NationStates Jolt Archive

This almost slipped under my radar. This is a very important move for the US and India. This means that India may play a possible role in any conflict with China. Very interesting for the Chinese and their military planning. So what do you think having India as a counterbalance to China? Will it work?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9BB040D4-B74D-410A-A379-39DEDA105FF8.htm

Another:

http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=US%2C+India+sign+framework+on+defence&id=75229

That's funny, because India has a "common military hardware development" pact with Russia.

Ballistic ramjet missiles, anyone? Granit rules!!!

Interesting.

Well India and China have already fought so sure it is a nice counter balance.

The Indians have shown themselves to be very capable in a fight several times.

Interesting.....

That's funny, because India has a "common military hardware development" pact with Russia.

Ballistic ramjet missiles, anyone? Granit rules!!!


India has always played both sides of the fence. Not a bad policy if you can keep it sorted out.

That's funny, because India has a "common military hardware development" pact with Russia.

Ballistic ramjet missiles, anyone? Granit rules!!!

Hmm that might be ending soon. ;)

Interesting.

Well India and China have already fought so sure it is a nice counter balance.

The Indians have shown themselves to be very capable in a fight several times.

Interesting.....
China crushed India last time.

China crushed India last time.

I dont think it would work out like that in another go around. India has made some important friends of late.

India has always played both sides of the fence. Not a bad policy if you can keep it sorted out.
Yeah, even though they had Nixon 150% pissed off during the Bengladesh independence war.

I dont think it would work out like that in another go around. India has made some important friends of late.
If US and India were really such lovey dovey super friends than why is the US selling F-16s to their arch enemy Pakistan?

This almost slipped under my radar. This is a very important move for the US and India. This means that India may play a possible role in any conflict with China. Very interesting for the Chinese and their military planning. So what do you think having India as a counterbalance to China? Will it work?


Hmm? What's with all this talk about China? India's pathways to China and such are limited. The China factor is probably a fairly small concern...with the possible exception of the Maoist rebles on India's northern border. The focus of the article, and indeed the main focus of the pact, are at smoothing relations with India over our precived favortism with Pakistan.

It also helps both parties by reaffirming our status as a neutral-friendly partner in their dispute over Kashmir, and providing tacit assurances that we don't see India's "recent" Nuclear ambitions as a threat. Despite the fact that the CIA only found out about it on CNN back under the Clinton administration (to this day I believe this was a regretable missed chance to reform the CIA before it was too late).

India has been ignored for far too long in the wake of 9/11; when we went to Pakistan and increasingly found a leader we could do business with, India gew more and more antsy over our actions, and our attitudes. Before we were buddy-buddy with Pakistan we were entirely inclined to let India have the Kashmir region, but now we are pushing for reconciliation between the two.

This pact will hopefully go a long way in restoring our relations with such a significant regional player.

Anyway it's nothing really new. They use to make wargames with the US from time to time. I remember reading an angry columnist who said: "The US tricks us into playing boom-boom, while they test our toys and take notes. Are we fools? They'll give the notes to Pakistan afterwards."

If US and India were really such lovey dovey super friends than why is the US selling F-16s to their arch enemy Pakistan?


Thats politics and the offer was extended to India as well. As you may already know a weapons system is only as good as the operator. India's AF skill far outweighs Pakistans. Example, Iraq was using mig-29 during gulf wars. The Mig-29 is a topline fighter. But with crappy trained pilots it might as well have been a target drone.

Hmm? What's with all this talk about China? India's pathways to China and such are limited. The China factor is probably a fairly small concern...with the possible exception of the Maoist rebles on India's northern border. The focus of the article, and indeed the main focus of the pact, are at smoothing relations with India over our precived favortism with Pakistan. .


Well I agree. But there is a secondary long term goal. I am of the camp that believes the US and China may be on a collision course to a conflict over Taiwan. India to the south makes the Chinese military planners think. Force dispertition to put India in check will weaken where a possible US counter attack at China would come. Just a chess game really. But I hope China and US never come to blows.

India is the Switzerland of Asia.

India is the Switzerland of Asia.
Well thousands of Indians die in bloody skirmishes every year with Pakistani and Kashmiri militants while Switzerland has been neutral for hundreds of years but sure whatever.

We should be on the side of India, a democratic nation that can counterbalance the junta in Pakistan and fascist China. China and India are in a struggle for economic dominance of Asia and we should be backing the side that holds elections.

We should be on the side of India, a democratic nation that can counterbalance the junta in Pakistan and fascist China. China and India are in a struggle for economic dominance of Asia and we should be backing the side that holds elections.
No no. You support the side that supplies you with cheap, quality goods and has no caste system.

Hmm? What's with all this talk about China? India's pathways to China and such are limited. The China factor is probably a fairly small concern...with the possible exception of the Maoist rebles on India's northern border. The focus of the article, and indeed the main focus of the pact, are at smoothing relations with India over our precived favortism with Pakistan.

It also helps both parties by reaffirming our status as a neutral-friendly partner in their dispute over Kashmir, and providing tacit assurances that we don't see India's "recent" Nuclear ambitions as a threat. Despite the fact that the CIA only found out about it on CNN back under the Clinton administration (to this day I believe this was a regretable missed chance to reform the CIA before it was too late).

India has been ignored for far too long in the wake of 9/11; when we went to Pakistan and increasingly found a leader we could do business with, India gew more and more antsy over our actions, and our attitudes. Before we were buddy-buddy with Pakistan we were entirely inclined to let India have the Kashmir region, but now we are pushing for reconciliation between the two.

This pact will hopefully go a long way in restoring our relations with such a significant regional player.


Nice analysis.

But India can block the Karakoram highway which connects China with Pakistan from Siachen. Also, India can potentially control the shipping routes of oil supply from Middle east to Coastal China.

China is still occupying Aksai Chin (norht eastern kashmir) and has not recognised the McMahon line. After the Pokhran II nuke blasts, the then Indian defence minister George Fernandes said that China is No.1 enemy indicating that the nukes were meant for a deterrence for China instead of Pakistan as it was normally assumed.

Basically India is sort of undecided when it comes to alliance with US or China.

The Pros for US - both are English speaking democracies, both victims of islamic terrorism, much of India's recent economic growth is fuelled by the integration with US economy and US protected global economy.

Cons - bad memories of Nixon's threatening with Seventh fleet at a crucial time, declassified records show that Kissinger promised China that US would come to its help if SU attacks China following Chinese intervention on behalf of the Pakistanis. Also the continued propping up of Pakistani dictators in the form of weapons etc, blind eye to terrorism directed against India as long as it is not directed against US too.

The pros for China - increased trade (trade volume has zoomed from few millions a decade ago to above 10 billions, border settlement (Hu Jintao hinted that in his last visit), peace dividends..

Cons - bad memories of 62 war and its humiliation and occupation of Aksai chin, Tibetan issue, Proliferation of nukes and missiles to Pakistan, thereby preventing any "final solution" , competition for energy resources..


But in the end, I think India will try and get the best out of both and try to preserve an independant foreign policy without being confrontational to either US or China. But when push comes to shove, India will ally with the US rather than China.

No no. You support the side that supplies you with cheap, quality goods and has no caste system.

