To Deploy Or Not To In Afghanistan

There is a surprising revival of the idea of deploying Indian troops into Afghanistan to apparently help Afghans fight Islamic terrorists along side with US (and NATO) troops. It's a revival because former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee considered the issue when US was planning to invade Afghanistan, then under Taliban and al Qaeda control, post-9/11, and thought otherwise.

So what changed to make the revival possible with the situation in Afghanistan actually deteriorating, not improving. The only change seems to be change in US leadership, from Bush to Obama. It's strange that we would consider deployment of troops in Afghanistan to help Obama, even as Obama himself hasn't done much to improve relationship between US and India. Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, ignored coming to India during her Asia trip. Obama has again provided aid and comfort to Pakistan despite India's misgivings. There were no significant agreements during recent PM Manmohan Singh visit to US - no finalization of Nuclear Agreement, no anti-terror cooperation agreement, or no hi-tech transfer agreement. Beyond Obama having first state dinner of US for Manmohan, nothing of substance happened between the countries, since the change of guard in US. So the reconsideration of deployment of Indian troops to Afghanistan is surprising.

We commented on Nitin's Acorn blog as to why the idea of troop deployment in land locked Afghanistan is not a great idea unless the deployment on a semi-permanent, meaning on 10-20 year, basis. (Nitin twitted recently that there is wide agreement in India's strategic circle that India needs to deploy troops in Afghanistan!)

And then we will be dependent on US and more importantly, Iran, for deployment. What if one pulls out or other vetoes – do we still stay there or did we waste blood and treasure for nothing?

Given the state of our economic development, our people will simply not fund a semi-permanent force...

Unless Pakistan cleans up its own act, India’s best options are (a) covert ops in Afghanistan (and in Pakistan), and (b) hope for the state of Pakistan to collapse enabling US to it clean up, with our active help. But the latter won’t happen as long as US keeps providing the state of Pakistan with aid and comfort.

We are better off fighting the Islamic terrorists in Pakistan, by going from the eastern border of Pakistan, with US deployment in Afghanistan guarding the eastern Afghan border and Iran guarding its eastern border. That's the only way to squeeze the terrorists, and their infrastructure, in Pakistan. Any other action will be a fight of attrition and will take a long time - one or two decades - and will end in a stalemate, unless Pakistan acts to clean up its act.

The more fascinating question to us is why is there a revival of the debate about troop deployment in Afghanistan. Who started it and why, when nothing changed in India itself?

As Much An Anti-Indian as Anti-Taliban?

US latest iteration of war in Afghanistan effort is being unrolled with lot of confusion as to what the goal will be, how many more troops will be sent, and how quickly US will leave Afghan. Manmohan Singh was just in DC with nothing to show for publicly for his long travel - no deals were signed, no promises about next steps made - nothing was achieved. B. Raman explains the lack of substance of this trip dismantling Manmohan Singh's media spin maestros on trip - nothing on counter terror partnership, nothing on wrapping up the nuclear deal, and nothing on economic issues. One wonder if Manmohan traveled half way across the globe just to attend the first state dinner of Obama - apparently the prawns served during dinner are an indication of the strong and stable strategic relationship.

How this relationship between US and India can be strategic partnership is a mystery. One hopes there were substantial talks on China and Pakistan. But there is no indication that Manmohan Singh pressed Obama on any issues related to China that we identified in our earlier post. On Pakistan, US seem to be sliding backwards from seriously understanding issues impacting us - sliding back to 80s, in fact, when Pakistan made demands and US obliged with serious implication to India's and world's security decades later.

Soon after Manmohan left D.C., reports of a secret offer by Obama to Pakistan, given about a month ago, to expand US patronage of Pakistan came to light. Obama offers more military and economic aid and support, meaning bribe, to apparently make Pakistan fight terrorists, with an 'or else' warning that US may take matters into its own hands.

President Obama has offered Pakistan an expanded strategic partnership, including additional military and economic cooperation, while warning with unusual bluntness that its use of insurgent groups to pursue policy goals "cannot continue."

The offer, including an effort to help reduce tensions between Pakistan and India, was contained in a two-page letter delivered to President Asif Ali Zardari this month by Obama national security adviser James L. Jones. It was accompanied by assurances from Jones that the United States will increase its military and civilian efforts in Afghanistan and that it plans no early withdrawal.

It is like watching a really bad movie being repeated again, but with real consequences to the security and well being of India (and Afghanistan.) Pakistan is very good at playing this game. It just got $6.5billion in aid with conditions that don't amount to much. Pakistan's president was reported to have to formally given the power over nuclear weapons to its prime minister, who is backed by Pakistan military, meaning, the president's formal powers are diminished significantly.

