America's New Pakistan

During Cold War I between the US and the USSR in the 20th century, the US co-opted Pakistan as its "most reliable ally". With the onset of Cold War II in the 21st century, now between the US and China, Barack Obama made his Republic Day visit to India to woo Narendra Modi to become the US's most reliable ally. Modi doubled over backwards to oblige.

We are being rapidly dragged into the abyss of confrontation, abandoning the signature tune of Gandhiji and Nehru - peaceful coexistence. We are on the edge of becoming America's Pakistan at the brink of Cold War II. History must serve as our guide as Modi takes the plunge.

Readers as old as I am will remember Vice-President Lyndon Johnson visiting Pakistan during Kennedy's Presidency and taking Pakistan swirling into euphoria when he invited a Pakistani camel-driver to the US as a State guest. A decade later, the US-Pakistan partnership reached its highest (or lowest) point when the US stood rock solid behind Pakistan as the Pakistani army butchered ordinary East Pakistanis and drove ten million of them as refugees into India, thus sparking the war that led on 16 December 1971 to the dismemberment of Pakistan and the emergence of Bangladesh. Small reward for Peshawar having served as the base for U2 spy flights over the Soviet Union and as Kissinger's launch pad for his rapprochement (now breaking down) with China.

He graduated in economics from Delhi University, and then did a two-year B.A. in Tripos in Economics at Trinity Hall, Cambridge at the University of Cambridge which, in the Oxbridge tradition, became an M.A with the passage of time. He was a member of Trinity Hall. He was also an active member of the Marxist Society in Cambridge. At Cambridge, Aiyar joined student politics and once even tried to win a presidential contest. He was supported by Rajiv Gandhi in his campaign who was his junior both at Doon and Cambridge.

Hellsangel wrote:Not surprisingly, from Wikipedia:

He graduated in economics from Delhi University, and then did a two-year B.A. in Tripos in Economics at Trinity Hall, Cambridge at the University of Cambridge which, in the Oxbridge tradition, became an M.A with the passage of time. He was a member of Trinity Hall. He was also an active member of the Marxist Society in Cambridge. At Cambridge, Aiyar joined student politics and once even tried to win a presidential contest. He was supported by Rajiv Gandhi in his campaign who was his junior both at Doon and Cambridge.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Not surprisingly, from Wikipedia:

He graduated in economics from Delhi University, and then did a two-year B.A. in Tripos in Economics at Trinity Hall, Cambridge at the University of Cambridge which, in the Oxbridge tradition, became an M.A with the passage of time. He was a member of Trinity Hall. He was also an active member of the Marxist Society in Cambridge. At Cambridge, Aiyar joined student politics and once even tried to win a presidential contest. He was supported by Rajiv Gandhi in his campaign who was his junior both at Doon and Cambridge.

these old congress aholes that our comrade & douchemun idolizes are all marxists, leninists or maoists, 100%. glad that old guard is going, cant die soon enough.

confuzzled dude wrote:Mani Aiyar, for all his flaws, made a few valid points about honorable PM's lack of foresight/vision. In the long run these policies might make India a much weaker nation.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Not surprisingly, from Wikipedia:

He graduated in economics from Delhi University, and then did a two-year B.A. in Tripos in Economics at Trinity Hall, Cambridge at the University of Cambridge which, in the Oxbridge tradition, became an M.A with the passage of time. He was a member of Trinity Hall. He was also an active member of the Marxist Society in Cambridge. At Cambridge, Aiyar joined student politics and once even tried to win a presidential contest. He was supported by Rajiv Gandhi in his campaign who was his junior both at Doon and Cambridge.

these old congress aholes that our comrade & douchemun idolizes are all marxists, leninists or maoists, 100%. glad that old guard is going, cant die soon enough.

Most of the leaders during independence moment had socialist bent of mind one time or the other. Does that make all of them idiots?

