a trench, and our allies are with us in the trench. We were on a high hill with a glorious success in 2002 ... We must now look back and find out as to why we are in a trench, or if you'd like to describe it, as a bunker."

Four years ago, it was unthinkable that Karzai would have used such biting sarcasm against the US [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]ambassador[/color][/color] in Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad, let alone Bush. Karzai asked, "Why are we in a bunker?" He then went on to tear the US war strategy to pieces for its mindless and excessive use of force, and concluded, "And if this behavior continues, we will be in a deeper trench than we are in today. And the war against terrorism will end in a disgraceful defeat."

Clearly, in these troubled times ahead, Obama cannot afford to get tough with the Pakistani generals. He will need all his charm to coax them to cooperate for the successful conduct of the war, and they can be a difficult lot indeed as the recent destruction of the NATO's supply convoys amply testify. Besides, Pakistan holds the trump card in any political reconciliation involving the Taliban. Arguably, Pakistan has a crucial say in the election of the next Afghan president as well. After all, the onerous duty falls on Islamabad to orchestrate the participation of over 4 million Afghan refugees who are living in Pakistan in the election process, and these ethnic Pashtuns could be a decisive vote bank in determining who the next Afghan president will be.

Of course, much will also depend on Obama's adherence to the "Great Central Asia strategy", which aims at rolling back Russia, [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Iran[/color][/color] and China's regional influence. If he is genuinely keen to work out a durable Afghan settlement, he will need to take help and cooperation from Russia, Iran and India in putting together a credible inter-Afghan reconciliation. In fact, such an approach - broad-basing the search for an Afghan settlement - will help reduce Obama's dependence on Pakistan. Delhi will welcome such an approach by the Obama administration. But would the cold warriors in Washington allow Obama to opt for a change of course? Unlikely. Indeed, against the backdrop of the Afghan war, there has been a creeping takeover of the US foreign and security policy in South Asia by the generals in the Pentagon who are probably today quite in a position to devour Obama's call for change.

Reality check for India
All this adds up to a harsh reality for Delhi: it might as well abandon any hopes that Obama will turn the screws on the Pakistani generals. On the contrary, the Pakistani generals may have concluded that it is their turn to expect that the US puts pressure on Delhi to behave with restraint. (Of course, there is no guarantee that such terrorist attacks as on Mumbai do not repeat.) The Pakistani generals may not think it sufficient enough if the US restores an even-handed approach to relations with the two South Asian rivals. Conceivably, they may insist on US mediation in India-Pakistan disputes, especially on the Kashmir issue. They will insist that unless Pakistan is free of its threat perceptions on its eastern border, the armed forces will remain far too "distracted" to concentrate on the war in Afghanistan.

That is why, the denouement of the current crisis over the Mumbai terrorist attacks will be of critical importance for India. Delhi is beginning to feel disenchanted by the US role in the crisis. Using unusually tough language, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee hinted that India's patience with Pakistan was wearing thin. Speaking in Delhi on Tuesday, Mukherjee made plain his displeasure with the US mediation in the current crisis. He said, "While we continue to persuade the international community and Pakistan, we are also clear that ultimately it is we who have to deal with this problem. We will take all measures necessary as we deem fit to deal with the situation."

Mukherjee added, "We are not saying this just because we are affected but because we believe that it will be good for the entire civilized world and also for the Pakistani people and society. This terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan is the greatest danger to the peace and security of the entire civilized world."

But all indications are that Pakistan is not impressed by the Indian rhetoric. It seems to think Indian politicians are grandstanding in an election year. But, just in case Delhi may spring a surprise, Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Kiani has warned that the armed forces would give an equal response "within few minutes" if India carried out any surgical military strikes. "The armed forces are fully prepared to meet any eventuality, and the men are ready to sacrifice for their country," he reportedly said.

As Delhi and Islamabad dig in, Obama will have a hard time balancing the US's regional policy. However, one positive outcome will be that the US-India relationship will emerge out of this phase as a more mature process, having shed the false expectations and the rhetorical hype of recent years. A new government will also be assuming office in Delhi by next May and it is bound to take a fresh look at the "strategic partnership" with the US.

It is highly unlikely that any new leadership in Delhi will emulate current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's ardor for India's strategic partnership with the US. India will also have drawn its lessons from the current crisis. The return to an independent foreign policy may become necessary - almost unavoidable. The year 2009 may well prove to be a formative year of readjustment in India's post-Cold War foreign policy.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Turkey[/color][/color]
.

[GRG55]

Re: Indian - Pakistani War?!!!

My guess............Britan & America wish to have a pipeline from Cetral Asia. They need to route in though Afgan & Pakastan. This "War" is to do with that...........I suspect that when Bush went to see the India PM he offered a BIG cut of the action.........If India would send the bulk of the forces required to qwell trouble along the route.

Mike

Mega: I am still laughing. A pipeline for what? Oil? Or natural gas? Going from where and to where?

P.S. They already have their oil pipeline. It's called BTC. There isn't enough oil to fill it. That's the real problem.