Your profile says you are from Hong Kong, so please don't take it personally when I say that your government is evil. India abolished the caste system years ago and hasn't replaced it with a 1984-style proletarian underclass. India has had its terrorism scares and national security problems, but the current Indian administration doesn't routinely execute political prisoners or enforce mandatory abortions. The Chinese government is evil and the US is appeasing them to get cheap goods. It's a deal with the devil and the result is that each day these murderers own a larger slice of our economy. Combined with the Saudi investment, there's a lot of blood money invested in our bonds.

This almost slipped under my radar. This is a very important move for the US and India. This means that India may play a possible role in any conflict with China. Very interesting for the Chinese and their military planning. So what do you think having India as a counterbalance to China? Will it work?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9BB040D4-B74D-410A-A379-39DEDA105FF8.htm

Another:

http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=US%2C+India+sign+framework+on+defence&id=75229

Thanks my friend.

Score an another ally in any possible conflict against China. Who says that the US is driving allies away :D

Anyway, this is a great counter balance because India is one of the most populace nations on this planet. This'll help immensely.

If US and India were really such lovey dovey super friends than why is the US selling F-16s to their arch enemy Pakistan?
Because they couldn't sling the ford escorts far enough to convince them they were flying? F-16's are fairly benign comparitively speaking these days.

But India can block the Karakoram highway which connects China with Pakistan from Siachen. Also, India can potentially control the shipping routes of oil supply from Middle east to Coastal China.

China is still occupying Aksai Chin (norht eastern kashmir) and has not recognised the McMahon line. After the Pokhran II nuke blasts, the then Indian defence minister George Fernandes said that China is No.1 enemy indicating that the nukes were meant for a deterrence for China instead of Pakistan as it was normally assumed.

-Snip-

Basically India is sort of undecided when it comes to alliance with US or China.
But in the end, I think India will try and get the best out of both and try to preserve an independant foreign policy without being confrontational to either US or China. But when push comes to shove, India will ally with the US rather than China.

I had heard about that declaration of China being the enemy those nukes were meant for, but the analysis I heard was that such statements were said in the general direction of Pakistan, to ease tensions over Kashmir and Pakistan's own Nuclear ambitions. Kind of a "Oh, not YOU, this is meant for them!" diplomatic shuffle.

As most people would agree, the India-US alliance could really go either way. The problem is that China and India are both very strong "regional" powers with dreams of international power status...and they live right next to each other.

There WILL be more friction, and the tensions between those two powers are more likely to cause trouble than China-US tensions in my opinion. If nothing else because they already have land and regional influences to fight over already. That's why I cautioned against seeing this as an anti-China policy per se; its more of a "We neglected India for too long, and now look like we want China and Pakistan to run things in that region."

I had heard about that declaration of China being the enemy those nukes were meant for, but the analysis I heard was that such statements were said in the general direction of Pakistan, to ease tensions over Kashmir and Pakistan's own Nuclear ambitions. Kind of a "Oh, not YOU, this is meant for them!" diplomatic shuffle.

A major reason was India did not want to get caught in a "Both India and Pakistan should de-nuclearise" game. Hence the public statement by the defence minister the China is the No.1 enemy soon after US slapped sanctions on India.

Tensions over Kashmir will always be there since it is a matter of ideology (secularism Vs communalism).


As most people would agree, the India-US alliance could really go either way.The problem is that China and India are both very strong "regional" powers with dreams of international power status...and they live right next to each other.

There WILL be more friction, and the tensions between those two powers are more likely to cause trouble than China-US tensions in my opinion. If nothing else because they already have land and regional influences to fight over already.


You are correct.

It is really hard to predict which way it's gonna turn. But I have a feeling that India would have to choose one way or another, atleast covertly.

In any three player game, two players always gang up on the third and as the third power in the game , India can very well tip the balance to the side it throws its weight.

So India is increasingly courted by both China and US. The Chinese premier, Hu Jintao in his last visit has hinted at settlement of border issues. Trade with China is booming. But China is still hesitant to endorse India's candidacy for UNSC.

For that matter US is also hesitant to endorse.

A lot of future course of events depends on what happens in the next few months.

But the US has a better chance of courting India. There is a lot of sympathy for US after the 9/11 attacks and also goodwill towards US for the economic prosperity brought in by integration with the American economy.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247
71% of Indians view US favorable.

We are already the largest student group, displacing China and the second highest permanent resident immigrants for this year behind Mexico.

OTOH, India is the only democratic country where communist party exists in its old form. Communists have strongholds in two states and in one state (West Bengal) Commies have ruled unbroken for more than 30 years. The current Govt depends on the leftists and Commies for majority. These commies draw ideology and inspiration from China and Commie journos have a significant present in the media.

So it is touch and go and depends on who will offer what and which side convinces/overwhelms the other (internally in India)

That's why I cautioned against seeing this as an anti-China policy per se; its more of a "We neglected India for too long, and now look like we want China and Pakistan to run things in that region."

LOL. That is how it will be viewed. US-China-India are currently in a zero sum game.

A US/India vr. China conflict would be rather interesting.
I think that, with US naval/air support that India could beat China into a bloody pulp, and Pakistan might not intervene simply because the US is involved. Russia might assist the US, although it might be hard to get enough troops down there to make a differnce.
And of course, if China attacks anybody and it looks like the US starts winning, Japan would join in with ITS navy, which Im told is pretty decent.
Naturaly, our long term strategy would depend on Mongolia[/stupidjoke]


Basicaly, as long as the nukes didnt fly, China would be screwed. If the nukes DID fly, well, everybody would be screwed. Im not too sure about Chinas nuclear arsenal, but I think they have enough to do some serious damage to a few countries.
Assuming that somebody out there has an ABM system somewhere, which seems likely, you could reduce the damage a bit.
Well...thats my semi-random analysis.

@ above.

China has nuke-capable missiles that can hit the western seaboard of US.

The Commie govt is doing nice now as long as the people are content with economic growth and are not demanding political freedom.

As soon as that demand starts (which is bound to happen as people get wealthy), they will have to divert attention. And nothing diverts attention than a dose of nationalist rhetoric and good ol' fashioned invasion.

That's when things will become nasty.

1. KASHMIR is the Switzerland of Asia.

2. My view(from someone who has studied South Asia and has lived there):

This could be good, and it could be bad. As long as Pakistan and India keep getting better relations, this will work out great. Until a war against China.

You see, China and Pakistan are the best of buds. They build tanks together, build highways together, build planes together, build missiles together, build guns together, build n00ks together, build planes together, and they both have a long history of friendship. People in Pakistan always talk fondly of the Chinese(take this from someone who lived there for years). Sure, they're godless heathens, but they're nice godless heathens, who give weapons and moniez to the Pakistanis. The Indians, while most Pakistanis nowadays think of them better than they did before(before they thought of them as satanic devil-worshipers whose sole purpose was to wipe out Pakistan), aren't thought of so highly. So unless China commits massive war crimes or something like that, methinks that Pakistan would support China. Sure, we gave 'em f-16's that were many, many years overdue, but we're a more recent friend.

Then the problems start in this alliance. The Pakistanis will be torn between supporting their long-time ally China, and supporting the U.S.(a more recent, less trusting ally) and India(the long-time arch-nemisis turned relativly kind by cautious neighbor). If Pakistan goes to China, then the War on Terrorism in that area crumbles and dies, and then the sub-continent moves towards Nuclear War. If Pakistan goes to the U.S., the Pakistani people won't be very pleased, China has an easy way to knock out Pakistan(due to the decades of joint-weapons research and the many ways through the mountains the Chinese have built), and then India is seriously disadvantaged.