Bal Thackeray, quoting from journalist Dhiren Bhagat's book the Contemporary Conservative, accuses that "when Indians were donating money and jewellery - even sweaters - to sustain India's fight against the Chinese in 1962, Mani Shankar Aiyar, as secretary of the Cambridge unit of Communist party, was busy collecting funds for Chinese soldiers". He further alleges that the Aiyar family's powerful political connections expunged his records as a threat to national security and cleared his way into the Indian Foreign Service.[9] In the Rajya Sabha in August 2013, Samajwadi Party MP Naresh Agarwal accused Aiyar of being a Pakistani spy, when he refused to discuss the recent murder of 5 Indian soldiers by the Pakistani Army and instead suggested discussing rising gas prices. Aiyar reacted sharply and tried to assault Agarwal.[10]

confuzzled dude wrote:

During Cold War I between the US and the USSR in the 20th century, the US co-opted Pakistan as its "most reliable ally". With the onset of Cold War II in the 21st century, now between the US and China, Barack Obama made his Republic Day visit to India to woo Narendra Modi to become the US's most reliable ally. Modi doubled over backwards to oblige.

We are being rapidly dragged into the abyss of confrontation, abandoning the signature tune of Gandhiji and Nehru - peaceful coexistence. We are on the edge of becoming America's Pakistan at the brink of Cold War II. History must serve as our guide as Modi takes the plunge.

Readers as old as I am will remember Vice-President Lyndon Johnson visiting Pakistan during Kennedy's Presidency and taking Pakistan swirling into euphoria when he invited a Pakistani camel-driver to the US as a State guest. A decade later, the US-Pakistan partnership reached its highest (or lowest) point when the US stood rock solid behind Pakistan as the Pakistani army butchered ordinary East Pakistanis and drove ten million of them as refugees into India, thus sparking the war that led on 16 December 1971 to the dismemberment of Pakistan and the emergence of Bangladesh. Small reward for Peshawar having served as the base for U2 spy flights over the Soviet Union and as Kissinger's launch pad for his rapprochement (now breaking down) with China.

http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/modi-is-turning-us-into-americas-new-pakistan-736638

confuzzled dude wrote:Mani Aiyar, for all his flaws, made a few valid points about honorable PM's lack of foresight/vision. In the long run these policies might make India a much weaker nation.

It is the U.S. military-industrial complex that has gained the most from President Barack Obama’s visit. India is closer to becoming a member of a quadrilateral military axis involving the U.S., and a number of deals have been inked that may make India dependent on U.S. military technology in the long run

The U.S. media were more focussed on the Indian Prime Minister’s sartorial tastes and his propensity to address key Western leaders by their first names. Narendra Modi tried to convert the Obama visit into an Indo-U.S. love fest. Before the U.S. President’s visit, the Indian government asked Indian private companies to cut imports of oil from Iran. Industry experts in Dubai said that India was bowing to U.S. pressure. “India does not want the Obama visit to be overshadowed by some dispute over (American) sanctions on Iran,” Robin Mills, an oil consultant based in Dubai, told Reuters.

In the last months of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, relations between Washington and New Delhi had become slightly frosty in the wake of the Devyani Khobragade incident. The U.S. Ambassador, Nancy Powell, had to leave New Delhi without completing her term. Besides the Devyani Khobragade incident, Nancy Powell’s initial reluctance to meet a politically ascendant Modi, who was denied a U.S. visa at the time, was a factor that could have hastened her exit from India after the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) victory in the Lok Sabha elections. Now, with both the Indian Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Foreign Office deciding to put the Devyani Khobragade incident on the back burner and Washington wholeheartedly embracing Modi, relations are firmly back on track. Many pro-establishment commentators are even saying that if Modi and his close advisers have their way, India will soon end up as one of the closest allies of the U.S. in the region, junking time-tested foreign policy principles like non-alignment and strategic autonomy along the way.

confuzzled dude wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Mani Aiyar, for all his flaws, made a few valid points about honorable PM's lack of foresight/vision. In the long run these policies might make India a much weaker nation.

As I said before..

It is the U.S. military-industrial complex that has gained the most from President Barack Obama’s visit. India is closer to becoming a member of a quadrilateral military axis involving the U.S., and a number of deals have been inked that may make India dependent on U.S. military technology in the long run

The U.S. media were more focussed on the Indian Prime Minister’s sartorial tastes and his propensity to address key Western leaders by their first names. Narendra Modi tried to convert the Obama visit into an Indo-U.S. love fest. Before the U.S. President’s visit, the Indian government asked Indian private companies to cut imports of oil from Iran. Industry experts in Dubai said that India was bowing to U.S. pressure. “India does not want the Obama visit to be overshadowed by some dispute over (American) sanctions on Iran,” Robin Mills, an oil consultant based in Dubai, told Reuters.