As if this bad movie repeating was not enough, Obama's Afghanistan plan seems to specifically aim to assuage Pakistan interests rather than actually fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. Obama's plan includes a surge of troops, followed by withdrawal of most troops, but continued long term presence in Afghanistan. The plan to stay in Afghanistan on a long term basis, it seems, has nothing to do with fighting the Taliban but to guarantee Pakistan's rite over Afghanistan policy to the determent of India.

Officials of one allied nation who have been extensively briefed on the president’s plan said, however, that Mr. Obama would describe how the American presence would be ratcheted back after the buildup, while making clear that a significant American presence in Afghanistan would remain for a long while. That is designed in part to signal to Pakistan that the United States will not abandon the region and to allay Pakistani fears that India will fill the vacuum created as America pulls back.

Did Obama brief Manmohan Singh on this specific issue? Did Obama provide contours of his Afghanistan war plans to Manmohan Singh during the his "first state dinner" visit? If so, what was Manmohan's response to the plans? If not, what is the nature of US-India relationship? It surely is not a strategic relationship - it doesn't even seem to be a rather friendly relationship.

Obama's Afghanistan war strategy seems to as much an anti-India strategy as an anti-Taliban strategy. India's military and intelligence better plan ahead of this US strategy to strengthen itself in Afghanistan and prepare for the blow back a decade or two from this rather recycled fallacious US policy, learning from American previous missteps.

Critical US Visit of Manmohan Singh

The recent peak of India-US relationship was when during Bush's visit to India, he and Manmohan Singh were discussing the nuclear agreement with a group people and in response to a comment by AEC chief Anil Kakodkar he said something to the effect that as long as we can keep you happy to get (the nuclear) deal done. Meaning, he didn't want minor issues blocking progress of India-US relationship. The key driver to India's improving relationship with US was president Bush himself. Now the relationship is at critical tipping point. On the one hand, it could continue on the high trajectory and make US and India close strategic partners or it could start drifting sideways at the current level of engagement - excellent trade and commerce with some military to military contacts with occasional political interaction with no significant substance. Increasing, the later is becoming a high probability scenario with the former becoming a lower probable.

I was dismayed to see Manmohan's Singh interview with an US journalist - there was no substance at all to the current visit.

I also think that India and the United States could be partners in refocusing our attention on an equitable, balanced global order. 

What does that mean?

We would like to strengthen energy cooperation with the United States -- [in] clean coal technology and in renewable energy resources. Similarly, there is concern for food security. We would like to have a second Green Revolution in our country -- therefore, cooperation in the field of agriculture, in science and technology, in health, and in dealing with pandemics.

It's typical small country talk with no case for enhanced strategic relationship. While, usually, India is not an agenda setter - it takes agenda given to it during multilateral forums - the utter lack of new agenda for this trip is disheartening. The nuclear issue was put on the top of US-India relationship agenda by Atal B. Vajpayee when George Bush was open for strengthening the relationship between the two countries. Manmohan Singh carried forward Vajpayee's agenda, but he has no new agenda of his own. And it's not like there is nothing going on around India that doesn't involve US.

For starters, India needs to understand the evolution of relationship between US and China. Is what China aggressive behavior towards India's entire border area, and how it impacts US relationship, on the agenda? Who would US support in diplomatic and strategic battles? Why did US say China had a role in India-Pakistan relationship when Obama was in Beijing recently, even as Chinese themselves said nothing about it?

There are increasing calls in US that somehow US should settle the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, presumably, favouring Pakistan so that it can take up US fight against Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  This scenario is not inconceivable as Obama is having second thoughts about Afghanistan war being the good war. A quick way for US to exit this region would be to go back to the 1950s, when Pakistan was the sole pillar of US, and British, strategic interests in the subcontinent. While India will never be a vassal state of US, Pakistan can play the role very well, as long J&K can be settled favourably towards Pakistan - the favour that can milked by US for another 50 years.

It makes even more sense, if US thought working with China is in its long term economic interests as US becomes more focused on economic issues, towards becoming a Europe-lite. The current US political leadership is internal looking and clearly would be happy to concede strategic ground to China in return for economic benefits. China is already US financier. US economic growth prospects would improve if it aligns with China - an economy that is vastly bigger than India's and will continue to be so throughout the current century.