Let's just hope there isn't a war in the near-future.

@ above.

China has nuke-capable missiles that can hit the western seaboard of US.

The Commie govt is doing nice now as long as the people are content with economic growth and are not demanding political freedom.

As soon as that demand starts (which is bound to happen as people get wealthy), they will have to divert attention. And nothing diverts attention than a dose of nationalist rhetoric and good ol' fashioned invasion.

That's when things will become nasty.
Aye, and thats a bad thing, right? :D
I imagine that they would also take the oppurtunity to hit Japan (if they hadnt worked out some kind of deal), Australia, the Phillipines (<US military bases, I think), and the bits of Europe within range, say goodbye to Moscow, and most likely Russias pacific fleet bases.

Or, perhaps, well get lucky and China will have a revolt of some kind.
Or maybe we'll get REALLY luck and they'll invade North Korea. Well...thats not exactly a GOOD thing, but its better than most of the other options.

Actually there is no telling what could happen in case another Tianenman square-esque protests and demands for political freedoms happen.

There will be the inevitable clampdown, but after that what ?

One thing is for sure, the CPC ain't gonna give up power peacefully.

I would put Taiwan as the first one on the line.

"One China" ;)

they are arab they will fight us some day an stab us in the back just watch :mp5: :sniper:

they are arab they will fight us some day an stab us in the back just watch :mp5: :sniper:

Umm... who is Arab? China?? Pakistan is different. They speak Urdu. India speaks Hindi. The US speaks mostly English and Spanish with a smattering of Chinese. Maybe he's talking about France :eek:

India has always played both sides of the fence. Not a bad policy if you can keep it sorted out.

The US was aligned with Pakistan against India, now they too are playing both sides of the fence.

India/U.S. defense pact?

Works for me...I guess.

Things are getting tricky in Asia though.

Korea... China/Taiwan... China/Pakistan Alliance... U.S./Pakistan "alliance"... U.S./India alliance... Japan/China tensions... Afghanistan... Iraq... Iran...

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia" seems to be winding up for a big bitch-slap.

Parthini']Umm... who is Arab? China?? Pakistan is different. They speak Urdu. India speaks Hindi. The US speaks mostly English and Spanish with a smattering of Chinese. Maybe he's talking about France :eek:
Everybody knows that France is a predominantly Muslim country, they just ACT European.

If US and India were really such lovey dovey super friends than why is the US selling F-16s to their arch enemy Pakistan?
This and that are about economic stability which can only be achived through political stability. This is much the same tactic that the US pursued with Egypt and Israel. Make any war too horrible to fight be making sure everyone is evenly matched. It's not exactly a new idea, one would certainly be able to intuit the idea by reading The Art of War.

Some reason I think this is more to scare Pakistan than China. Since some people think they're hiding Bin Ladin.

I don’t know if this contributes to the conversation, but my best friend is Indian (meaning from India). I once asked him what Indians think of the US. I believe his exact response was, “Indians think the US is heaven.” Just thought I would throw that out there.

Some reason I think this is more to scare Pakistan than China. Since some people think they're hiding Bin Ladin.

Agreed. As to whether they are actually hiding Bin Laden on purpose, I don't know, but my view is that if he is not dead or on the border with Pakistan, he is in Pakistan, maybe living in a community that is highly supportive of him.

China and India signed border deals recently, and China talked of India as a brother. Not that probably means anything.

The EU and Russia also signed a mutal defence deal in May. Against China? Or even America?

Perhaps more of a symbol, to show continuing good relations after the tension over The Ukraine.

Interesting.

I think everyone here is disregarding North Korea far too much. They will ally themselves to China as China would to them if they were ever attacked.
Anti Japan protests in China is perfect for North Korea and in all honesty who do Japan have without the US.

North Korea - definetly no
China - no
South Korea - relations are going down hill over some islands and gas fields in there sea seperating them.
Russia - no, the Russians refuse to negoitate over the Kuril Islands.

IF Japan became involved in some kind of conflict in the area aiding the US all that above would work against the US.

India - Pakistan - China

The US doesn't know who it wants to be friends with but right now Pakistan are pretty important to the US for 2 reason
a) the war on terror
b) a border with Iran which could be useful in the future

This almost slipped under my radar. This is a very important move for the US and India. This means that India may play a possible role in any conflict with China. Very interesting for the Chinese and their military planning. So what do you think having India as a counterbalance to China? Will it work?

<snip>




Thanks for the article, I I've been wondering if this was going to happen. There have been what, maybe three significant joint air excercises with India? Cope 2004 was the last one, I think. I saw that as a significant signal.

A cursory google FYI:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:pq9mwpxtSIAJ:www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/cope-india.htm+air+force+alaska+india&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Rather unprecedented and large-scale excercises. Further googling will yield much more.

Though OT, it was interesting to note that much was made of the Indians success against our F-15's in the Indian excercise, though if you observe closely it was an unfair contest. Indian papers bragged on the US "defeat" and boasted about their new Soviet fighters. A US Congressman made statements that our air superiority is slipping. The US Air Force is trying desperately to get the new F-22 and this bad press works out to their advantage.

Interesting speculation on competition for India - I think India will play coy but eventually choose the US. We're playing the game well.

Perhaps the stakes are bigger than just India and China. Consider the benefit of controlling Eurasia with it's petroleum resources and the access for piplines. Now think about why we need India blocking China.

Aryarvatha kindly started this thread, a great read:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9169347#post9169347

Cooperation has greatly increased, that is for sure.

There was an Indo-US army exercise in the Indian state of Mizoram,06 April 2004.


http://img78.exs.cx/img78/6816/3236442.jpg
(my favorite)

http://img78.exs.cx/img78/4750/3236507.jpg

Before that there was a joint military exercise in the Ladak region in Leh 12 September 2003. India has possibly the best expertise in high altitude warfare, since we are manning Siachen, the world's highest battlefield for more than 20 years now.

http://img78.exs.cx/img78/1531/2511477.jpg

http://img78.exs.cx/img78/9959/2511488.jpg

And then there is this symbolic escorting of American vessels across the Malacca straits.


But still there is a lot of mistrust on both sides given the bad history, particularly from India's POV - the '71 episode with Nixon and the propping up of Pakistani dictators, which many think is still being followed with the continued arming of Musharraf with weapons that will only be used against India. And then the formal acceptane of India in the nuclear club, removal of barriers in high tech transfer etc.

FYI, in another forum I visit, a couple of Americans and Indians are trying to roleplay a bargaining process. The Americans there are mostly of Indian origin, so inputs from native born Americans will be greatly appreciated.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1386&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=200

Though OT, it was interesting to note that much was made of the Indians success against our F-15's in the Indian excercise, though if you observe closely it was an unfair contest. Indian papers bragged on the US "defeat" and boasted about their new Soviet fighters.

In all fairness, the rules of engagement were agreed upon by the American command and the pilots went in confident of a win.

quoting from an article by David A. Fulghum Elmendorf AFB, Alaska

Aviation Week & Space Technology 10/04/2004, page 50

3rd Wing explains what happened when U.S. pilots faced innovative Indian air force tactics
Indian 'Scare'

The losing performance of F-15Cs in simulated air-to-air combat against the Indian air force this year is being perceived by some, both in the U.S. and overseas, as a weakening of American capabilities, and it is generating taunts from within the competitive U.S. fighter community.

