Reuters Blogs

Pakistan: Now or Never?

Perspectives on Pakistan

03:35 November 9th, 2009

Pakistan, India and the United States

Posted by: Sanjeev Miglani
Tags: Pakistan: Now or Never, , , , , ,

 

While attention has almost entirely been focused on America’s difficult relationship with Pakistan - a writer in Foreign Policy magazine called it the world’s most dysfunctional relationship - India and the United States have quietly gone ahead and completed the largest military exercise ever undertaken by New Delhi with a foreign army.

The exercise named Yudh Abyhas 2009 (or practice for war)  and conducted in northern India involved tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and helicopter-borne infantry. The U.S. army deployed 17 Strykers,  its eight-wheeled armoured vehicle, in the largest deployment of the newest vehicle outside of Iraq and Afghanistan for Pacific Rim forces, the military said.

“This exercise indeed is a landmark. For the Indian Army, this is the biggest we have done with any foreign army,” Indian army director general of military operations, Lt. Gen. A.S. Sekhon said.

Since they began exercising together over the past decade after being on opposite sides of the Cold War, India and the United States have steadily advanced their military relationship. As the two big powers in the Indian Ocean, they  have had steadily complex naval exercises and this year, for added measure, brought in the Japanese navy too in a three-way exercise, a move which must not have been lost on the Chinese.

Indeed, as Robert Haddick, who edits the Small Wars Journal, writes in his column at Foreign Policy that the one defence relationship  in Asia that is progressing well for the United States is that involving India. It’s not trouble-free especially with a prickly power such as India, but it stands out compared with the troubled security relationships the United States has with Pakistan and China, the author notes.

U.S. military engagement with China remains a work in progress. As Admiral Timothy Keating, the former military commander for the U.S. Pacific Command told the Financial Times in an interview last month he didn’t have direct phone contacts for his counterparts in the People’s Liberation Army, increasing the potential for misunderstanding.

“I don’t have their [senior Chinese military officials'] phone number. I can’t pick up the phone and wish them happy birthday. I don’t mean to be glib about it . . . [But] we don’t enjoy the sort of communication that I have with almost every other military leader in Asia,” he said.

And what of Pakistan ? As noted in this blog, before only 16 percent of Pakistanis surveyed have a favorable view of the United States and 13 percent have confidence in President Barack Obama, according to the Pew Research Center.

Such a deep distrust and rage  severely complicates the relationship,  and often blinds Pakistan at its own loss, a Toronto-based analyst Sadiq Saleem writes. He says the visceral opposition to the U.S. aid bill was a case in point.

“Pakistanis as a nation are riled up en masse over the supposed ‘loss of sovereignty’ over the fact that our ally of 55 years decided to give us unconditional economic aid – in addition to conditional military aid.  At $1.5 billion per year the Enhanced Partnership for Pakistan Act 2009 would make Pakistan the single largest recipient of US government development aid in the world – greater than the Israel economic aid package.”

But a combination of politicians and journalists have called the aid as anti-Pakistan because of the conditions attached to it. The big worry, according to Saleem, is that at some point Washington may get tired of dealing with a difficult partner.

“If our anti-Americanism continues the day might come when the Americans do not see the value of their Pakistani relationship. I, and anyone else who points this out, is not an American agent but a voice of sanity in an environment of anger and hate,” he says.

Will America turn to India, where it still enjoys support and admiration among ordinary people even more than government leaders ? 

[Reuters picture of the exercise, and below a U.S. military release of the exercise]

67 comments so far

Keith:

With respect to our discussion on the relationship between India, China and USA, here are some useful links.

Altered Fundamentals
“Despite honour of the first state visit, India is peripheral to the US strategy, as demonstrated by the recent U.S.-China Joint Statement that has only accentuated Indian anxieties”
Ashley J. Tellis
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx  ?262966

“Forget China, the real threat is ‘Chinusa’
Shobhan Saxena

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com  /Main-Street/entry/forget-china-the-rea l-threat

- Posted by rajeev

Keith:

Somehow my post is not being uploaded. I am skipping any details—(URLs etc) supporting the IBC figures below that were informative but perhaps are coming in way of uploading. Will upload them later if possible. Will try to say this:

@ Let us say that genocide is an inappropriate word, but “strategic error” is the wrong choice of word either. I think Iraqi victims deserve special treatment—not just considered collateral damage of a war that should not have taken place.

