American policy toward India and Pakistan.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Mar 5, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    It appears that USA chanded it attutude the gas pipe-line Iran-Pakistan-India.

    If you are unable to prevent something then support it.
  2. Pakistan is already getting its civilian nuclear needs addressed by China, who will be building several more reactors for Pakistan in next few years.
  3. Moreover, if Pakistan will have nuclear plants anyway then why USA don't wish to cooperate with its ally while India (formally not a close ally) is in more preferable position?
  4. KGB_resident interrobanged:

    it's so most Americans will not spend the day on hold with computer problems.


    You statement is true. However it is a partial case of more common theorem:

    Almost all will not spend the whole day with problems that are uniteresting for them.
  6. Couple of points

    1) The Americans want a check on Chine in the south west of Asia that candidate is India.
    India had energy needs which have to be met by supplying the Indians with that energy gap - The Americans are hoping to secure India to a more western anchoring. Never mind the fact that India is all ready in the western orbit and already feels threatened by Chinese expansionism - so the port in Iran.
    2) India is never going to be a check on China, it's not in its interests and it's not in its neighbours interests. Quite frankly India is too weak. But the Americans can keep on dreaming.
    3) Why no nuclear deal with Pakistan? - Simple Pakistan is not democracy, it still has rogue elements within its midst. Also AQ Khan is great factor here, the Americans would love to get their hands on the man and find out what exactly he did with North Korea, Iran and others. Musharraf refuses.
    4) The whole new alliance is a sham - if India thinks that an alliance with America will deliver it south Asia, it won’t. It will actually complicate Indian relations. Look at plucky little Nepal, telling the Indians were to go at the least SAARC conference.
    In return India will never confront China; China is the enemy it fears.
    5) On a Pakistani front - the trip was a disaster for both Bush and Musharraf instead of consolidating the relationship; it’s probably pushed the Pakistanis closer to the Chinese. Chinese now have an access point to the Arabian Gulf. Musharraf looks weaker, even his own supposed ally is telling him to democratise. The Americans it seems have lost faith the general (lord knows who they think would replace him) and in the meanwhile Musharraf has further alienated certain sections of the population.

    1) I can’t see the Chinese being really too overtly threatened by India. Karzai aside, India is not very popular with its neighbours. Old suspicions about Indian desire for hegemony has not died out instead they have been revived.
    2) India has its own internal tensions that will come up to the surface. The growing gap between the Urban and rural is beginning to be come more and more noticeable. The Chinese have today announced they will begin to address its own gap.
    3) Balochistan - If Indian involvement is found out, never mind Checks on China - the only thing the Americans will be interested in is preventing a tripartite war.
    4) Don't know whether we will see this but I wouldn't be surprised if Russia and China began to co-operate more closely to keep the Americans and their allies in check.
    5) The Russians need to re-evaluate their subcontinent policy - I don’t think they will but they can’t be angry at the Pakistanis for ever otherwise they will lose out.

    Have to say you have to commend the Americans for actually having a south Asian policy, unlike some!
  7. William S. Lind (the "Fourth Generation" warfare man) wrote that:

    1. The average Pakistani citizen has a far less favorable attitude toward the USA than does the Musharraf government. Pakistanis see us as murderous meddlers.

    2. The Musharraf government is hanging on to power by its fingernails.

    3. If it falls, it will be replaced by another that is militantly hostile toward the USA.

    "Taking Pakistan's Temperature" 24 February 2006
  8. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    I am hoping that this is in fact an unconcious naive altruistic action on the part of the septics to help us with the next stage of imperial dismantling.
  9. Hmmm not too sure about the article.

    1) As I understand it the riots that followed in Pakistan had more to do with opposition to Musharraf then actually any spontaneous out burst of popular sentiment. The riots were lead and organised by the Islamists in Pakistan. The riots occurred in heart lands of the Islamists, the targets were more to do with western decadence than any real anger.
    Don't get me wrong, I do think the average Muslim Pakistan was angry but the riots that followed were political rather than religious.
    2) Pakistani opinion to America is actually more complex than the article ventures. It is right to state that most Pakistanis hate American foreign policy but if you were to ask the average Pakistani if they wanted a green card. Then the answer for 95% would be a most definite yes.
    3) The military, I think would not join the Islamists - Musharraf made pretty good job of purging most of the hardliners after '99. They also have too much invested in the regime, those military companies and luxury villas in Defence and so on did not spring up out of their own accord.
    China is another influence on the military; the Pakistani military are quite enthused about co-operation and closer links with China.
    4) If Musharraf falls two things could happen - another military strong man takes over or the
    Civilian rule comes back, and then you have a stronger chance of the Islamists taking over.
    5) Musharraf has done good in Pakistan even many of his critics will admit to this. He is going through a rough time but I would not write the man off just yet.