In the last months of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, relations between Washington and New Delhi had become slightly frosty in the wake of the Devyani Khobragade incident. The U.S. Ambassador, Nancy Powell, had to leave New Delhi without completing her term. Besides the Devyani Khobragade incident, Nancy Powell’s initial reluctance to meet a politically ascendant Modi, who was denied a U.S. visa at the time, was a factor that could have hastened her exit from India after the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) victory in the Lok Sabha elections. Now, with both the Indian Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Foreign Office deciding to put the Devyani Khobragade incident on the back burner and Washington wholeheartedly embracing Modi, relations are firmly back on track. Many pro-establishment commentators are even saying that if Modi and his close advisers have their way, India will soon end up as one of the closest allies of the U.S. in the region, junking time-tested foreign policy principles like non-alignment and strategic autonomy along the way.

http://www.frontline.in/cover-story/deals-and-doubts/article6848010.ece

Kris wrote:
>>>Aiyar, for all his talk of non-alignment, seems to have a soft corner for communism and maybe China. Even being charitable, it can at best be characterized as someone speaking from a client-state mentality. He is not able to envision a scenario whereby a country, growing in economic strength, cannot call the shots in terms of relationships as it seems fit at a given point. This is why his Pakistan analogy does not work. Pakistan was and is not anything to write home about economically and in that sense had/has no clout. He is right to the extent that it could be dictated to, but stretching that model to fit India is a rather broad-brush approach and simplistic. Also, what is sacrosanct about non-alignment? What is wrong with aligning with someone when there is a net benefit to it? It can be done in a nuanced way without antagonizing others. There would be a danger of becoming a vassal state if India was economically and politically weak. I think India is seasoned enough to know its advantages to manage these relationships.

The U.S. military-industrial complex will have sufficient reasons to be happy. Unlike the Russians, the Americans are reluctant to “make in India” and part with their advanced technology. Agreement has been reached only to co-produce relatively unsophisticated “Raven” drones, surveillance systems for Lockheed C-130 planes and jet engine technology. There are fears that under the DTTI signed in 2012, India will become increasingly dependent on American military technology. The Americans have indicated that meaningful transfer of technology will only happen if India signs the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA). The LSA will give the American military access to “lily pad” bases on Indian soil. The previous Indian government was of the view that the LSA would impinge adversely on India’s strategic autonomy. The Modi government does not seem to have any such inhibitions as it has signed on to America’s strategic designs in the Asia-Pacific region.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Aiyar, for all his talk of non-alignment, seems to have a soft corner for communism and maybe China. Even being charitable, it can at best be characterized as someone speaking from a client-state mentality. He is not able to envision a scenario whereby a country, growing in economic strength, cannot call the shots in terms of relationships as it seems fit at a given point. This is why his Pakistan analogy does not work. Pakistan was and is not anything to write home about economically and in that sense had/has no clout. He is right to the extent that it could be dictated to, but stretching that model to fit India is a rather broad-brush approach and simplistic. Also, what is sacrosanct about non-alignment? What is wrong with aligning with someone when there is a net benefit to it? It can be done in a nuanced way without antagonizing others. There would be a danger of becoming a vassal state if India was economically and politically weak. I think India is seasoned enough to know its advantages to manage these relationships.

Precisely.. looking at current administration's modus operandi, it won't take much to turn into one; as is, India is half-way there already with all the religious tensions around the country under India's Zia Ul Haq and given how BJP supporters look up to & admire Pakistan for everything. On top of that our honorable PM appears to be indebted to the US forever, for lifting visa restrictions.

The U.S. military-industrial complex will have sufficient reasons to be happy. Unlike the Russians, the Americans are reluctant to “make in India” and part with their advanced technology. Agreement has been reached only to co-produce relatively unsophisticated “Raven” drones, surveillance systems for Lockheed C-130 planes and jet engine technology. There are fears that under the DTTI signed in 2012, India will become increasingly dependent on American military technology. The Americans have indicated that meaningful transfer of technology will only happen if India signs the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA). The LSA will give the American military access to “lily pad” bases on Indian soil. The previous Indian government was of the view that the LSA would impinge adversely on India’s strategic autonomy. The Modi government does not seem to have any such inhibitions as it has signed on to America’s strategic designs in the Asia-Pacific region.

Kris wrote:
I will make a couple of quick points. 

1) Assuming the worst about Modi, he can't undo India's market size and the transition away from a socialist mindset. This translates to economic power, big time. 

