Skip to comments.India not sold on closer military ties with U.S.
Posted on 06/06/2012 8:49:59 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta urged India on Wednesday to build a closer military relationship with the United States, but Indian leaders appeared more interested in buying U.S. weapons than in aligning strategically with Washington.
Senior Indian officials made it clear in two days of talks that they will continue to set their own course on U.S. national security priorities, including isolating Iran and building up Afghanistan's military forces, sometimes in tandem with Washington and sometimes not.
Panetta is visiting Asia this week to bolster military ties as the Obama administration, wary ofChina's growing clout in the region, seeks to reassert America's presence in the Pacific after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Pentagon chief described enhanced defense cooperation with India as "a linchpin" of the new strategy. But India has charted an independent foreign policy for decades, and its response was decidedly cool.
Panetta held meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Defense Minister A.K. Antony, National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon and other government officials. But he did not hold a joint news conference with his Indian counterpart, as he usually does when he visits friendly countries.
"We'll never be an alliance partner with the U.S.," said Lalit Mansingh, an analyst and a former Indian ambassador to Washington. "The limit is a partnership."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
And why should they...considering how the U.S. treats its allies?
Instead of “rebuild(ing) America’s image around the world”, they tear it down, and not even methodicallywith a wrecking ball.
When we swing so wlidly every four to eight years?
We need Obama out, and his taste in the mouths of Americans needs to lead us to a 12-16 or more year stability and true fight for liberty before anyone is going to risk it like India.
I hope we do...because in the long term I believe India is a much better fit for us than the likes of Pakistan...we just need to figure out a way to take care of those nukes.
Let me see.....we have a lying, backstabbing muzzie for a president....not sure why the Indians don’t trust us...
then Obama came along
The first thing he did was insult the Indians -- calling up every other world leader before calling the Indian PM
He then went to India and got the wookie to do her war dance there, but the Indians - while first enamored - got a bit ticked off when they realised he just talked bull**** and were surprised that a world leader reads from a teleprompter
Congratulations, Obama -- you really did bring change...
Pakistan is definitely not a fit for the USA. Most of the Pakistani population see’s the US as the enemy, not an ally.
It’s not just Obama or Clinton. Truth is we’ve pretty well much have **cked India over since the Muslim / Hindu states split apart. As a result India has enjoyed closer relations with Russia then they have with the U.S.
If you examine the equipment of India’s army, navy and air force, you may be surprised to see of the equipment they don’t build for themselves, most comes from Russia/USSR.
That you, Obama?
I’ve been following the Indian arms issue for well over 15 years...closer to twenty. Been to India myself back in the late 1990s. Everywhere I went (Bombay, Madrass, Bangalore, New Delhi) the Indians asked me when the US was going to take its blinders off and stop forcing the Indians (in essence) to stop having to deal with the Russians to get decent hardware to face off the Chinese and Pakistan.
Lately it has started to turn around. They are buying C-17s from us. They are buying the new C-130s from us. M777 Howitzers, Javelin Missiles, Harpoon missiles, P-8 Poseidon aircraft, and E-2D Hawkeye Aircraft.
The Indians are now many billions of doallrs into US hardware and it is good for them and us.
I just hope we can continue the trend. A close partnership with them would lead to the best counter wieght solution to both China and Pakistan available.
But to get there, we have to get the Obama admionstration out of the White House...and keep a GOP lead HOuse, Senate and White House for a number of years.
Don’t embarrass yourself further and go read some current history books.
Absolutely - if/when we get BHO out, they’ll feel differently. But right now, they’re very wise - they know he supports their Islamic enemy(s) and being a more strategic ally of ours will not benefit them.
Who can blame them?
I’m actually impressed on what they build for themselves. They’re only a decade or two away from total military independence.
What they really need though are A/A and A/G aircraft.
I think Israel provides them with some electronic innerds for some of the equipment they build, like Missles, Ships and Subs.
India is forced to tread lightly, being stuck between Russia and China.
Plus, after the way we sold Israel down the river, we cannot be viewed as the most reliable ally on Planet Earth.
Even with GW Bush, India couldn’t be forced to partake in wars begun by the US under false pretenses (I liked Bush, but the Iraq war was an absolute hoax). They are the largest democracy in the world, and as such headed the non-aligned countries because they have to respond to their constituents.
Actually, the only issue, IMHO, with the Iraq war was the issue of WMDs. we did not need that reason to go to war with Iraq. Hussein had willfully, and blatntly violated the terms of the cease fire after Kuwait time and time again. That was reason enough.
In addition, though he may not have been involved directly with the 911 attack, he harbored Al Quida and many other terrorists, and for years he had paid terrorists and their families to kill our ally’s civilians.
Finally, with Afghanistan and Iraq, and with the Indian Ocean and the bases to the north, Bush had surrounded Iran and was tightening the noose around them, which to this day is very important except that Obama is letting them off the hook.