“Strategic error” is also a good word if you are thinking from US POV and that US went to Iraq instead of staying put and strengthening themselves in Afgh.
The number of Iraqis died is 655,000 according to “Lancet” –a controversial figure but no one can prove it wrong—Republicans and its media cried a lot but they have not scientific evidence to refute that figure (I always thought that such a big figure was propaganda but I zoomed in and found otherwise. Still, I wish that # is an overestimate (it is not body count obviously but an estimation and I think that this is an overestimate). But there is another study by the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization (WHO) published in The New England Journal of Medicine that reports 104,000 and 223,000 Iraqis died violent deaths between the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and June 2006. Still a lots of death, ignoring Lancet study.

This cannot be called just another war or Indians operations in Kashmir and SL or now anti-LTTE by SL etc…. There was lot at stake for each one but nothing for US in Iraq as far as the basis of the war is concerned.

If this does not fall in the UN definition of “genocide” then clearly UN definition needs to be expanded or a better word is required. I can go in detail on this since it falls in gray area of genocide or not—depends. But I know this: Dead Iraqis deserve more than being called collateral damage.

- Posted by rajeev

@ And arguably on Afghanistan, the administration in power at the time chose to disregard much of what it was being told by their military staff, aid workers, diplomats, intelligence analysts, etc. That does not mean these people didn’t do their job.
- Posted by Keith

@I don’t think its right to slight the diplomats here.”
–No way I am slighting any one. My reading of people who know the region and are from the region and in touch with the American govt. allows me to say so. Admn will listen to all the happenings in the region but will do nothing about it, despite these guys pleading with the admn.

Main point is US did not think Afghanistan is that important or will become this important.

- Posted by rajeev

US did not do enough home work in Af/Pak case. Very clearly, it is learning on the job. US left 1989 and stopped studying Pushto/Dari and the culture as if there is no coming back here. So the Army of Diplomats and agents were not up on the task here.
- Posted by rajeev

Keep in mind, there’s a big difference between the diplomats doing their job and their masters following their advice. I don’t think its right to slight the diplomats here. American diplomats (several of whom I’ve met), senior military officers, aid workers, etc. did have a decent understanding of the region. And they did convey the complexity of the problems in the region to their masters.

However, governments are not duty bound to take the advice of their servants. If the politicians decide not to listen to their civil servants that’s their choice. And arguably on Afghanistan, the administration in power at the time chose to disregard much of what it was being told by their military staff, aid workers, diplomats, intelligence analysts, etc. That does not mean these people didn’t do their job.

- Posted by Keith

@And India has far too few diplomats for a country of its size and stature. Last I heard it was somewhere around a thousand or so. The US probably has more than that many staffers at the State department headquarters building alone.
- Posted by Keith

–On India, I agree without doubt.
US did not do enough home work in Af/Pak case. Very clearly, it is learning on the job. US left 1989 and stopped studying Pushto/Dari and the culture as if there is no coming back here. So the Army of Diplomats and agents were not up on the task here.

- Posted by rajeev

[...] While the United States and Pakistan have been struggling to deal with the challenges to their relationship, India and America have quitely gone ahead and completed the largest military exercise ever conducted by New Delhi with a foreign army. Read more at http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/1 1/09/pakistan-india-and-the-united-state s/ [...]

- Posted by Pakistan, India and the United States | News Carrier!

I can see that. Much of my anxiety arises from soft Indian diplomacy. For India’s size, rise and aspirations and the complex relationships–regional and elsewhere—India needs increase in quality and quantity of its manpower–diplomats etc who efficiently and positively do their job. I don;t want to see them complaining and giving excuses for their lack of insight.

There are two kinds of Indian diplomats. The young guy who’s educated, has exposure to the West and works hard. And the old guy, who’s basically stuck with the Cold War anti-Imperialist, Nehruvian mentality. What’s holding India back is for every young guy the Indian diplomatic corps has, they’ve got 2 or 3 of the older type. And India has far too few diplomats for a country of its size and stature. Last I heard it was somewhere around a thousand or so. The US probably has more than that many staffers at the State department headquarters building alone.

- Posted by Keith

Post Your Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

House Rules:
  • We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information
  • We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous information.