2) The religious tension angle is and can get nowhere to Zia's Pakistan. For one thing, India has a free press and for another, religion or no religion, Modi and company are not in for life and are answerable to the public. Much as the left wants to frame this as a religion-driven issue, the core issue at play will be economic well-being at least for the foreseeable future. 

I think what rankles Aiyar maybe an innate dislike of America or maybe not wanting to see that the world is changing. What exactly is this bogeyman about dependency? What is the strategic autonomy being compromised? India is at best a regional superpower. It is not at the table divvying up the world or aspiring to a Pax Indica of any sort. If two large democracies are aligning, and China has never been a trustworthy friend (other than in Aiyar's mind), this seems to be an unnecessary fear, bordering on paranoia.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
I will make a couple of quick points. 

1) Assuming the worst about Modi, he can't undo India's market size and the transition away from a socialist mindset. This translates to economic power, big time. 

2) The religious tension angle is and can get nowhere to Zia's Pakistan. For one thing, India has a free press and for another, religion or no religion, Modi and company are not in for life and are answerable to the public. Much as the left wants to frame this as a religion-driven issue, the core issue at play will be economic well-being at least for the foreseeable future. 

I think what rankles Aiyar maybe an innate dislike of America or maybe not wanting to see that the world is changing. What exactly is this bogeyman about dependency? What is the strategic autonomy being compromised? India is at best a regional superpower. It is not at the table divvying up the world or aspiring to a Pax Indica of any sort. If two large democracies are aligning, and China has never been a trustworthy friend (other than in Aiyar's mind), this seems to be an unnecessary fear, bordering on paranoia.

and the US has been trustworthy?! I guess was very helpful, by imposing sanctions, blocking pipeline & oil imports from Iran and forcing India to share data on nuclear material & equipment.

Kris wrote:
>>>>There are no permanent friends or enemies in geopolitics. Friendships and commonalty of interests vary. The question is on the whole, whom do you have a greater benefit to align with at a given point or which relationships create the best synergies? China does not come out on top, because of China's aspiration to superpowerdom and how it will get there,given its model of governance. Of course, the US will not cozy up to India if there is no benefit to it and ditto for India. Aiyar either sees India as immature to not be able to make this calculation or is stuck in a post-colonial supplicant's mindset, constantly worried that the west may somehow, somewhere screw us.

Hellsangel wrote:Comrade proves his confuzzledness like his comrade-in-arms again. China's territorial ambitions no know bounds. Whether it is Tibet or the Senkaku islands. If it weren't for Russia even Mongolia would have been part of China.

During the 1962 war with China, it was the US that aided India. But let Comrade and Aiyar conveniently forget that fact.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Comrade proves his confuzzledness like his comrade-in-arms again. China's territorial ambitions no know bounds. Whether it is Tibet or the Senkaku islands. If it weren't for Russia even Mongolia would have been part of China.

During the 1962 war with China, it was the US that aided India. But let Comrade and Aiyar conveniently forget that fact.

Going by your logic, One of the American presidents called Indian PM a bitch, and was instrumental in destabilizing one of the provinces of India which resulted into mass exodus of a section of citizens, lets conveniently forget all that.

Hellsangel wrote:Aiyar is an idiot. No wonder Comrade is extolling his virtues.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>There are no permanent friends or enemies in geopolitics. Friendships and commonalty of interests vary. The question is on the whole, whom do you have a greater benefit to align with at a given point or which relationships create the best synergies? China does not come out on top, because of China's aspiration to superpowerdom and how it will get there,given its model of governance. Of course, the US will not cozy up to India if there is no benefit to it and ditto for India. Aiyar either sees India as immature to not be able to make this calculation or is stuck in a post-colonial supplicant's mindset, constantly worried that the west may somehow, somewhere screw us.

At this point, India doesn't gain much by kissing America's rear-end, as all America is interested in reducing its trade deficit by selling more arms and nuclear technologies to India, OTOH, India has much to gain by working with China to fix her trade deficit.