So, with Iran we ended a dictator’s reign who had been violating the cease fire we had with him, we freed tens of millions of people, we established a fly trap in the which we killed tens of thousands of terrorists, many of them Al Quida who flocked there to fight us, and we had a stategic position to counter Iran. All of it good and all of it in the US best interest.
Sadly, IMHO, we did not prosecute it harshly enough viz a viz places like Fallujah (there was not need to clear that city with dead and wounded Marines, we should have made an abject example of it, offered 72 hours for people to leave and then leveled the entire place with B-52 carpet bombing), and as regards the Iranian Guard who had come into the country and helped organize and kill American forces...we should have taken the war to them at that time IMHO.
Anyhow, India was not needed for any of that IMHO. Giving them a larger role in a pacified Afghanistan would have made much more sense and send the right message to Pakistan.
Either way, the US and India should be partners in the Indian Ocean area and there in SW Asia.
They could be treated like Poland.
I still wonder however.. first I remember the Cold War "non aligned nations" headed by India that seemed to me to always back the U.S.S.R. I recall that India would not let us establish "listening posts" on India soil to monitor the Soviets and Pakistan did let us put those posts in their country. But that was then and this is now.
Then there are the conditions that the U.S. must meet to gain India's support.. as described by this news article from a few years ago.
U.S. Tech Holds Key to Indian Bases The Rediff Special/Josy Joseph in New Delhi
The author asks, "If the Americans were to enjoy access to Indian military bases, what will India expect in return?"
The article is based upon "Indo-US Military Relations: Expectations and Perceptions," a classified US defense department document in rediff.com's possession.
The U.S. defense department document "states that India would consider technology transfer as an 'important component' for a robust military relationship between the two countries."
This is about mutual defense and "friendship." The various countries where we [the U.S.] have "enjoyed" access to military bases have not demanded technology transfers for us shouldering most of the cost of their defense.
Key Indians interviewed in the report said, "America's reluctance to engage in focused technology transfer is a deal killer in the effort to construct an enduring strategic relationship." Indians placed technology transfer as the 'touchstone' of the new found strategic relationship and 'everything revolves around a strong US commitment to share its technologies so that India can advance'.
To me it looks like not much has changed from the information in the Indian press cited in my post #20.
What exactly is wrong with that? Don't forget its the US that is asking for “access” to Indian bases. India isn't asking for “access” to American bases. So what should be India’ part of the bargain?
“This is about mutual defense and “friendship.” The various countries where we [the U.S.] have “enjoyed” access to military bases have not demanded technology transfers for us shouldering most of the cost of their defense.”
You can always have “friendship” without having bases on Indian soil. The various countries where US enjoys access to military bases need (and have asked) for US protection against another adversary. India never asked for US protection. If US wants bases, US has gotta offer more then just "friendship". India wants other stuff in return. If US doesn't like the deal, its still fine by India.
India's three biggest strategic allies Russia, France and Israel have no qualms giving India full access to their technology and they don't even have military bases in India.
I know...and I do not believe India was needed for what we did in Iraq anyway. We got the job done, even though Obama has ended it prematurely. The US needs to make sure the Pakistani nukes do not fall into fundamentalist Islamic hands. That’s the only reason we have anything to do with them and we should have ended that a long time ago.
There’s a lot of Pakis who do not want the fundis/radicals in charge and they fight them too...but we need to figure out a way to take care of their nuclear weapons. I am sure there are all sorts of contingencies written up and hopefully some day the opportunity will present itself.
But, all said, that is the real “gotcha” about Pakistan and nothing more.
“To me it looks like not much has changed from the information in the Indian press cited in my post #20.”
The only thing that HAS chaged is India’s options. The Europeans and Russians are quite willing to give India access to their technology in return for the robust Indian defense market. And thus you have the MMRCA fighter contract (the largest defense contract ever) going to France and not the US.
Bush government did ask for Indian help in Iraq and India turned down the request.
As for Pakistan, India is very realistic about how much US is willing (or unwilling) to do to keep a check on Pakistan. India very well understands US position, however that does not mean India agrees with it.
A consequence of that realization is that India has been exploring other strategic options even as she maintains a healthy defense ties with the US. The whole excitement over “new chapter” in US-India strategic relationship started under Bush government has died down over a period of time and it has nothing to do with Obama’s perceived slight of India. That is too simplistic an explanation. To be honest, Obama hasn't done much that is different from Bush. US foreign policy vis-à-vis Pakistan has always been disastrously stupid, toxic, unimaginative and most importantly dangerously destabilizing for the whole region. The same old lame explanation from US about “the need to engage Pakistan” never worked well to win over India in the past and isn't likely to win over India anytime in the future. US foreign policy needs to be more imaginative in terms of how they need to deal with Pakistan. You cant have both India and Pakistan. US needs to make up her mind about what she wants.