Aligning with China and Pakistan makes eminent sense to US, especially for the current US left leaning leadership. I have argued in the past that the India-US relationship was primarily driven by George Bush. Changing the course of relationship of the two countries from Bush's era will not be difficult. That's why the current trip by Manmohan Singh is so crucial to US-India relationship and India's future. Will Manmohan Singh put India's future on the top of the agenda and get US leadership see our way or will he accept the agenda set by US, again, and realize the impact of US potential realignment too late, boxing India into a unfavourable strategic future?

Clinton's Nuclear Sites

Few days ago we weren't sure what role Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, would have when it comes to future India-US relationship. We proposed it would be restricted to trade issues.

And with all generals from Pacific command and heads of CIA making their presence in Delhi, Hillary Clinton presumably cares only about trade and people-to-people issues.

It seems we made the right call. Now things are coming into more focus. With Gen. James Jones, US NSA, visit talking exclusively about terrorism and Afghan-Paki region with Bharatiya establishment, Hillary Clinton apparently will be talking about where the nuclear power plants will be built by US companies, meaning trade and commerce issues. Smt. Clinton seems to be scoring with the WTO deal few weeks ago, when Anand Sharma gave up what Kamal Nath fought for for years, and now this.

India is likely to announce locations for two nuclear power plants, which would be made available to the American companies, during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to New Delhi next month, a top Obama Administration has said.

Who in US establishment would Bharat engage to talk about China, when China is becoming openly aggresive, and about other areas of concern? Are those issues even on the menu?

Missing Word is Strategic

It's hard to know how much influence current US Secretary of State has on US president. Even if one ignores the election battle they went through, Sri Obama has an alternative point man for Afghan-Paki, and presumably for India, region for all security and terror related issues. And with all generals from Pacific command and heads of CIA making their presence in Delhi, Hillary Clinton presumably cares only about trade and people-to-people issues.

Bibek Debroy says one reason why Kamal Nath was not re-appointed commerce minister was because he gave US trade representative hell when negotiating the next round of WTO agreement - meaning, he was fighting for India's cause. Apparently the new commerce minister, Anand Sharma, already obliged his US counter part by making concessions. This implies Clinton apparently already influenced Indian PM decision making.

Hillary Clinton, it seems, has more influence in New Delhi than in Washington. So her speech at USIBC, the text of which I could not find on USIBC site, may not be a comprehensive take on relations between India and US.

However, putting the speech next to her take on the future path of US-China and US-Russian relationships makes us wonder where India falls in the scheme of things in Washington. References to 'Upgrade of Relationship' and 'Version 3.0' in her speech are fine but beyond commerce and trade, there is nothing substantive in her speech that indicates a new level of relationship. More than what was said, we find what was unsaid more interesting.

Ms. Clinton said while pursuing an "enhanced bilateral partnership" the two countries should recognise that their official ties "are past due for an upgrade" as compared to other metrics of cooperation. "We need bilateral cooperation between our governments to catch up with our people-to-people and economic ties".

If Bush administration's "strategic partnership" was version 2.0, we think "enhanced bilateral partnership" is a downgrade to the relationship that existed during the last the few years of Bush years. This may, quite possibly, be an indication of Clinton's influence in Obama's government. There will be more clarity when Obama himself has something significant to say about the relationship. For now, the trajectory of the relationship seems to be pointing downwards.

Back to Old Script, And the Movie Replays

One thing to understand is US doesn't care about any nation other than US. Even if it does, it has to matter to US at least in a secondary way.

So US Secretary of State Condi Rice makes her way to India to pacify the already pacifist Nandi prime minister Manmohan. A day before, the recent presidential candidate John McCain stopped by New Delhi, because he was in Bangladesh on an unrelated matter, to pacify the establishment, "India and Paki are in this together," he says - whatever that means.

Also Shiv Shanker Menon, Foreign secretary, is in US to talk to the new US president Obama and his team, and get access to better intelligence that NSA and CIA may have. I am almost positive he's getting the run around in Washington, because evidence that US provides to India will only bolster India's case, which the Americans do not want to do. Because they have a different, and to them - a more important role, for Pakistan. The Americans cannot have Pakistan stop doing what ever little they are doing on the western border fighting the Taliban and al qaeda types.

Reading the tea leaves, Pakistan PM Zardari backs off from any encouraging statements he made earlier of sending ISI chief to Delhi to answer questions or of joint investigation, and goes back to an old Pakistani script.

Zadari also suggested no one found to be involved would be turned over to India.

"If we had the proof, we would try them in our courts, we would try them in our land and we would sentence them," he said.

So India falls for the Americans again, looking for its approval in doing things it should be doing on its own.