The Cope India exercise also seemingly shocked some in Congress and the Pentagon who used the event to renew the call for modernizing the U.S. fighter force with stealthy F/A-22s and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

The reasons for the drubbing have gone largely unexplained and been misunderstood, according to those based here with the 3rd Wing who participated. Two major factors stand out: None of the six 3rd Wing F-15Cs was equipped with the newest long-range, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. These Raytheon APG-63(V)2 radars were designed to find small and stealthy targets. At India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills.

These same U.S. participants say the Indian pilots showed innovation and flexibility in their tactics. They also admit that they came into the exercise underrating the training and tactics of the pilots they faced. Instead of typical Cold War-style, ground-controlled interceptions, the Indians varied aircraft mixes, altitudes and formations. Indian air force planners never reinforced failure or repeated tactics that the U.S. easily repelled. Moreover, the IAF's airborne commanders changed tactics as opportunities arose. Nor did U.S. pilots believe they faced only India's top guns. Instead, they said that at least in some units they faced a mix of experienced and relatively new Indian fighter and strike pilots.

Maj. Mark A. Snowden, the 3rd Wing's chief of air-to-air tactics and a participant in Cope India, spoke for the 13 U.S. pilots who attended the exercise. They flew six F-15Cs, each equipped with a fighter data link for rapid exchange of target information, AIM-9Xs and a Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, he says. The aircraft had been to Singapore for another exercise and for the long, six-week jaunt it was decided not to bring along the additional maintenance package needed to support AESA-equipped F-15Cs.

Cope India was held Feb. 15-28 at Gwalior, about 150 mi. south of Delhi, where the Indian air force has its Tactics Air Combat Development Establishment, which operates late-model MiG-21 Fishbeds as fighter escorts and MiG-27 Floggers as strike aircraft. Aerospace officials who have heard the classified brief on the exercise say the MiG-21s were equipped with a "gray-market" Bison radar and avionics upgrade.

Mica-armed Dassault Mirages 2000s are also stationed there. Brought in for the exercise were Sukhoi Su-30s (but not the newest Su-30 MKIs) carrying simulated AA-11s and AA-12 Adders. There also were five MiG-29 Flankers involved in a peripheral role and an Antonov An-32 Cline as a simulated AWACS.

"The outcome of the exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected," Snowden says. "India had developed its own air tactics somewhat in a vacuum. They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. That was silly.

"They could come up with a game plan, but if it wasn't working they would call an audible and change [tactics in flight]," he says. "They made good decisions about when to bring their strikers in. The MiG-21s would be embedded with a Flogger for integral protection. There was a data link between the Flankers that was used to pass information. [Using all their assets,] they built a very good [radar] picture of what we were doing and were able to make good decisions about when to roll [their aircraft] in and out."

Aerospace industry officials say there's some indication that the MiG-21s also may have been getting a data feed from other airborne radars that gave them improved situational awareness of the airborne picture.

Generally the combat scenario was to have four F-15s flying at any time against about 12 Indian aircraft. While the U.S. pilots normally train to four versus 12, that takes into account at least two of the U.S. aircraft having AESA radar and being able to make the first, beyond-visual-range shots. For the exercise, both sides restricted long-range shots.

"That's what the Indians wanted to do," Snowden says. "That [handicap] really benefits a numerically superior force because you can't whittle away some of their force at long range. They were simulating active missiles [including] AA-12s." This means the missile has its own radar transmitter and doesn't depend on the launch aircraft's radar after launch. With the older AA-10 Alamo, the launching fighter has to keep its target illuminated with radar so the U.S. pilots would know when they were being targeted. But with the AA-12, they didn't know if they had been targeted. The Mirage 2000s carried the active Mica missile. Aerospace industry officials said that some of the radars the U.S. pilots encountered, including that of the Mirage 2000s, exhibited different characteristics than those on standard versions of the aircraft.

Indian planners combined the use of top-line fighters like this Su-30 with older types and impressive, innovative tactics.

The U.S. pilots used no active missiles, and the AIM-120 Amraam capability was limited to a 20-naut.-mi. range while keeping the target illuminated when attacking and 18 naut. mi. when defending, as were all the missiles in the exercise.

"When we saw that they were a more professional air force, we realized that within the constraints of the exercise we were going to have a very difficult time," Snowden says. "In general, it looked like they ran a broad spectrum of tactics and they were adaptive. They would analyze what we were doing and then try something else. They weren't afraid to bring the strikers in high or low. They would move them around so that we could never anticipate from day to day what we were going to see."

By comparison, the U.S. pilots don't think they offered the Indians any surprises. The initial tactic is to run a wall with all four F-15s up front. That plays well when the long-range missiles and AESA radar are in play.

"You know we're there and we're not hiding," Snowden says. "But we didn't have the beyond-visual-range shot or the numerical advantage. Eventually we were just worn down by the numbers. They were very smart about it. Their goal was to get to a target area, engage the target and then withdraw without prolonging the fight. If there were a couple of Eagles still alive away from the target area, they would keep them pinned in, get done with the target and then egress with all their forces.

"All their aircraft seemed to be capable of breaking out [targets] and shooting at the ranges the exercise allowed," he says. "We generally don't train to an active missile threat [like the Mirage's Mica or the AA-12 for the Russian-built aircraft], and that was one of the things that caused us some problems."

USAF planners here see Cope India as the first step in an annual series of exchange exercises.

Parthini']Umm... who is Arab? China?? Pakistan is different. They speak Urdu. India speaks Hindi. The US speaks mostly English and Spanish with a smattering of Chinese. Maybe he's talking about France :eek:

Actually, Hindi and Urdu are almost exactly the same language. Yes, there are differences, but the "Hindi" spoken in the majority of Bollywood movies is exactly the same as "Urdu" spoken in Pakistan. The only difference is the script, and even that can be overcome by using Roman Urdu(basically Urdu with Roman letters).

Actually, Hindi and Urdu are almost exactly the same language. Yes, there are differences, but the "Hindi" spoken in the majority of Bollywood movies is exactly the same as "Urdu" spoken in Pakistan. The only difference is the script, and even that can be overcome by using Roman Urdu(basically Urdu with Roman letters).

You are basically correct.

But "Urdu" speakers and "Hindi" speakers always assert that their languages are different.

Possibly because of Pakistan making Urdu as their national language and India making Hindi as their national language.

LOL, we managed to partition a language. That must be a first. :D

Note that Urdu is a scriptless language and Pakistan uses Arabic script to write. The billboards and stuff you see written in Arabic letters in Pakistan are actually Urdu. Hindi is written in Devanagiri script, a native script.

In all fairness, the rules of engagement were agreed upon by the American command and the pilots went in confident of a win.

quoting from an article by David A. Fulghum Elmendorf AFB, Alaska

Aviation Week & Space Technology 10/04/2004, page 50

Yes, that's the same article I read a few months ago I was going from memory. Yes, the rules were agreed upon.

I wasn't looking at this from a competitive perspective, but rather speculating that both parties objectives were satisfied. That the Indians could publicize with pride their achievement (and it was that) and the US could show a spirit of cooperation and garner additional evidence that F-22's are needed to counter the new Mig's. Basically a great over-simplification of one aspect of the purpose of the excercises, and a bit cynical to boot, but just for fun.