Kris wrote:
>>> I don't know. This seems driven by 'America bad, Modi bad, bring back the good old days' -- yada,yada, yada. Aiyar's position is either based on diffidence or paranoia, both of which seem to common among those of aiyar's ilk. If India is going to buy arms, I am not sure why it can't be from america. This 'strategic autonomy' angle is a bogeyman. India unilaterally is not going to be in a position to be moving global pieces any time soon. If ever this shapes into a global conflict, America and India will be natural allies as opposed to a China-India nexus. There is nothing that precludes India from working with China now.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>> I don't know. This seems driven by 'America bad, Modi bad, bring back the good old days' -- yada,yada, yada. Aiyar's position is either based on diffidence or paranoia, both of which seem to common among those of aiyar's ilk. If India is going to buy arms, I am not sure why it can't be from america. This 'strategic autonomy' angle is a bogeyman. India unilaterally is not going to be in a position to be moving global pieces any time soon. If ever this shapes into a global conflict, America and India will be natural allies as opposed to a China-India nexus. There is nothing that precludes India from working with China now.

I'm not sure about paranoia or bogeyman. Just like the US, India has to look for its interests first, however, the current administration's policies on nuclear deal or FDI in defense appear to compromise India's security in the long run which should not be ignored in lieu of short term benefits. America & India natural allies! news to me.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>> I don't know. This seems driven by 'America bad, Modi bad, bring back the good old days' -- yada,yada, yada. Aiyar's position is either based on diffidence or paranoia, both of which seem to common among those of aiyar's ilk. If India is going to buy arms, I am not sure why it can't be from america. This 'strategic autonomy' angle is a bogeyman. India unilaterally is not going to be in a position to be moving global pieces any time soon. If ever this shapes into a global conflict, America and India will be natural allies as opposed to a China-India nexus. There is nothing that precludes India from working with China now.

I'm not sure about paranoia or bogeyman. Just like the US, India has to look for its interests first, however, the current administration's policies on nuclear deal or FDI in defense appear to compromise India's security in the long run which should not be ignored in lieu of short term benefits. America & India natural allies! news to me.

In a world which is heading  toward a China/US divide, what is your pick?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>> I don't know. This seems driven by 'America bad, Modi bad, bring back the good old days' -- yada,yada, yada. Aiyar's position is either based on diffidence or paranoia, both of which seem to common among those of aiyar's ilk. If India is going to buy arms, I am not sure why it can't be from america. This 'strategic autonomy' angle is a bogeyman. India unilaterally is not going to be in a position to be moving global pieces any time soon. If ever this shapes into a global conflict, America and India will be natural allies as opposed to a China-India nexus. There is nothing that precludes India from working with China now.

I'm not sure about paranoia or bogeyman. Just like the US, India has to look for its interests first, however, the current administration's policies on nuclear deal or FDI in defense appear to compromise India's security in the long run which should not be ignored in lieu of short term benefits. America & India natural allies! news to me.

In a world which is heading  toward a China/US divide, what is your pick?

I'm afraid picking America's side will only hasten the process of turning into America's new Pakistan; not many allies or former allies of the US live in peace, many countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan) were destroyed.

Kris wrote:
>>>You may want to apply Occam's razor here. Hint: What do these countries have in common? Do they have the cultural wherewithal to engender and sustain free, vibrant, progressive societies? As HA says below, do S.Korea and Germany (or the UK) have the same problems?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>You may want to apply Occam's razor here. Hint: What do these countries have in common? Do they have the cultural wherewithal to engender and sustain free, vibrant, progressive societies? As HA says below, do S.Korea and Germany (or the UK) have the same problems?

India is a cultural cousin of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq where as Germany, Korea etc., aren't thus the chances of India becoming one of the latter countries are very bleak, especially with a right-wing govt at the helm.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>You may want to apply Occam's razor here. Hint: What do these countries have in common? Do they have the cultural wherewithal to engender and sustain free, vibrant, progressive societies? As HA says below, do S.Korea and Germany (or the UK) have the same problems?

India is a cultural cousin of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq where as Germany, Korea etc., aren't thus the chances of India becoming one of the latter countries are very bleak, especially with a right-wing govt at the helm.

And we are back to Comrade's idiotic agenda. If the same thing had been done by the Congress government, he would be singing paeans of India-US ties.

India cannot afford to jeopardise the hard-won gains made in this relationship. Annoying China, which is also India’s largest trade partner to please a geographically distant power, is not in India’s best interests.

India must avoid aligning its security concerns with Washington. Doing so leaves it vulnerable to making enemies of countries that it should be co-operating with. The manner in which India’s relations with long-time friend Iran frayed under the US pressure is a case in point and the Modi government must avoid repeating past mistakes.