It's an old movie which keeps on playing.

Israelies Will Avenge Before Us

Even If We Ever....

Even as Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon flies to US to get Obama on our side, and make him get over his silliness of handing over J&K to Pakistan as appeasement (and apparently appointing Bill Clinton - the idiot who didn't do anything about Islamic terror when he was president) and get some help from NSA signal intel to get intel on those satellite telephone conversions going on during the terror and destruction between the terror masters in the Papistan and lunatic Islamic terror perpetrators, the outgoing US Secretary of State Condi Rice will visit Delhi to apparently cool India off from what ever little heat it now emits.

One has to understand that US doesn't care about any country's national security other than its own. If and when it does care, it has to be related directly to its own national security. So even if Sri Menon has Obama's ear, don't expect the new president come to our side. Afghanistan is his problem and he'll do what ever it takes to deal with it - irrespective of what we want him to do. Sure they may help us for a few days or weeks, on one issue or the other, but ultimately Pakistan will make the rules as to what US can and cannot do. The western media already started playing the tune to enable this to happen. In fact most western print and television media have started Mumbai terror cover by blaming Hindus for the Islamic death cult murderous rampage. So the western people have been vetted and confused. It's easy for the political leadership to make the switch to appeasement policies if we don't play ball.

Compared to own confused reaction by the gutless prime minister, who invited ISI chief to collect evidence on Islamic terror - how funny is that; it's like asking a murderer to collect evidence at the scene and investigate the case! Luckily the head of the LoP terrorist group doesn't plan to come.

But the guys are who are coming are the Israelis. And they are coming prepared because eight Israelis and few other desi Jews were tortured and killed.

Asked specifically if he was talking of torture marks, he said: "It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood," one doctor said.

The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: "Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again," he said.

Corroborating the doctors' claims about torture was the information that the Intelligence Bureau had about the terror plan. "During his interrogation, Ajmal Kamal said they were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis," an IB source said.

And I am willing to wager that the Israelis will avenge the deaths of Israelis and desi Jews with speed and precision then our own criminally negligent Congress I run government.

Potential Impact to India's Image Due to Obama's Presidency

I was looking at some of the American news magazines and newspaper coverage after Barack Obama's victory in US presidential elections and was taken aback by the comparison he is already drawing. Obama is already compared to the top American presidents of its more than 200 years history - on par with Lincoln, who won the American Civil War and ended slavery in the country, and Roosevelt, who defeated Hitler's Germany along with Japan in World War II. What exactly are Obama's achievements to compare him to the well known and respected former American presidents is a mystery.

Then you hear that American TV media thinks that it is its obligation to make Obama's presidency a success. One has to wonder why the adoration and adulation for an unproven and unknown person? One obvious answer would be because Obama is the first black US president, a failure would cause American electorate to think twice before electing another black president in the near term - a valid fear for some. But the hype of Obama seems so high, even before he is in office, any slip up will be devastating for his presidency. That's where I see potential danger to India's image.

Meghnad Desai describes the contrast between European and Asia reaction to Obama's election:

But the Europeans are panting to be first in line when he takes up office. Sarkozy has boasted that he talked to Obama for 30 minutes after he was declared President-elect. Gordon Brown as Prime Minister of the UK, which boasts of a ‘special relationship’ with the US, got only 10 minutes but he is plotting to travel to the US soon after Obama’s Inauguration Day on January 20 and be the first European leader to meet him.

In contrast, the response of India and China to Obama’s election has been fascinating. Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh missed Obama’s call at first and Obama called him again. The Chinese are not hotfooting to Washington after January 20 to see Obama. While the Europeans are competing to be the new puppy that Obama can take to the White House (while his two daughters get a real one), the Asians are being cool. What’s going on here?

In order to keep Obama's presidency perfect, any country that may seem opposed to Obama's world view may be in for a pummel by American media, and there by the world media - which tend to follow American lead in any news coverage. We already know about Obama's take on Pakistan's relationship to India and India's strategic matters. If Obama pursues this line of thinking and India pushes back, I am afraid India image in the world will take a severe beating. And this would especially be true if BJP/NDA comes to power next year with a role for Narender Modi in the center because we know there are already plenty of centers of powers in US that control governmental actions towards Sri Modi.

I warned many months ago, in another forum, that relation between Bharat and US is excellent because of only one person - George Bush. Others disagreed. Now it'll be interesting to watch how the relationship changes with Bush gone and potential difficult issues between the two nations come front and center.