This is what I was thinking of when I spoke of the 'unfairness':

"Aerospace industry officials say there's some indication that the MiG-21s also may have been getting a data feed from other airborne radars that gave them improved situational awareness of the airborne picture.

Generally the combat scenario was to have four F-15s flying at any time against about 12 Indian aircraft. While the U.S. pilots normally train to four versus 12, that takes into account at least two of the U.S. aircraft having AESA radar and being able to make the first, beyond-visual-range shots. For the exercise, both sides restricted long-range shots.

"That's what the Indians wanted to do," Snowden says. "That [handicap] really benefits a numerically superior force because you can't whittle away some of their force at long range..."

By all accounts it was an excellent excercise, as was the one in Alaska, and beneficial to both our airmen.

Aryarvartha, what is your take on the recent agreement between our countries? How significant is it, and what predictions do you have for future relations between our nations? How do you perceive the US relations with Pakistan and their effect on India, and will the sale of modest amounts of F-16's trigger an arms race?

You are basically correct.

But "Urdu" speakers and "Hindi" speakers always assert that their languages are different.

Possibly because of Pakistan making Urdu as their national language and India making Hindi as their national language.

LOL, we managed to partition a language. That must be a first. :D

Note that Urdu is a scriptless language and Pakistan uses Arabic script to write. The billboards and stuff you see written in Arabic letters in Pakistan are actually Urdu. Hindi is written in Devanagiri script, a native script.

*I lived in Pakistan, BTW*

Also, most Urdu users use Nasta'liq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasta%27liq) script: Basically fancy arabic script.

Yes, that's the same article I read a few months ago I was going from memory. Yes, the rules were agreed upon.

I wasn't looking at this from a competitive perspective, but rather speculating that both parties objectives were satisfied. That the Indians could publicize with pride their achievement (and it was that) and the US could show a spirit of cooperation and garner additional evidence that F-22's are needed to counter the new Mig's. Basically a great over-simplification of one aspect of the purpose of the excercises, and a bit cynical to boot, but just for fun.
<snip>

By all accounts it was an excellent excercise, as was the one in Alaska, and beneficial to both our airmen.


That is why I tend not to gloat on that. It was an one-off incident and I am sure in a reversed scenario, USAF would have thrashed IAF. I am looking forward to the next one.


Aryarvartha, what is your take on the recent agreement between our countries? How significant is it, and what predictions do you have for future relations between our nations? How do you perceive the US relations with Pakistan and their effect on India, and will the sale of modest amounts of F-16's trigger an arms race?

This requires a lengthy reply and I am pressed for time now. I will surely reply in the weekend.

Meantime, here is some background info on the Chinese movements for relationship with India.

http://www.ndtv.com/topstories/showtopstory.asp?slug=India%2C+China+to+discuss+boundary+dispute&id=16636
India, China seek to resolve boundary dispute

http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/05/20/2005india-china-cbm.html
Indian, Chinese military to discuss Defence CBMs

http://english.sina.com/china/1/2005/0523/32022.html
Chinese defense chief in India to step up military cooperation

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=70964
Blue-water map for Chinese Army chief

Aryarvartha, what is your take on the recent agreement between our countries? How significant is it, and what predictions do you have for future relations between our nations? How do you perceive the US relations with Pakistan and their effect on India, and will the sale of modest amounts of F-16's trigger an arms race?

Long rant post alert ! Please discontine reading now, if you are not interested in conspiracy theories. :)

Sabbatis,

I cannot answer those questions in a piecemeal manner. So I will start with a long ramble and hopefully I should be able to answer your questions in a manner so that you will understand how I arrived at those answers.

I am sure you must be aware of the bad history of relations between our two countries. It comes as a great surprise to many young Indians (and of course young Americans) , that our countries relationship was mostly bad and cold and even confrontational [the Nixon-Kissinger episode in 1971, where Kissinger encouraged the Chinese (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/) to take the side of Pakistan and assured that US would come to Chinese aid if Soviets intervene in response to Chinese intervention and even in the aftermath of the war (http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1417429,00050001.htm) ].

The surprise is due to the fact that we have SO much in common. We are both multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, secular democracies committed to the ideal of freedom, tolerance and plurality.The Indian constitution closely resembles the principles of the American constitution (http://www.indianembassy.org/indusrel/india_us/nehru_congress_Oct_13_1949.htm) and heavily draws from it since the father of the Indian constitution, Dr B.R.Ambhedkar studied law in the US. (http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/remarkable_columbians/bhimrao_ambedkar.html). Heck we even share the same colonial imperialist , the Brits. :D

We should have been natural allies (http://www.indianembassy.org/inews/2001/summer.pdf) , but instead of that we are bumbling around with "Next Step in Strategic Partnership" and only now have managed to sign a defense pact.

Much of it is due to the way the cold war played out. US was looking for an ally against communism in the 50s. Fresh from colonial brutality, Indian leaders were naturally wary of any alliance. India preferred neutrality , as seen in the Non-Aligned movement. But Pakistan was willing to sell itself as long as its objectives with India were achieved. SEATO and CENTO were signed with Pakistan and American arms flowed into Pakistan. So India had to look elsewhere to modernise out army and Soviets were the only choice. In India's defence, I would say that India was forced into the Soviet camp and even then we never gave any military bases or active support to any Soviet military initiatives.

Thus the relationship started on a VERY wrong foot and continued to be so until the end of cold war, by the end of which, the relationship between the trio of India - US - Pakistan became so complex that there was no easy reversal of policies without upsetting one party or other.

Many in India particularly resent the fact that American arms and the confidence of American backing were the major facts behind the Pakistani belligerence against India.

US supplied Patton tanks to Pak and Pak started Operation Gibraltar (1965 War). US intimidated India with task force 74 to not to continue the war after the fall of Dhaka, else India would have turned attention towards the west Pak theatre and put an end to Pak as we know it.

US gave money and arms to Pakistan during Afghan war, a good portion of which were diverted to kill Indians in the low intensity proxy war (Kashmir jihad). In fact, I firmly believe that the US turned a blind eye to Pakistani efforts in building a nuke, because the US needed Pak to fight their war against the Soviets and US believed that the Paki nukes would only be targetted against India.

I mean, come on, the Paki PM Z.A.Bhutto publicly announces that "We will build a nuclear bomb even if it means we eat grass". That they came close to eating grass is another matter :D . US intelligence folks were crawling all over Pakistan in the 80s. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that US believed that the nukes would be a danger to only India and hence turned a blind eye, until India forced open that eye with the Pokhran II blasts in 1998, which forced Pak to go overtly nuclear.


And then 9/11 happened. Many in India (including me) truly believed that US would now understand what terrorism actually is. I seriously thought that, now they would know our pain. Now they would realise the follies of association with the Pakistani establishment. It is in light of that India offered unconditional and unambivalent support, including military bases (http://www.indianembassy.org/US_Media/2001/sep/washingtonpost_com%20India%20to%20Allow%20U_S_%20to%20Use%20Bases%20for%20Staging%20Ground.htm) , as early as Sep 16 , which is unprecedented since India has never allowed any foreign military to base in India, not even to the Soviets at the heights of Cold war.

For us, the relationship between the paki establishment and 9/11 was very clear. Paki army - ISI - Taliban - AQ - 9/11.

The way we see the whole 9/11 is as follows:

(US money + arms + support) + (Pak logistics support+ men + staging ground) = Afghan Jihad.

