India Can Apply the New US War Doctrine on Pakistan

HindustanTimes/SATribune ^ | Vir Sanghvi

[swarthyguy]

We should drop our objections. Instead we should embrace the American position and use it as the basis of our own national security policy.

[Publius]

There’s only one problem: if we did exactly what America is doing for exactly the same reasons and using exactly the same arguments, America would be the first country to oppose us.

The author is only partially correct. To maintain a friendly Pakistan during the War on Terror, we'd condemn India. Once that war was won, we'd maintain a studious silence if India made a move.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[lepton]

Hasn't India already been doing this?

[snooker]

We should suggest India try using the UN for 12 years to resolve their problem.

By then, I would bet we have fixed it for them.

[Brilliant]

I agree with this, even though it may be sarcasm. India should take on Pakistan. That will make it easier for us, certainly. We can't be expected to carry the whole world on our shoulders.

[algol]

I don't know whether this was written tongue in cheek or not.

But if India really wants a Pakistani nuke rocket-mailed to New Delhi, then by all means they should pursue that course.

[Our man in washington]

Well, make sure you take out Pakistan's nukes first. It could get ugly otherwise.

The way I see it, let's say the following happens:

1. We take out Iraq.
2. Iran gets overthrown or at least has so many problems at home that they stop exporting terror.
3. India takes out Pakistan.
4. North Korea collapses when the west stops propping it up.
5. We beef up the CIA, and tell it to do whatever is necessary to go after terrorist groups.

At that point, we could sign a treaty with the nuclear powers to have a policy in place to monitor all nuclear weapons. We'd then be reasonably safe from nuclear attacks from terrorists for at least the next generation.

[Uncle Miltie]

Correction: "an unelected dictator who possesses and uses weapons of mass destruction in contravention of cease fire agreements"

[Polybius]

To maintain a friendly Pakistan during the War on Terror, we'd condemn India.

However, if we thought that India could actually win and clean out that rat's nest of Islamist terrorism, we would look the other way.

[BlueLancer]

Sounds good to me, sluggo ...

You guys fight it out over there. The winners will be allowed to eat the losers.

[swarthyguy]

A little sarcasm, a little tongue in cheek, a little fit of pique at the constant calls for restraint from around the world, ( which India should've ignored last year and hit the Paks, despite Powell calling for restraint) and a real seriousness that India has to drop the UN charade and deal with Pak herself.

[Mr. Bird]

I'm sure the author thinks he's being clever, but this is just more anti-American gibberish. There would be nothing preemptive about an escalated Indo-Pak confrontation. They've been killing each other in Kashmir for years.

Their situation is much closer to the US/Soviet relationship in the Cold War. Preemptive attack would kill millions of their own, which is why they don't try it. The author can quip all he wants about just following the US lead, but he'd be laughing all the way to the funerals of a bunch of charred compatriots.

His real beef is revealed at the end, stating that the "new world order" is that the world does "what America orders". What pisses him off is that the U.S. can do what it pleases, regardless of world opinion. He should thank his lucky stars our inclinations are unique in their humanity, unlike those of our enemies. If we were Islamists, his Hindu ass would be reincarnating right about now....

[TheOwl]

You know, there are only so many lies that a writer can pack into a few paragraphs?!
I would like to say that the other 50 or so countries that the writer classifies as not worthy of mention or whatever......tell them they aren't in this with us. Tell the Kurds and the Iraqis that are fighting WITH our soldiers to free themselves from a man who puts citizens into plastic shredders feet first. Someone is listening, but not hearing, if that.
As for India and Pakistan....who cares? Until they mess with us, I could care less what they do to each other, but you mess with Uncle Sam, and we're gonna put a boot in your.......
We are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and we DO NOT, and WILL NOT, for as long as the People rule this country, ASK PERMISSION from the UN, or other countries to defend our FUTURE against EVIL forces. Long live the words of Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and George W. Bush.


IMHO, further debate on an article of this nature is not only useless, but absurd considering the nature of the enemy and the goal of the US Admin.

[LdSentinal]

Perhaps India should have regretted its' decision to ally itself with the Soviet Union over the West for 44 years (Thanks to the socialist Nehru). Then they would realize why the US allied itself with Pakistan.

[Centurion2000]

I believe we are making a mistake. We should drop our objections. Instead we should embrace the American position and use it as the basis of our own national security policy. After all, as Donald Rumsfeld keeps suggesting, America is now the greatest power in the world and makes all the rules.

So, let’s stop protesting. Let’s just learn these new rules and apply them to our own national security — chiefly to our relations with Pakistan.

Go for it .... but don't ask us for help ...

[mikeIII]

Go for it .... but don't ask us for help ...

That can't be said of our policy! We have in fact been pressuring India to keep off our "staunch ally"!

Longstanding as this fued is, it's now a nuclear standoff. The irony is that an increasing degree of pakistan-based terrorism is being directed at America and Americans!

[Stopislamnow]

Yap yap yap.

India should just do it before the radicals win all the provinces instead of 2. when its all of em it'll be too late.

[Sonny M]

It wasn't so much siding with the Soviets for ideological reasons as it was for safety. The Soviets were known to be ruthless, had no problem invading neighbors, and were enstranged with China (who India also considered a rival and threat). To top it off, America is on the other side of the world. India took the choice of self preservation, (and the logic "enemy of my enemy is my friend"). The U.S. aligned with Pakistan, and had good ties with (or at least better then India) China, The soviets had problems with China, and with India siding with the Soviets, had the soviets aligned against Pakistan too. In India's case, lets be honest, The U.S. does not go about invading or attacking countries unless they pose a threat to us, if a country disagrees with America, they are not going to be attacked, or suffer serious reprecussions, even during the cold war, and especially if that country is a democracy. However, if you ticked off the Soviets, and they were close enough, then they could and might just strike you.