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]



Trackback









































64 comments so far
Previous | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
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.
- Posted by rajeevUS 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.
[...] 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