India’s foreign policy must be aimed at achieving its own priorities and goals rather than furthering interests and agendas of others. In a multi-polar world, it is unwise to put all our eggs in one basket.

It is not in India’s interest to identify with the US’ ‘Pivot to Asia strategy’ or to allow itself to become Washington’s lynchpin. Delhi needs neither the advice nor the input of the Americans in crafting its policy and strategy towards China. India is fully capable of dealing directly with Beijing.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>You may want to apply Occam's razor here. Hint: What do these countries have in common? Do they have the cultural wherewithal to engender and sustain free, vibrant, progressive societies? As HA says below, do S.Korea and Germany (or the UK) have the same problems?

India is a cultural cousin of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq where as Germany, Korea etc., aren't thus the chances of India becoming one of the latter countries are very bleak, especially with a right-wing govt at the helm.

And we are back to Comrade's idiotic agenda. If the same thing had been done by the Congress government, he would be singing paeans of India-US ties.

But but there are many who echo my sentiments

India cannot afford to jeopardise the hard-won gains made in this relationship. Annoying China, which is also India’s largest trade partner to please a geographically distant power, is not in India’s best interests.

India must avoid aligning its security concerns with Washington. Doing so leaves it vulnerable to making enemies of countries that it should be co-operating with. The manner in which India’s relations with long-time friend Iran frayed under the US pressure is a case in point and the Modi government must avoid repeating past mistakes.

India’s foreign policy must be aimed at achieving its own priorities and goals rather than furthering interests and agendas of others. In a multi-polar world, it is unwise to put all our eggs in one basket.

It is not in India’s interest to identify with the US’ ‘Pivot to Asia strategy’ or to allow itself to become Washington’s lynchpin. Delhi needs neither the advice nor the input of the Americans in crafting its policy and strategy towards China. India is fully capable of dealing directly with Beijing.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/457750/china-must-prime-india-not.html

Hellsangel wrote:
There are others with your idiotic agenda, Comrade. So?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:
There are others with your idiotic agenda, Comrade. So?

More idiotic than the tireless efforts of PM bhaktas to cover up his shortcomings? it is clear to everyone, by now that foreign policy is way over our PM's head, he pretty much realized that it is not as easy/straightforward as ordering henchmen to attack minority communities.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:The present collaboration involving the U.S. and India, both democracies and free economies, is meant for strengthening both countries economically and democratically (by keeping terrorism away).

On the other hand, the 1980's involvement in Afghanistan had on one side the religionists (the Western majority Christian countries such as the U.S., Britain etc. and also the Pope, uniting with the Muslim countries e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan etc. and even on their side the Afghan Mujaheedin, the forerunner to Teliban and Al-qaeda) and on the other side the non-religionist / non-believing (Soviet Union along with its then Afghanistan Govt. ally).

Kris wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:The present collaboration involving the U.S. and India, both democracies and free economies, is meant for strengthening both countries economically and democratically (by keeping terrorism away).

On the other hand, the 1980's involvement in Afghanistan had on one side the religionists (the Western majority Christian countries such as the U.S., Britain etc. and also the Pope, uniting with the Muslim countries e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan etc. and even on their side the Afghan Mujaheedin, the forerunner to Teliban and Al-qaeda) and on the other side the non-religionist / non-believing (Soviet Union along with its then Afghanistan Govt. ally).

The West's angle was couched in the religion garb to get the Muslims to buy in, since they needed a foothold in Pakistan and Afghanistan to stave off the Soviets' attempt to get access to a warm water port. Anyway, the alliance with India is, as you said, due to the synergies involved vis-a-vis terrorism and of course, to present a counter-balance to China's increasing influence. These two alliances are qualitatively different in that the former alliance was primarily a military arrangement, whereas the latter involves a huge market with increasing purchasing power and is on the radar as a contributor to global commerce.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Kris wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:The present collaboration involving the U.S. and India, both democracies and free economies, is meant for strengthening both countries economically and democratically (by keeping terrorism away).

On the other hand, the 1980's involvement in Afghanistan had on one side the religionists (the Western majority Christian countries such as the U.S., Britain etc. and also the Pope, uniting with the Muslim countries e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan etc. and even on their side the Afghan Mujaheedin, the forerunner to Teliban and Al-qaeda) and on the other side the non-religionist / non-believing (Soviet Union along with its then Afghanistan Govt. ally).

