Replies

Pakistan cannot afford to be more belligerent. The Mafia that controls pak knows that very well.

So U.S. should just cut off arms to Pakistan, as a lawless nation? And U.S. and India confront China to do same, or risk jeopardizing their U.S. trade?

Is this what you espouse? Would Indian gov't really work so closely with U.S., you didn't answer my question about if that is so, has it been reflected in Indian support for U.S. in Iraq? Or do Indians care about aggressor nations only next door to themselves?

"So U.S. should just cut off arms to Pakistan, as a lawless nation? And U.S. and India confront China to do same, or risk jeopardizing their U.S. trade?

Is this what you espouse? Would Indian gov't really work so closely with U.S., you didn't answer my question about if that is so, has it been reflected in Indian support for U.S. in Iraq? Or do Indians care about aggressor nations only next door to themselves?"

Pakistan was ruled by the army since day one. Nothing in Pakistan is stronger than the Army. The Pak army can burn down the jihad factory overnight if they wish to do so, but it would be stupid to destroy their main weapon against India and the very excuse with which they can sucker US for billions of dollars of military aid. Make no mistake Pak army with 0.7 Million troops better equipped than Indian Army is one of the mightiest army in Asia and the Muslim world. Indian Army uses old Soviet weaponry while the Pak army uses the most modern American and Chinese weaponry.

The Mullas can take over Pakistan only if they are from within the GHQ. If and when Musharraf is replaced it will have to be someone from the GHQ. The guy replacing Mushie may well be an anti-American hardliner but he will still be from the Army but remember the Pak army is nothing without America behind them. The Pak army may scare the US government and media into believing that Pakistan is on the verge of going the Iran way but they know thats not possible. The General replacing Mushie may well do some anti-American posturing but without US help they cant budge an inch. In India its well know that Pakistan's belligerence stands on three 'A's : Allah, Army and America. For Pakistan to become a normal/functioning state, all three 'A's (or at least one 'A') will have to go.

"So U.S. should just cut off arms to Pakistan, as a lawless nation?"

Thats the first requirement.

"And U.S. and India confront China to do same, or risk jeopardizing their U.S. trade?"

The confront China will have to be a joint Indo-American-Japanese long term strategy. We would have to confront them economically , strategically and perhaps even militarily. I think these three countries will have to start working in that direction.

"Would Indian gov't really work so closely with U.S., you didn't answer my question about if that is so, has it been reflected in Indian support for U.S. in Iraq? Or do Indians care about aggressor nations only next door to themselves?"

You would remember that India was the first country to pledge complete and unconditional support for the US post 9/11. It was as some had called "giving US a blank check". Just that US refused to encash it thinking Pakistans alliance would be more valuable and so the US government decided to by-pass India.

India was all ready to send army to Afghanistan but the US refused Indian help at Pakistan's behest. Even then it was Indian intelligence that US had to rely on, in Afghanistan it was India backed NA that did the fighting against Taliban.

As for Iraq, asking for Indian help could never have been an option after the US refused Indian help. After all you cannot expect Indian help in Iraq while we fight it out alone in Kashmir. No political party in India would agree to that. America's best chances of getting Indian help in Iraq was when the BJP was in power, now with the present Congress government its next to impossible unless the US makes a paradigm shift in its foreign policy vis-à-vis Pakistan.