The US needs to make sure the Pakistani nukes do not fall into fundamentalist Islamic hands. Thats the only reason we have anything to do with them and we should have ended that a long time ago...but we need to figure out a way to take care of their nuclear weapons. I am sure there are all sorts of contingencies written up and hopefully some day the opportunity will present itself.
I have my own thoughts on that score...in any case, the Pakis need to be either completely free of the Islamic radicals or the nukes, they cannot have both and the US and others need to make sure that happens.
Thank you for the additional information.
My "criticism" was aimed at US not India. Why are there Americans who would accept the terms demanded by India?
If our aim is to get access to India's bases I have to ask why do we want access?
We taxpayers have paid for and co-signed trillions in loans to pay for decades of R&D. IMO we ought not give it away for something that we do not need.
Why? Because there are some Americans (not very many) who are wise enough to realize India's strategic importance as an ally beyond just a few tax dollars.
“If our aim is to get access to India's bases I have to ask why do we want access? “
US has been requesting access to Indians bases since the 50s. If you look at the map, most of American bases are located in hostile Muslim countries that resent American presence, have been threatening to cut of access to supply lines or exacting a high price for US presence. And none of those countries are US friendly let alone strategic ally. While India is a fairly pro-US country right in the middle of Asia, that can help keep a check on Pakistan and China.
A few technological crumbs is only a small price to pay. And its not like India will take it for free. India will pay good money for it. Its pretty much the only thing US has that India wants.
Or....... you can pour billions of tax dollars on Pakistan, gift them cutting edge weaponry and still have them as your enemy. Your choice!
Your R&D stuff will end up in China one way or another. India on the other hand is offering a good price for it and may actually use it against China. Its not such a bad deal.
That is a very good point. IMO Red China is not going to last past 2020 and that means plenty of trouble ahead. India, Viet Nam and all should prepare.
Saddam was the safest leader in the Middle East to deal with. We knew that, so we armed him to the teeth to fight Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. There was no justification for the war; the WMD thing was an absolute hoax.
He (and Qaddafi) are the natural enemies of radical Islam, and we killed them (or supported their killers); now we complain about the rise of “militant Islam”. 15 of the 19 hijackers, as well as Osama Bin Laden, were Saudis (a radical Muslim country if there ever was one); instead of punishment they got more US $ and protection provided by the US military.
India is right to be very leery about supporting US military actions; they’ve been used to cover presidential infidelity, boost popularity, etc. (without making the world safer for anything). The war in the Congo should have merited some kind of intervention, but instead we throw up smoke & mirrors to get Americans who can’t find Syria on a map all worked up to kill Syrians.
India would also have to explain it to the 10% of their billion+ people who are Muslim (nearly as many as Pakistan has). India knew the world had nothing to fear from Iraq.
Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice and Richard Armitage maneuvered Bush into choosing Pakistan as the ally over India.
Forever is a long time...too long. We shall just have to wait and see what happens but there are already plenty of Americans who understand that things need to change and exactly what needs to happen to make it so...and as I said, the contingencies are already planned out.
I explained the justification and it had nothing to do with WMDs.
Bush was on the right path, he was justr a little too soft about it for my tastes.
Obama is the one turning our allies and those we had neutered into radical islamic states and he is doing it with a wil.
And, as I said, I understand India being leery...alreayd indicated what I felt it would take to change that...and in the end, that will be up to us and who we elect.
I guess your points didn’t justify it as far as I’m concerned; we just disagree. If you have loved ones in these conflicts I hope they get back safely; I don’t intend to have my children take part in them. we live sandwiched among some of the largest concentrations of Muslims on the East Coast; when our government deals with our problem here I’ll worry about it half a world away. Too many 9/11 hijackers lived here in NJ...
You may characterize it however you wish. The US has military contingency plans to take out Pakistans nukes to keep them from falling into radical Islamic hands. We need a strong enough leader to let Pakistan know that the party is over and then be willing to do what iot takes to ensure US security.
No BS in that, it’s the simple truth.
Now, as to whether we will have such a leader is yet to be seen...but I know this, millions of Americans are sick to death of Pakistan and their duplicity. Sooner or later that sentiment will make its way into policy, particularly if it continues.
That’s the reality...sad but true.
Indian leaders recognize this and so they are not going to completely tie their horse to that wagon and that is understandable, but it is clear that they are taking a whole lot more US weapons systems and technology than they ever have in the past...and that is a good thing for both countries.
Judging by how loudly Washington keeps proclaiming they want Dehli to join them strategically coupled with Dehli’s proclamations of autonamy—the Strategic patnership between the US and India seems to be in deep full swing.
Such a simple tactic of diversion....
You know, the older I get the more it seems clear, politicians, all politicians, really do believe we’re all idiots. I wonder when they will learn that ‘çleverness’ usually gets ahead of ones goals.