The West's angle was couched in the religion garb to get the Muslims to buy in, since they needed a foothold in Pakistan and Afghanistan to stave off the Soviets' attempt to get access to a warm water port. Anyway, the alliance with India is, as you said, due to the synergies involved vis-a-vis terrorism and of course, to present a counter-balance to China's increasing influence. These two alliances are qualitatively different in that the former alliance was primarily a military arrangement, whereas the latter involves a huge market with increasing purchasing power and is on the radar as a contributor to global commerce.

The religious angle in the western Christian-Muslim alliance in Afghanistan during 1980s against the communist Soviets and their Afghan Govt. allies also became apparent when Pres. Reagan called then the Soviet Union as the evil empire, the reference probably to that country’s irreligiousness in terms of not allowing the proselytizing and not because it had a different type of economic system (state ownership of everything) or it was seeking the warm water ports in the South via Afghanistan.

Kris wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Kris wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:The present collaboration involving the U.S. and India, both democracies and free economies, is meant for strengthening both countries economically and democratically (by keeping terrorism away).

On the other hand, the 1980's involvement in Afghanistan had on one side the religionists (the Western majority Christian countries such as the U.S., Britain etc. and also the Pope, uniting with the Muslim countries e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan etc. and even on their side the Afghan Mujaheedin, the forerunner to Teliban and Al-qaeda) and on the other side the non-religionist / non-believing (Soviet Union along with its then Afghanistan Govt. ally).

The West's angle was couched in the religion garb to get the Muslims to buy in, since they needed a foothold in Pakistan and Afghanistan to stave off the Soviets' attempt to get access to a warm water port. Anyway, the alliance with India is, as you said, due to the synergies involved vis-a-vis terrorism and of course, to present a counter-balance to China's increasing influence. These two alliances are qualitatively different in that the former alliance was primarily a military arrangement, whereas the latter involves a huge market with increasing purchasing power and is on the radar as a contributor to global commerce.

The religious angle in the western Christian-Muslim alliance in Afghanistan during 1980s against the communist Soviets and their Afghan Govt. allies also became apparent when Pres. Reagan called then the Soviet Union as the evil empire, the reference probably to that country’s irreligiousness in terms of not allowing the proselytizing and not because it had a different type of economic system (state ownership of everything) or it was seeking the warm water ports in the South via Afghanistan.

Reagan probably believed in the cause for this reason, but the foreign policy establishment's goal was the containment of the Soviets. The godless commie angle is one they would invoke when they were playing to a particular gallery.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Kris wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:The present collaboration involving the U.S. and India, both democracies and free economies, is meant for strengthening both countries economically and democratically (by keeping terrorism away).

On the other hand, the 1980's involvement in Afghanistan had on one side the religionists (the Western majority Christian countries such as the U.S., Britain etc. and also the Pope, uniting with the Muslim countries e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan etc. and even on their side the Afghan Mujaheedin, the forerunner to Teliban and Al-qaeda) and on the other side the non-religionist / non-believing (Soviet Union along with its then Afghanistan Govt. ally).

The West's angle was couched in the religion garb to get the Muslims to buy in, since they needed a foothold in Pakistan and Afghanistan to stave off the Soviets' attempt to get access to a warm water port. Anyway, the alliance with India is, as you said, due to the synergies involved vis-a-vis terrorism and of course, to present a counter-balance to China's increasing influence. These two alliances are qualitatively different in that the former alliance was primarily a military arrangement, whereas the latter involves a huge market with increasing purchasing power and is on the radar as a contributor to global commerce.

The religious angle in the western Christian-Muslim alliance in Afghanistan during 1980s against the communist Soviets and their Afghan Govt. allies also became apparent when Pres. Reagan called then the Soviet Union as the evil empire, the reference probably to that country’s irreligiousness in terms of not allowing the proselytizing and not because it had a different type of economic system (state ownership of everything) or it was seeking the warm water ports in the South via Afghanistan.

Reagan probably believed in the cause for this reason, but the foreign policy establishment's goal was the containment of the Soviets. The godless commie angle is one they would invoke when they were playing to a particular gallery.

what was the foreign policy angle when dubya looked into putin's eyes and saw his soul?

Hellsangel wrote:There is another largely ignored factor. Afghanistan was being set up to be USSR's Vietnam.

