By this logic, expect a massive terror attack somewhere in Inja soon - (Rumsfeld and Armitage arrive soon) causing popular opinion to demand resolute action on India's part. Musharraf can play the wily statesman, pulling the wool over the West's eyes.
Remember the nonaligned nations of the Cold War?
We do. And we don't owe you a damned thing.
Sincerely,
Uncle Sam
In a few years, China will start to move and they will play the game, they have nuclear weapons and will "threaten" to use them if anyone gets in their way.
It has been for quite some time, now. You don't think that Pakistan invented this particular diplomatic tool, do you?
Nevertheless, the United States has moved further from Pakistan and closer to India. We have done so mainly because we see that as being in our national security interests.
India is NOT a formal ally of the United States. We have no mutual defense treaties with India. We certainly have no obligation to get involved in a nuclear war on the subcontinent UNLESS we decide it is in our national interest to do so.
When we help other countries, we're allies and good "citizens of the World Community ®"
When we help ourselves , we're "imperialists" and the world's "policeman"
Being too inept/lazy to solve their own problems, or develop legitimate assets of statecraft, the 3rd world (with the assistance of western "human-rights" organizations) has done a remarkable job of spinning the issues in their favor.
That's what I like about the Times of India, its unabashed Woodhousian anglomania. Regardless of how this latest conflict turns out K SUBRAHMANYAM has already gone nuclear with every convent school cliché smartly marshalled and deployed like pieces on a chessboard.
Neither country would dare launch an attack while our troops are in there.
At the very least inform both countries that if we don't have their cooperation in digging terrorists out of Kashmir that it will be us that nukes it out of existance and they can squabble over the remains.
We never expected to get more than flyover rights, an air base or two and some logistical support from Musharraf or his generals, despite their very public pronouncements of full support. This is why we made arrangements for other bases in Russia and some of the other Stans. We know he let many of the people we were after escape into his country and then proceed to Kashmir. But our immediate mission was to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and Binnies boys. We knew some of them would escape and that we would have to hunt them down elsewhere.
Don’t for a minute think that Bush, Rumsfeld or Rice didn’t understand this going in.
Well, things are winding down in Afghanistan, We have bases there now as well in a few neighboring countries, including Russia, with whom we have a new understanding. Meanwhile Musharraf still only plays lip service to the war on terrorism by denying us access into areas where we know the bad guys are hiding, while rounding up the usual harmless suspects as if we don’t know what he is doing.
We also know that Musharraf and his military are responsible for ratcheting up the incursions into India. We know he thought he could get away with it, thinking that our presence would deter India. He was wrong. When India demanded that the Pakistani military better do something, we seconded their position and added, I’m sure, a few more demands regarding the people we were after. Musharraf promised to “do something”. We told everyone we thought he was sincere, even though we didn’t really believe it (do you think Bush and Putin only talked about our missiles?). Essentially we gave Musharraf a chance to put up or shut up. He’s done neither.
Meanwhile, he has managed to royally piss off a heavily armed neighbor with which his country has a running and bitter feud. We have in several statements backed India’s complaints to Musharraf, while asking the Indians not to do anything rash - yet.
India has stated that the presence of U.S. troops, personnel, diplomats and citizens in either country will not be a deterrent should they decide they need to take drastic action. We have not rebuked them for those statements, instead, we have taken them at their word and told our people in India, and Pakistan, to leave if they don’t want to risk the mother of all sun-burns.
Rumsfeld is not going to India. Why? Because we have nothing much to say to India. Rumsfeld is going to Pakistan to talk to Musharraf. Why? Probably to tell them do a quick inventory of their nuclear arsenal and do a little math. He may even have taken the Bush’s copy of Eight Days in October as an audio-visual aid. Or, maybe, Sum of All Fears. They are probably going to be told to real serious about fighting terrorism real fast. That or face the music with India. Rumsfeld will tell them that the calculus doesn't work in their favor and that the prevailing winds blow from west to east across Afghanistan and Pakistan - so Musharraf will know which way the breeze he’s swinging in blows....
Nuclear Blackmail? I think not.
If, after Rumsfeld returns home, you hear of U.S. Troops “re-deploying” to Afghanistan from our “ally” to the east... Then grab a beer, pop some corn, and tune in CNN, cause its gonna be quite a show. Hey! We may even get some live shots from the International Space Station! Won’t that be cool........ I’m looking forward to the show.
Here’s something worth reading from Musharraf: http://www.dawn.com/events/speech/20010919/index.htm
Have we lost a potential ally in India now? If America had supported a nuke war there in favor of India, what would have been the opinion of India? Better? I don't think so either.
One thing is for sure, the administration's rhetoric on terrorism is as satisfactory as Hoover's rhetoric on the 1929 crisis. Though both administration were good, they need to show a bit more resolve to the people.
Quite a way with words, and I can't say I don't sympathize with their frustration.