It was a perfect meeting of objectives. Pakistan used the infrastructure and money in its own jihad in Kashmir, while US turned a blind eye due to the Paki support in its own war against the Soviets who were the "greater evil".

State support and sanctuary + funds + arms + training + hate literature = Large number of Jihadis

Thus Pakistan and Afghanistan became an active breeding ground for jihadis and islamists of all hue and color and it was only a matter of time before a pan-islamist salafi / wahabi movement was born with the auspices of the KSA funding.

It is a GREAT FAILURE of the US intelligence in not indentifying this movement as a future threat. It was a result of the short-sighted American policy of letting the Pakis take control over the actual mechanism in favor of increased cooperation from them in the Afghan Jihad.

This policy was a disaster for India, since many of these battle hardened Afghan Jihadis were diverted to Kashmir after the Soviet withdrawal. As soon as the Soviets withdrew, US lost interest in the area and left it free for Paki domination who then promptly tried to put in place their "Strategic Depth" policy.

Pakis tried to take over the area by first backing Gulbudin Hekmatyar and when he failed, they invented Taliban which took over the country, barring a small 10% in the north controlled by the Ahmed Shah Masood led Northern Alliance.
Here's an excellent article on the history of Afghan war and the need for a TRC in Afghanistan. (http://www.afgha.com/?af=rc&pa=showpage&pid=213)

Now we come to the actual event of 9/11.

We firmly believe that the Taliban (being created and propped up by ISI (http://www.saag.org/papers4/paper358.html) )could not have done anything without the prior knowledge (or even approval) by the ISI. There is ample evidence that the Pakistani intelligence (and by association, atleast some Paki army chiefs) knew of the attacks (http://www.saag.org/papers11/paper1069.html) , if not actually involved in them. It may be farfetched to Americans who do not follow closely the happenings in the region. Hamid Gul , the ex ISI chief (one of the "founding fathers" of Taliban), has advocated attacks on US on more than one occasion. He is still untouched, meaning the Paki establishment has not and cannot arrest him or detain him. Gul is believed to be OBL's master planner. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040722-051231-9906r.htm)

There are many pointers for my above claims of ISI involvement and prior knowledge to 9/11.

The money trail (http://www.geocities.com/charcha_2000/essays/money_trail.html) points to the fact that Omar Sheikh ( the Daniel Pearl killer ) wire transferred $100 K to Mohd. Atta (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26249) by the orders of the then ISI chief Gen. Mahmud Ahmad. This Gen. Ahmad spent a week in Afghanistan until Sep 9. On Sep 9, the NA leader Ahmed Shah Masood was assassinated by a Suicide bomber pretending to be an interviewer. The bomb was concealed in a TV camera and it must of the type that can evade the checking by Masood's bodyguards, pointing to a sophistication beyond the Taliban, which could have only been provided by the ISI. On Sep 11, the very same Gen. Ahman WAS IN THE USA, and was in the vicinity of the twin towers. Maybe he came to oversee it. :eek: IIRC, the same Gen. Ahmad was sent as envoy to Taliban to hand over OBL and he infact did the opposite, he assured that the American actions would be mild and adviced Taliban not to give up and that Pakistan would back the Taliban.

And it's not like the US intelligence were not aware of Gen. Ahmad. Gen. Ahmad's visit was hosted (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407A.html) by ....get this...the new CIA boss Peter Goss (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-809840,curpg-2.cms)

Pl visit here, for a summary of the involvement (http://www.geocities.com/charcha_2000/essays/TSP911.pdf)

I am very sure that Daniel Pearl was close to a unearthing a lot of "embarassing" evidences relating to this, so he had to be "silenced" in halal fashion (cutting neck with incantations). Omar Sheikh has been arrested but has not been extradited to US despite the extraditions of the seemingly endless # 3s of Al-Quaeda.

I think I have rambled a lot, so let me attempt to get back on topic. :)

In the backdrop of all this, I hope you can now understand the angst and frustration and not to mention the shock when US decided to co-opt Pakistani establishment in its "War on terror". Following the famous phone call from Bush, Musharraf did a U-turn and abandoned the taliban in a famous speech. That is , the speech in English. After that speech, he made a speech in Urdu, in which he likened his alliance as the Prophet Muhammed's (peace be upon him and the rest of us) treaty with the Jews, called the Hudaibiya treaty. What makes this reference interesting is the fact that Mohammed made the treaty when he was in a weaker position and later he broke the treaty and finished off the jews.

The US may think that Musharraf is the only hope, the last savior, but there are no takers for that line of thinking in India. For us Musharraf and the mullahs are two sides of the same coin and as such any propping up of Musharraf is bound to be seen negatively in India.

The only reasoning that I can make is, US still finds the Paki army as useful. I do not buy the "Musharraf fighting against the terrorists" thing. I do not think he is sincere in that. He only pretends to. He has not attempted to touch the Kashmiri specific Jihadi orgs like theJaish-e-Mohammed (http://www.saag.org/papers4/paper376.html) and Lashkar-e-toiba (http://www.saag.org/papers4/paper374.html) , because either he cannot or he does not want to.

You have to understand the playground. The three major types of terrorists, the anti-Indian types focussing on Kashmir (JeM, LeT (http://www.saag.org/papers2/paper175.htm) etc), the sectarian types focusing on anti-Shia operations (SSP, LeJ etc (http://www.saag.org/papers5/paper484.html) ) and the pan islamist types like the Taliban and Al-Quaeda - they all where brought under one umbrella called the IIF by OBL. These orgs now share ideology, men, material and money and it is very difficult to clear one type without clearing the other.

It is very clear that he is only pretending to be this ally that the US state dept makes him out by repeating this "Frontline ally" line ad nauseum. Nobody of any significance have been caught in this striptease (http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1103.html) except the perpetual supply of #3s.

It is not likely that the higher ups in the Bush administration do not know of the Pakistani connection and Musharraf's duplicity (you know the whole "CIA did 9/11" conspiracy). The only logical conclusion that I can come to is that the neo-con agenda took over and saw 9/11 as an opportunity to push its agenda as seen in this article here (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GF30Dj01.html) . For this the Pakistani cooperation is vital and Musharraf has successfully sold himself to the US that he would ensure this cooperation for the price of his continued existence as the President of Pakistan.

Once this is understood, everthing else falls in place. The continued propping of Pakistan by declaring them "Major Non-Nato Ally", cancelling or rescheduling their debts, the drama of Abdul Qadeer Khan's nuke walmart saga and the clean chit given by the US that only AQK was involved in this and not the higher ups in the Paki establishment. I mean , come on, the guy was selling centrifuges to Libya and Iran and visited North Korea for dozen times in Pakistani airplanes, and this was going on for more than a decade. Everybody was in the know, including the CIA. Visit here (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=8&sid=35a14680cefb4522cdf18d7d9c0d3996) for an archive of the nuke proliferation activities by Pakistan.

And then the actions of the US following India mobilising troops for a war with Pakistan, following the attacks by Pakistani terrorists on the Indian Parliament on 12/13/2001. (http://www.indianembassy.org/new/parliament_dec_13_01.htm) Indian leaders made noises that they want to settle the matter once and for all, nukes or no nukes. However, US intervened and issued travel warnings and there is speculation that US gave satellite imagery of Indian troop positions to Pakistan. It should be noted here that in a televised wargame in BBC, ex-CIA Milt Bearden , acting on behalf of US govt, made a decision to bomb the Indian troops advancing in Pakistan in a scenario where India was retaliating against a Paki sponsored terrorist attack on India. Many in India believe that without US active interference favoring Pakistan, India would have gone to war with Pakistan (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear-india-pakistan-01a.html) , nukes or no nukes.