That Missing Phone Call

As I pointed out recently , one of the things that MEA will miss are the consultation phone calls from White House. While Obama is not yet in White House, it is interesting what he refused to do.

NEW DELHI, Nov 9: In continuation of the ‘snub’ to India, US President-elect Barack Obama today spoke to Chinese President Hu Jintao. Till now, Mr Obama has returned calls to 16 world leaders, including Hu, but as reported by The Statesman on 8 November, the “snub” to the Indian Prime Minister continues.

The Ministry of External Affairs however maintain that they are unaffected by Mr Obama’s call to the Chinese leader and points out that Mr Obama will call the Indian Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, in due course of time. Officials insist that too much is being read into these telephone calls and this is not an indication of the strength of Indo-US relationship which remains strong.

This, however, does not explain the fact that as of 8 November, when Mr Obama called the Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, the Indian government had maintained that Mr Obama was returning calls only to countries that were having of some military alliance with the US. Officials in the MEA had particularly pointed out that both China and India had not received the call since both did not share a military alliance with USA.

This explanation no longer holds forth. But then the government seems to have no new answer for this latest development and embarrassment.

MEA is clearly in denial. Let's hope they wake up soon for the good of the country.

On the Perils of A New President

Barack Obama, largely an unknown person, will be the new president of US in January. After a rather successful and close relationship between India and US during the past eight years, or at least the last four years, of Bush presidency one wonders what is in store for the relationship in the next four to eight years.

Of the little experience that Obama has, his experience in international matters is even smaller. People largely know about him from his autobiographies - two of them. His article in Foreign Affairs about his apparent foreign policy, many months ago, was minimalistic with a passing mention of India. A friend of mine who lives in Chicago attended an early gathering of desi-Americans to size up Obama's contest for presidency and about his thoughts on Indo-US relationship. At the time Obama, following his NPA friends talking points, was not keen on 123 Nuclear Agreement. Later on he was mildly supportive of it, probably to keep desi-Americans happy and on his side, and because the agreement was inevitable.

But mostly during the past year or so, he was focused on the Land of the Pure. At one time, he wanted to attack LoP to get Osama bin Laden and his followers. At another time, he wanted to apply diplomatic pressure on LoP to go after al Qaeda settled in NWFP. At a different time, he wanted to buy LoP support to pursue al Qaeda. Reading about this, I predicted, multiple times during this period, that the Pakistanis will play the usual game of reciprocity with the new president Obama - deliver J&K for any action on their western front. But even before the Pakistani could play their game, Obama seem to be going along the same path. Some this talk could be because of his advisers - old Clinton hands, like Madeline Albright and Richard Holbrook, and some even older, like Zbigniew Brezinski (the Jimmy Carter's NSA hand), and some more recent, like Colin Powell. All these advisers look at Indo-US relationship through the lens of Bharat-Pakistan, i.e., hyphenation. Bush put a stop to the decades old hyphenation policy of US including Bill Clinton's hyper-hyphenation, which included China (with Clinton saying China had legitimate interests in the subcontinent at the height of nuclear testing days in 1998). See B. Raman's take on who in Obama's advisory team may be advising Obama how.

If one were a classic so-called Obamanics, one would ignore what Obama actually says and conclude whatever one wants from Obama-speak. So, despite recent Obama's policy pronouncements, it is possible Obama may continue with Bush lead of having close relationship with Bharat. But it's highly unlikely. For one thing, I suspect, Obama is an Islamo-phile. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being an Islamo-phile. But a nation or leader dealing with president Obama has to understand where he's coming from to deal with his policy positions.

Three things about Obama makes me think he is an Islamo-phile.

First, although I am told from people who read his autobiographies that Obama doesn't talk about his younger days - after his childhood apparently he suddenly appears in Chicago's black community, works his way up in the city's community and then raise fairly rapidly through state government and US Senate. But apparently he visited LoP in the 80s with his Pakistani friends. We know Obama, at the time, felt like an outsider. So it's less probably that he went to LoP to check on how Reagan and US government were doing to throw out Soviets from Afghanistan, but rather to see for himself how the mujahideens are organizing and fighting the Soviets. B. Raman writes of this trip:

It was at the invitation of one of his Pakistani friends that he visited Islamabad, Karachi and Hyderabad (Sind) in the 1980s. Nobody can hold that against him.

As an Indian, one will be but human if one felt troubled that he did not disclose this till he became the Presidential candidate. He disclosed this----as if in passing--- when it was alleged that he did not understand the Islamic world and its divisions. He mentioned his visit to Pakistan to show that he knew about the divisions in Islam, about the Shia-Sunni differences.