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Kris wrote:
The West's angle was couched in the religion garb to get the Muslims to buy in, since they needed a foothold in Pakistan and Afghanistan to stave off the Soviets' attempt to get access to a warm water port. Anyway, the alliance with India is, as you said, due to the synergies involved vis-a-vis terrorism and of course, to present a counter-balance to China's increasing influence. These two alliances are qualitatively different in that the former alliance was primarily a military arrangement, whereas the latter involves a huge market with increasing purchasing power and is on the radar as a contributor to global commerce.

The religious angle in the western Christian-Muslim alliance in Afghanistan during 1980s against the communist Soviets and their Afghan Govt. allies also became apparent when Pres. Reagan called then the Soviet Union as the evil empire, the reference probably to that country’s irreligiousness in terms of not allowing the proselytizing and not because it had a different type of economic system (state ownership of everything) or it was seeking the warm water ports in the South via Afghanistan.

Reagan probably believed in the cause for this reason, but the foreign policy establishment's goal was the containment of the Soviets. The godless commie angle is one they would invoke when they were playing to a particular gallery.

what was the foreign policy angle when dubya looked into putin's eyes and saw his soul?

>>>Soviet Union was gone by then.

Kris wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Kris wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:The present collaboration involving the U.S. and India, both democracies and free economies, is meant for strengthening both countries economically and democratically (by keeping terrorism away).

On the other hand, the 1980's involvement in Afghanistan had on one side the religionists (the Western majority Christian countries such as the U.S., Britain etc. and also the Pope, uniting with the Muslim countries e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan etc. and even on their side the Afghan Mujaheedin, the forerunner to Teliban and Al-qaeda) and on the other side the non-religionist / non-believing (Soviet Union along with its then Afghanistan Govt. ally).

The West's angle was couched in the religion garb to get the Muslims to buy in, since they needed a foothold in Pakistan and Afghanistan to stave off the Soviets' attempt to get access to a warm water port. Anyway, the alliance with India is, as you said, due to the synergies involved vis-a-vis terrorism and of course, to present a counter-balance to China's increasing influence. These two alliances are qualitatively different in that the former alliance was primarily a military arrangement, whereas the latter involves a huge market with increasing purchasing power and is on the radar as a contributor to global commerce.

The religious angle in the western Christian-Muslim alliance in Afghanistan during 1980s against the communist Soviets and their Afghan Govt. allies also became apparent when Pres. Reagan called then the Soviet Union as the evil empire, the reference probably to that country’s irreligiousness in terms of not allowing the proselytizing and not because it had a different type of economic system (state ownership of everything) or it was seeking the warm water ports in the South via Afghanistan.

Reagan probably believed in the cause for this reason, but the foreign policy establishment's goal was the containment of the Soviets. The godless commie angle is one they would invoke when they were playing to a particular gallery.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Kris wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:The present collaboration involving the U.S. and India, both democracies and free economies, is meant for strengthening both countries economically and democratically (by keeping terrorism away).

On the other hand, the 1980's involvement in Afghanistan had on one side the religionists (the Western majority Christian countries such as the U.S., Britain etc. and also the Pope, uniting with the Muslim countries e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan etc. and even on their side the Afghan Mujaheedin, the forerunner to Teliban and Al-qaeda) and on the other side the non-religionist / non-believing (Soviet Union along with its then Afghanistan Govt. ally).

The West's angle was couched in the religion garb to get the Muslims to buy in, since they needed a foothold in Pakistan and Afghanistan to stave off the Soviets' attempt to get access to a warm water port. Anyway, the alliance with India is, as you said, due to the synergies involved vis-a-vis terrorism and of course, to present a counter-balance to China's increasing influence. These two alliances are qualitatively different in that the former alliance was primarily a military arrangement, whereas the latter involves a huge market with increasing purchasing power and is on the radar as a contributor to global commerce.

The religious angle in the western Christian-Muslim alliance in Afghanistan during 1980s against the communist Soviets and their Afghan Govt. allies also became apparent when Pres. Reagan called then the Soviet Union as the evil empire, the reference probably to that country’s irreligiousness in terms of not allowing the proselytizing and not because it had a different type of economic system (state ownership of everything) or it was seeking the warm water ports in the South via Afghanistan.

Reagan probably believed in the cause for this reason, but the foreign policy establishment's goal was the containment of the Soviets. The godless commie angle is one they would invoke when they were playing to a particular gallery.

How does this theory fit into Iran, Iraq, Nicargua contras.

Kris wrote:
>>>What theory? Which of these was directly related to containment of the soviets?