The USA's continued reluctance to act against Pakistan , inspite of evidence that this reluctance is hurting the US itself (http://www.saag.org/papers15/paper1420.html) and not allowing India to act against Pakistan and make it pay a prohibitive price for helping the jihadi terrorists totally frustrated us. Encouraged by this US reluctance, Musharraf continues to keep the jihadi orgs alive and active in the hope of using them to regain the lost Pakistani influence in Afghanistan and achieve his objective of forcing a change in the status quo in Kashmir.

This was primarily the reason why India decided to strengthen (http://meaindia.nic.in/treatiesagreement/2003/btjan25.htm) its partnership with Iran much to the alarm of Pakistan (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-1-2003_pg3_1) (and the irritation of US) indicating that if US plays the game of courting a regime which is a terrorist regime according to India, then India too can court a regime which is a terrorist regime according to US. :D

I think this willingness of India to be defiant in engaging with Iran (a definite NO NO for US ), to protect its national interests, changed a lot of thinking.

What if India, frustrated by the US, decides to take it further and engage with China instead of waiting hoplessly for the US to understand India's strategic dangers posed by Pakistan ?

As the #3 power in the US - China - India chain of order, India can very well tip the balance in the favor of a possible India / China duo or an Indo/China/Ruskie trio (http://english.people.com.cn/200506/02/eng20050602_188087.html) . And China is not shy in making overtures to India, they have already made many moves indicating their willingness to cooperate, including settling of the border issue, telling Pakistan that Kashmir could only be settled by bilateral talks (meaning, don't count on us to help militarily) and defence CBMs, increased cooperation, increased trade among many such things.

Since India sees itself as the wronged party (considering the relations in the past), it feels that it is the US (also being the bigger power) which has to dispell the mistrusts and take the initiative in any partnership.

In this context, the defence pact is a VERY significant step in the right direction. I can see some attempts being made to assuage India's feelings about being wronged. See the timely release of the classified documents of Nixon and Kissinger and Kissinger apologising (http://www.hindustantimes.com/2005/Jul/01/181_1417541,00050001.htm) for his remarks that Indira Gandhi is a Bitch and Bush , on cue , praising Indira Gandhi (http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=73623) .

I see that as a significant step, US govt admitting the past and assuaging our feelings on that. Like I said at the beginning of the post, we see ourselves as "natural allies" of the US and we have no love lost for the Commie Chinese who we see as backstabbing us in 1962 after Nehru and Zhou en Lai agreed on Panch-sheel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Principles_of_Peaceful_Coexistence) ( a proposal of peaceful coexistence and non-aggression ) and the Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kashmir_disputed_2002.jpg) (eastern kashmir) . We firmly believe that the nukes and missiles of Pakistan are of Chinese origin and we see the Commies as hegemonistic and ruthless due to their actions in Tibet.

As such, India would be willing to be a strategic partner if the US makes the right moves, but India would not be a partner like the UK, since we will never give up our principle of favoring a multi-polar world. But neglecting India, will surely push India towards an Indo-China bloc which would be disasterous for American interests, since our combined population is 1/3 world population and if current trends continue, China and India will soon become the 2nd and 3rd largest economies with a combined economy outstripping even the US. Military strength will follow the economic strength and Indo-China bloc will be a very formidable bloc, sucking in all the lesser powers in the area like Iran etc.

So it is upto the US to make the right moves and court India by dissuading Pak from any misadventures and open up the barriers in tech transfer and enhance cooperation in all fields. Although the economy is picking up, India still has around 25% of population (that's 250 MILLION ) below the poverty line and any US help in alleviating poverty will be seen as a great help.

Reg, the F-16s, I think India was consulted before making the announcements, because the Indian administration was not making much noise on the sale and this is another indicator that progress is indeed made in our relationship.

NO, the F-16s in itself would not cause any arms race, because the arms race is over and Pakistan is in no position to engage in any race. They have resorted to dangling Al-Quaeda #3s for weapons now.

I hope you would have a better understanding of the situation and if you have any further questions, pl feel free to shoot. :D

Here's Fmr Amby to India, Blackwell's take. (http://www.nationalinterest.org/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=1ABA92EFCD8348688A4EBEB3D69D33EF&tier=4&id=9EA0A265EC604928ADC70093025778D1)

Ashley Tellis have captured the essence here

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20050711&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=1&pn=1

India, Big Time
In a bold new policy report, US defence and nuclear expert Ashley J. Tellis says the only option for the Bush administration is to consider India an Asian superpower

What The Carnegie Report Says
The United States must align with India because...

By 2015, it will have the fourth most capable concentration of power
It will be among the five major economies in 25-50 years
Can be a counterfoil to China
Can stabilise the region littered with failing states

To align with India, the United States must...

Help India's power to grow to prevent China's dominance
End the illusory idea of military balance between India and Pakistan
Endorse India's membership in the UN Security Council, G-8, APEC, International Energy Agency
Remove objections to the Iran-India gas pipeline
Allow sale of dual-use tec

Full document here

http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/109/Tel061405.pdf

some excerpts
Given these judgments, I believe the United States should pursue the following grand
strategic objectives towards India and Pakistan.
• Vis-à-vis India, the United States should aim to rapidly complete the transformation in U.S.-Indian relations that has been underway since the final years of the Clinton Administration, and which received dramatic substantive impetus in the first term of President George W. Bush, in order to permanently entrench India in the ranks of America’s friends and allies. With the changes that have occurred both globally and in India since the end of the Cold War, a close bilateral relationship that is based on the strong congruence of interests, values, and inter-societal ties, is in fact possible for
the first time in the history of the two countries.

• Vis-à-vis Pakistan, the United States should aim to assist Islamabad to achieve a “soft landing” ;) that reverses the still disturbing political, economic, social, and ideological trends and enable Pakistan to transform itself into a successful and moderate state. Because of the immensity of the problems facing that country, and because these difficulties are often viciously reinforcing, the Administration ought not to expect that Pakistan will be able to overcome all obstacles entirely by the end of President Bush’s current term. Consequently, U.S. objectives would be satisfied if Pakistan makes sufficient progress so that the trend lines with respect to good governance, stable macro-economic management, investments in human capital, foreign and strategic policy behaviors, and ideological orientation, are both positive and durable.


Many of the dilemmas arising from this intended sale would be
attenuated if General Musharraf were to:
• Demonstrate the same willingness to apprehend the Taliban leadership and cadres (who are currently engaged in hostile operations against American forces and the Karzai regime) that he has displayed in the combined U.S.-Pakistan interdiction of Al Qaeda remnants.

• Demonstrate a serious commitment to the peace process with India by actually shutting down the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan and by terminating infiltration of terrorist groups supported and sustained by Pakistan’s intelligence services across the Line of Control in Kashmir (an activity that has still not ceased, and may have even increased recently, despite Musharraf’s repeated public and private commitments to Washington and New Delhi).