Why did he keep mum on his visit to Pakistan till this question was raised? Has he disclosed all the details regarding his Pakistan visit? Was it as innocuous as made out by him----to respond to the invitation of a Pakistani friend or was there something more to it?

I have never heard of Obama's trip to LoP until the post by Sri Raman. It is possible, as a young man, Obama wasn't sure if he was Muslim or a Christian. And it's fine for him to look for his religious roots and gain some understanding.

Secondly, recently we find out that Obama's mentor, other than local former terrorist bomber Bill Ayers, was Prof. Rashid Khalidi. Prof. Khalidi was a PLO spokesperson. Perfectly sane person but someone who dislikes Israel. Apparently Obama learned about Arab politics and about Islamic world from Prof. Khalidi and his wife over number of dinners at Khalidi's house. LA Times published a piece in April on a dinner party for Prof. Khalidi when he moved from Univ. of Chicago to Columbia Univ. Apparently Obama was full of praise for the professor while others were blasting Israel and Jews with Bill Ayers present at the table.

According to Wallsten the evening not surprisingly turned into a classic Jew-bash:

"During the dinner a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

LA Times has the video of the party bashing Jews, but won't release it - probably protecting the paper's favorite candidate.

And thirdly, Obama's dad was a Kenyan Muslim. Obama himself is a Christian, but it explains his youthful interest in Islam and Muslim lands. And I suspect his sympathy for whatever real and imagined afflictions Muslims feel that Islamic nations have.

With Obama's possible Islamo-phile attitude, the countries that will be most impacted by his policies will be the ones that have bloody borders with the lands of Islam - mainly Bharat and Israel, but also Afghanistan. Israel will have to deal with a not-so friendly US government along with already unfriendly Europeans. But American Jews and Israelis can take of care themselves. Backed by Obama's administration, Afghanistan will have to deal with possible reconciliation with Taliban (former mujahideens) enabling NATO and US troop withdrawal. Any revival of Afghanistan as a normal country will probably end with India losing out a strategic foothold while LoP gets its strategic depth back.

After Bush leaves the presidency, the bonhomie between India and US will probably come to an end - the drop-in visits by the president when a senior Bharatiya leader visits the White House on business; the consultation phone calls to the prime minister; and simple praise and defence of Bharat in international arena will, I suspect, be a thing of the past. The strategic room for Bharat on world stage may shrink quite a bit. One hopes MEA and Bharatiya foreign policy watchers are ready for the new reality and are prepared for it without being surprised at what changes the new US elections will bring. This will especially be true if BJP/NDA wins elections early next year - it should not expect to pick up US-Bharatiya relationship from where it left off five years ago.

Nuclear Deal Passed US Hurdle, But....

Bharat-US Relationship May Have Reached a High Point For the Near Future

Passage of 123 Nuclear Agreement between US and Bharat, by US, could be the high point in the relationship between the countries for a while to come. I think MEA may be in for a rude shock after January depending on who wins American presidency in November. With Bush, a genuine American friend of India, I think MEA and the entire Indian foreign policy establishment had it easy, at least after Colin Powell left Bush administration in 2004.

Here are the votes by party line on the Nuclear deal:

US Senate:

For - Republicans: 48 ; Democrats: 38
Against - Republicans: 0; Democrats: 13

US House:

For - Republicans: 178; Democrats: 120
Against - Republicans: 10; Democrats: 107

With the Barack Obama, presumably, likely to win US presidency in November, based on current polls, expect the State Department back in charge when it comes to relations with India. With the backing of majority Democrats (see the Democrats opposition to the Nuclear Deal above) in both houses, Obama, while may not be Jimmy Carter, who thumbed his nose at India during his presidential visit telling us what our national interests should be and how we should manage them (which ended up turning off Bharatiya foreign policy establishment for a long time with no visits by US president to the country for 20 years), will be close enough.

Indian foreign policy establishment had excellent access to White House, National Security Agency, and US Defense Department like never before in its history during Bush era. Obama will go back to the old days of traditional foreign policy wonks in the lead. One can see the disparity when negotiations were going on for the 123 Nuclear Agreement. With the State Department establishment skeptical with the deal, clearly US NSA was driving the negotiations with a host of background players like Amb. Blackwell and Ashley Tellis working the system to make get the agreement. While US Defense Department usually has its own foreign policy objectives, any future engagement with India MoD would likely be under the radar.

