Sale of F-16s to Pakistan raises U.S. stakes in Asia

[lovuian]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=dd48cab76f20e4dc

Asia Times Monday 28th March, 2005

Islamabad is elated, India is miffed. The decision by the United States to sell F-16 strike fighters to Pakistan involves much more than a simple sale of arms - important geostrategic undercurrents are at play involving not only the Indian sub-continent, but also China.

Last Friday, Sanjaya Baru, spokesman for India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, announced that US President George W Bush had informed Singh of the American decision to go ahead with the sale of nuclear-capable Lockheed-Martin F-16 strike fighter aircraft to Pakistan. The spokesman also noted that the Indian leader conveyed to Bush India's 'great disappointment' and a message that this move could have 'negative consequences for India's security environment'.

A few hours later, Bush administration officials in Washington and elsewhere added more details to the report, confirming that the mandatory notification to Congress had been sent. Washington sources say that Congress is unlikely to object to this deal. Pakistan's Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed announced in Islamabad that the US had essentially offered an unlimited number of F-16s, and that the aircraft would be the newer C and D versions (Block 50/52) which are more than a generation ahead of Pakistan's current F-16 fleet. Ahmed also noted that the Pakistan Air Force leadership would soon decide on the quantity to request. Industry sources say that Pakistan may initially order about 24 planes, with an option to buy a significantly larger number in a few years. Pakistan's current fleet of about 32 F-16s is also likely to be upgraded.

snip...

But many Indian strategists and former senior officials are not so sanguine. Some note that the US has essentially offered a tangible weapons system to Pakistan, while offering some nice-sounding promises to India, which may or may not develop into real gains. Noting that one of the items seemingly on offer was the sale of American nuclear power plants to India, one observer asked - 'Will Ms Rice and her staff be willing to do the heavy lifting in Congress and within the numerous non-proliferation agencies within the American bureaucracy to get approval for this? I don't think so.' India has energy needs now that cannot be fulfilled by mere talks, he added.
snip...
This is bound to displease the conservative elements in the Bush administration, who are slowly coming around to the idea to treat China as a strategic competitor, and who have embarked on efforts with the European Union and Japan to contain China's military expansion. 'India has nothing to gain by ganging up against China, when the US is insensitive to India's security interests,' an Indian analyst said. The analyst added that India would be under no illusion that Pakistan's 'evergreen friendship' with China would weaken, but pointed out that the Chinese were not going to miss the significance of closer Pakistan-US ties and the potential negative implications for China. 'Beijing is not going to like the idea of permanent American bases in Pakistan, maybe even near Chinese territory. Also, China is bound to be suspicious of a permanent American naval presence at a time when it is trying to get a foothold in that region with its participation in the construction of Gwadar port in Pakistan.'
more...

Did I see this right??? American Bases in Pakistan!!! OMG!!!
What the hell is Bush up too???

[Wonk]

1. TITNSTOTD. This is the No Shit thread of the day.

imho

http://www.google.com/search?q=khan+pakistan+nuclear

[chicagojoe]

2. That's how Pakistan will pay for those jets ---

US Military Bases.

[lovuian]

3. Ya did you see the US offered Unlimited number of F16's

OMG!!! No wonder India is scared to death!!!

and China's airforce sucks!!!

India is like what the hell is going on!!!
Bush outsourced to us and now is screwing us!!!

Let me explain things to you India
Bush screws everybody!!! especially socialistic countries
He liked Dictators he can buy!!!

[Old and In the Way]

4. Actally, India is the world's largest democracy.

Pakistan, is a military dictatorship. But this is the way we operate in Bushworld.

[lovuian]

5. Bingo!!!

:kick:

[Henny Penny]

6. also...

This is a slap in the face for India after they wouldn't back * over the Iranian pipeline.

[gorky]

7. Re : Ya did you see the US offered Unlimited number of F16's

Nobody in India is surprised. US strategic policy in South Asia starting from the Baghdad Pact( lookup METO/CENTO) of the 1950's has been to arm Pakistan in order to strategically balance India. This policy has been religiously followed by both Democrat and Republican administrations.Variations in this policy have occured only when it dovetailed with America's immediate strategic needs.For example it was President Jimmy Carter in 1979 who approved the US backing for the Islamist insurgency in Afghanistan. He did this after visiting Pakistan and meeting the then Pak military dictator , Gen. Zia Ul Haq. While one could argue that the Soviets got what they deserved, this action was extremely detrimental to India. From 1979 to 1989 , Pakistan fomented a Khalistani rebellion in the Punjab state of India which caused about 50,000 deaths. The Pakistanis used the funding from Saudis and CIA and the training bases in NWFP to arm rebel Khalistanis. There were numerous Khalistanis in US and Canada who were financing the terror in India. The Reagan administration cracked down on them only after the Air India Kanishka bombing which killed several "white skinned" Westerners also.

After the Afghan war, from 1989, Pakistan armed and supported an Islamist rebellion in Kashmir. Half a million Hindu minority Pandits were pushed out of Kashmir valley and they still live as refugees in several parts of India. Every day there would be random attacks on Hindu Villages in Jammu region of Kashmir and civilian men , women and children would be killed. While Bush I pretty much took a hands off policy , he at least banned the sales of arms to Pakistan on the basis of Pressler Amendment. However after Bill Clinton became President , the Asst. Sec of State in charge of S.Asia , Robin Raphel took an entirely anti-Indian and pro-Pak line. While every day India was accused of human rights violations and threatened with sanctions, there was nary a peep against the Paks.When Hindu civilians were being massacred in Jammu villages , the State Dept would pretty much take the ISI propaganda and accuse the Indian army of doing this to discredit Kashmiri freedom fighters. During this time A.Q.Khan was running his nuclear blackmarket ( exposed by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker) and Pakistan was buying ballistic missiles from China and N.Korea. But the entire effort of US State Dept. at that time was to force India to sign NPT/CTBT and cede Kashmir to Pakistan.
This entire policy of the Clinton administration changed only after India exploded nuclear bombs.

My entire point is that it does not matter who is in power in US, US policy will be guided by its own strategic interests. The strategy may be flawed and have bad consequences, but that is a different matter.


As far as outsourcing goes , this started during Clintons era and peaked during the late 90's because of the Internet and Y2K boom. Nobody noticed then because there weren't enough technically trained people. Clinton allowed this as quid pro quo for opening up the till then Socialistic Indian economy.

[bemildred]

8. Yah, this is the same old shit, and dumb shit too.

The time is long past to realize we need to be nice to India.
Pakistan "balancing" India is not a realistic idea, if it ever
was, and Pakistan is heading for a revolution.