All told, then, India`s emergence as a great power that dominates the South Asian and Indian Ocean regions, is now only a matter of time. A strong U.S.-Indian relationship, characterized by robust bilateral cooperation in regards to preserving regional and global order, is emphatically in the interest of both India and the United States. Given India`s large size, proud history, and great ambitions, however, it would be unrealistic to expect that New Delhi would become a formal alliance partner of Washington, even if the current improvement in U.S.-Indian relations were successfully consummated. Rather, India will likely march to the beat of its own drummer, at least most of the time. I believe that a strong and independent India nevertheless represents a strategic asset to the United States, even when it remains only a partner and not a formal ally. I think that the administration has reached a similar conclusion correctly in my judgment in its March 25, 2005 statement about assisting the rise of Indian power. This appraisal is rooted in the assessment that there are no intrinsic conflicts of interest between India and the United States and, consequently, transformed ties that enhance the prospect for consistent even if only tacit ``strategic coordination`` between Washington and New Delhi serve American interests just as well as any recognized alliance.

The above para is an excellent read on the aspirations of India and Ashley Tellis has captured it succintly in a way I could never express. :D

here's a comical piece of Indian commies making the usual noises

http://www.hindu.com/2005/07/03/stories/2005070304340800.htm
NEW DELHI: The Communist Party of India (Marxist), which had objected to the framework agreement on the U.S.-India defence relationship, has said that the United Progressive Alliance Government had taken a major step in tying up with the United States to serve the its strategic goals in Asia.

"If this agreement is carried forward, India will be placing itself in the same category as Japan, South Korea and Philippines — all traditional military allies of the U.S. ," the CPI(M) Polit Bureau said in a statement.

"It is unfortunate that the Indian Government does not view security issues in Asia as those which can be discussed and resolved among the Asian countries, but seeks to advance U.S. interests in the region ," the party said.

Aryavartha: As a person who has lived in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and knows all sides of the story, I can firmly say that your post is the usual Indian: "P4kistan r t3h 3v1lz0rz and r t3h w34k."

...else India would have turned attention towards the west Pak theatre and put an end to Pak as we know it.

"Put and end to Pak as we know it?" Good god(s) man, I thought you knew your own brother/sister country better than that(and it IS your brother/sister country. It's like the whiney little sibling with a powerful friend and a surprisingly large punch for someone their age). Sure, you could beat Pakistan in Bengal(it wasn't their real home, the Bengalis all despised the Pakistanis after they killed 3 million of their people), but a full-fledged Invasion of Pakistan? Man, that would have been marching an army into a country of nearly 100 million(at that time) stout patriots who were all brought together by their love of the state, their love of religion, and their united cause to beat India. You could never advance too far into Pakistan(with the exception of into the Thar Desert), and vice versa. It would boil down into a bloody war of attrition, where no one would win and everyone would loose.

...And then the actions of the US following India mobilising troops for a war with Pakistan, following the attacks by Pakistani terrorists on the Indian Parliament on 12/13/2001. Indian leaders made noises that they want to settle the matter once and for all, nukes or no nukes. However, US intervened and issued travel warnings and there is speculation that US gave satellite imagery of Indian troop positions to Pakistan. It should be noted here that in a televised wargame in BBC, ex-CIA Milt Bearden , acting on behalf of US govt, made a decision to bomb the Indian troops advancing in Pakistan in a scenario where India was retaliating against a Paki sponsored terrorist attack on India. Many in India believe that without US active interference favoring Pakistan, India would have gone to war with Pakistan , nukes or no nukes.

Again, are you insane? Even Vajpayee (being the anti-muslim fanatic that he is) wouldn't have started a Nuclear war against Pakistan. He would have known that such a move would have lead to the end of Pakistan AND India(and we all know it would have degraded into Nuclear war). It was most likely a gamble(a risky one at that) to force the Pakistani's to back down, and to most likely use the Parliament attack to their political advantage. As history has shown, Vajpayee's agreesiveness may have averted a war, but it cost him politically(thank goodness, to tell the truth. At least Congress party doesn't support the destruction of Mosques by angry mobs just because of a rumor/urban legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Mosque).)

However, methinks we should look at the recent good. Pakistani-Indian relations are at their highest, well, ever! Hopefully, by the 2010's, people won't be talking about how Pakistan and India are going to go to war, but about some new Pakistan-India Cricket game, or some new trade agreement, or something positive. I don't think India Bashing or Pakistan Bashing(which I see all too much in threads on this subject and in real-life) is the way forward. If South Asia were to become more united instead of divided, the entire region would get an economic boom(Pakistan and India both have the potentional to be economic powerhouses, as India's recent success has shown. Now if only we can convince both nations to spend less on preparing to blow eachothers brains out and more on improving their economies).

Hi Lightning star,

"put an end to Pak as we know it" - the operative word is "as we know it".

I only know Pakistan as a belligerent state which still patronises (or atleast tolerates, nobody can deny that) terrorist orgs aimed at India. I meant, India would have put an end to that Pakistan. Not to the Pakistani state itself. I do not subscribe to the "Pakistan should be annexed" nonsense, if that is the meaning I conveyed, then I am sorry and I should have worded it better.

And as long as the US tolerates this behavior of Pakistan, there can be no real meaningful partnership.

Again, are you insane? Even Vajpayee wouldn't have started a Nuclear war against Pakistan.

I dunno abt Vajpayee's character, but India was very close to war. Operation Parakram was geared towards an actual war and was not an exercise. We were willing to risk it out. Nukes or not. That was the impression we wanted to convey. Only after Musharraf made a televised speech in which he promised he would "no longer allow Pakistani soil to be used for terrorism against India" did India back down. I am sure that without American interventions and Musharraf's assurances that Pakistan will "behave", there would have been a war.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jan/02ashok.htm
How close was India to taking punitive military action against Pakistan?

On the very brink and twice. Once, in the first flush of deployment around January 7, 2002 when Pakistani troops were still off balance. But General Musharraf's January 12 speech of partial compliance resulted in the postponement of D-Day. The US played a key role in getting more time for Musharraf. Infiltration dropped noticeably. Then Kaluchak happened in May and a new D-Day was selected -- 15 June.

At US prodding Musharraf made his May 27 speech reaffirming compliance. Once again operational plans were deferred. But now the window for war had also closed


Gen. Padmanabhan's remarks
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jan/11army.htm

A pissed off Gen.Padmanabhan took it out in his fictional book "India The Writing on the Wall — India Checkmates America 2017" in which he wrote of India and US going to war.. :D

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/feb/03paddy.htm
General Padmanabhan's tenure as Chief of the Army Staff was marked by the conduct of Operation Parakram involving mobilizing the army along the border with Pakistan.

During the operation, India was on the verge of going to war with Pakistan in 2002.

He denied India was daunted by Pakistan's nuclear threats. It was American pressure, in the form of a visit by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, which spiked India's war plans.



Frankly, I do think that India would have actually gone ahead with the war, and we certainly wanted to create the impression that we too could act mad and dare it all . It was very touch and go and the US reaction after the mobilisation of army was very hostile.

This time gap between giving order to the army and actual battle readiness is what caused India to start the "Cold start" doctrine, where integrated battle groups can be deployed across enemy territory in short notice, without allowing time for international powers (meaning the US) to intervene or pressurise.

PS: You are wrong in Congress party not supporting the destruction of Babri building. PV Narasimha Rao chose not to act when he very well could have prevented it. And it is not a mosque since no azan or prayer was being done there.