The most significant change that would shock Indian establishment would be the return of hyphenation. Obama wants to go after Land of the Pure - go after terrorists in its Northwest Frontier Province. And only way to appease Pakistani tantrums, if Obama follows up his words, would be to put Bharat back on the same pedestal as Pakistan. Also expect Chinese appeasement by US to reach a new high. Any talk of US projecting Bharat as counterweight to China, even if we were interested in doing so, would probably stop.

On the other hand, if McCain wins, however unlikely, the relationship between the two nations, with his rhetoric about League of Democracies and strong support for the nuclear deal from day one, will probably take off to new heights. If the right people are in New Delhi, I won't be surprised if we become much more integrated with US - militarily, economically, and strategically.

All That For Nothing!

Glenn Kessler of Washington Post writes that US Congress may not ratify the finalized version of 123 Nuclear Agreement between US and India mainly because the much discussed Hyde Act says US Congress needs to have "30 days of continuous session to consider it" and more importantly because leader of US Congress does not want a lame duck session before the new US president is sworn in, sometime in January.

So far so good. But Kessler also says, quoting American officials, that after an agreement with NSG - that 45-member nuclear supply group (which comes after an agreement with IAEA) - India doesn't need an agreement with US. It can go directly to Russia or France to go ahead with the civil nuclear equipment purchase agreements. An agreement then, post-NSG, is actually in US interest so that US companies can bit for civil nuclear projects in India! So US gets little in return for all the help, at least right away, if the agreement is not ratified by US Congress. President Obama and his liberal supports may block it, but who cares! In the long run, surely, India will be grateful for what US, and specifically president Bush, has done and continue to be strategic partner.

So all the hot air from the communists that India will become US stooge apparently is bogus. We may end being the stooge of Russia and France! And BJP's worry that somehow US will scuttle Indian nuclear test capability also seem to come to knots, because there is no Hyde Act with the Russians and the French. Once India is free from the shackles of NPT and American-lead sanctions, it will practically be impossible to put India in that straight jacket again even if India tests and Americans somehow impose sanctions per Hyde Act.

It's another matter if the NSG will ratify the agreement. G8 apparently support it. But once NSG ratifies the IAEA agreement, there is no turning back.

And, it seems, all those arguments are over nothing!

And The Pitfalls in Getting The Deal

Even as Manmohan Singh bought Amar Singh's and Samajwadi Party's support using CBI's help, sidelining the communists after four long years of being under their thumb on every issue, the task to getting 123 Nuclear Agreement with US ratified by IAEA and NSG is not going to be easy. C. Rajamohan outlines the hurdles especially from the so called liberals.

As a New York Times editorial revealed over the weekend, those who oppose India’s membership of the nuclear club have not raised the white flag. The caution from the Times against an international rush to implement the nuclear deal is likely to be repeated by some other leading publications. So long as the CPM and the BJP were blocking the deal, India’s international adversaries had no reason to step into the debate. The very moment that India signalled its readiness to make the final push, the opponents have come out of the woodwork.

The potential new president of US, presumably Obama, already conveyed that he would not proceed with the deal and that the relationship with India would be on a lower footing. (Knowing this why American Indians and Indians in India support Obama is a mystery!) McCain already endorsed the deal. All that the opposing groups, this could include China, have to do is to delay the ratification of the agreement until January when the newly elected president Obama can take over to make the agreement unworkable for India. After all, the agreement - C. Rajamohan calls it the "most consequential diplomatic campaigns" - may still not be Manmohan's legacy. But I do wish him well.

Attacking Indian Embassy

Even as some argue that Bharat should even attempt to be a super power - one reason being there is Bharatiya Hindu Right (sic) in the country, apparently we already are. If not a super power, at least a region power that matters.

What else would explain the suicide car bomb terrorist attack - second largest in the recently initiated suicide terror in Afghanistan - that specifically targeted the ambassador to Afghanistan Sri Jayant Prasad, who was unhurt. Other 41 people weren't so lucky including two senior embassy personal and two low-level Bharatiya employees and number of Afghans waiting in line to get a visa to India and others shopping in the nearby market. About 150 were hurt. It was one powerful car bomb. But why target India? And why now?

Early AP story claimed that Taliban denied the attack and Land of the Pure's foreign ministry spokesperson had nothing to say. But now Taliban claims it did it and LoP denies its ISI's involvement. One apparent LoP political analyst that AP reporter spoke said Indians were asking for it by opening consulates all over Afghanistan. Presumably for influencing events in Afghanistan and spying on its eastern neighbour. So it's clear who perpetrated the attacks.

The why now may be easier to answer. With election season in India and US, the likely repercussions are less. In fact if the terrorists are lucky and if it plays out well on India's TV, with enough public pressure, India may even pull out of Afghanistan. There was some public outrage when civil engineers were killed by Taliban in the past.

And why would Taliban attack Indian Embassy when the Afghanistan Interior ministry was just down the road? Surely Taliban cannot overturn Karzai's government by targeting India.

Recently president Karzai claimed that ISI was planning to assassinate him. Few days before that Karzai said he would send Afghan forces across the border to hunt down Taliban and al Qaida. With European forces on-again-off-again support to US and NATO involvement in Afghanistan, ISI seems to be working on a strategy. It cannot direct its attacks on US and NATO forces - if the NATO forces have any inclination that ISI is directly killing Americans or Europeans, LoP will be in deep trouble. With Karzai out the way, with India out the way, and with Bush retiring, LoP establishment could use its charm offensive to, may be, talk the newly elected US president, presumably Obama (who seems to be the next Carter when it comes relations with India), into negotiating with Taliban in the name of stability and early withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. The promise can be made to the Americans that Taliban and ISI will work together to fight al Qaida. In fact, a few key al Qaida personal may even be handed over at the right moment. That way the intense Islamic jihadi pressure building up in LoP could be released westwards. It would be back to the strategic depth situation of the mid-90s - an ideal situation for ISI.

It's just possible ISI may be taking its chances to create conditions that may play out to its advantage after elections are held in US and in India, late this year and early next. The next US president and Bharatiya prime minister may be the wild cards.

Bush Did Us Good

In a silly nostalgic article in New York Times (which I happened upon via another source), former US Secretary of State, who wanted to put India back in a bottle and used phrases like "stop digging if you are in a hole" while referring to India's 1998 Phokharan II nuclear tests, Madaleine Albright, rues the end of self-proclaimed white man's burden.

During the 1990s, certain precedents were created. The administration of George H. W. Bush intervened to prevent famine in Somalia and to aid Kurds in northern Iraq; the Clinton administration returned an elected leader to power in Haiti; NATO ended the war in Bosnia and stopped Slobodan Milosevic’s campaign of terror in Kosovo; the British halted a civil war in Sierra Leone; and the United Nations authorized life-saving missions in East Timor and elsewhere...

The Bush administration’s decision to fight in Afghanistan after 9/11 did nothing to weaken this view because it was clearly motivated by self-defense. The invasion of Iraq, with the administration’s grandiose rhetoric about pre-emption, was another matter, however. It generated a negative reaction that has weakened support for cross-border interventions even for worthy purposes. Governments, especially in the developing world, are now determined to preserve the principle of sovereignty, even when the human costs of doing so are high.

I think we owe the current US president George Bush a, may be two, thank yous: one, for putting to rest the notion that west, mainly US with the powerless Europeans egging on, can enter any country it wants for any reason it wants - hope it stays that way for the foreseeable future; and, two, for pursing a very close relationship with India.

We already know that at least one of possible future US president, Barack Obama, a classic left winger, would bring back moral equivalence between terror victim Bharat and terror sponsoring Land of Pure, and, who knows, side with Chinese when the time comes, keeping in tune with the historic sore to ambivalent US relations with India. The days of bonhomie between US and Bharat may be coming to an end.

General Musharraf Memoir Is, Apparently, Not Unique

In US, beyond the primary session and Obama fawning (okay, love-fest) by the American media, is news of fake memoirs - a Jewish girl living with a pack of wolves after her parents were killed by Nazis and a dope peddled life from South Central LA apparently are fake, but wait, they are reality to memoir writers!!

---

Pack of lies: It's been a bad week for memoirists, as two women who published accounts of incredible lives turned out to have lied. Misha Defonseca is not a Holocaust survivor raised by wolves but is actually Monique De Wael, a Belgian Catholic whose parents were indeed murdered by the Nazis. And Margaret Jones—er, Seltzer—did not spend her youth running drugs in South Central but at a private school in the well-off San Fernando Valley.[Slate]

---

General Musharraf is not alone in peddling his fictional memoir as fact to everyone - it's the latest "in" thing. While Nitin catagorized General Musharraf's memoir in fiction, here is something to ponder on where to put the fake, but real-to-me (won't that be surreal) memoirs:

---

Alex at the Museum of Hoaxes rolls his eyes at Defonseca's dud apologia that "This story is mine. It is not actually reality, but my reality, my way of surviving." Alex says: "This excuse is used so often that bookstores might soon have to start separating books into a third category: fiction, non-fiction, and non-fiction in a metaphorical sense."[Slate]

---