India's call: No troops to Iraq

[Nambe]

Knight Ridder Newspapers

NEW DELHI, India - (KRT) - After almost three months of deliberation, the Indian government decided this week not to send its troops to Iraq. The United States was seriously disappointed for two reasons.

First, India is a respected leader of the developing world, a country with a history of close ties to Iraq. Its presence might have eased concerns in the region about the occupation of Iraq.

Maybe even more important, the Pentagon could have used the relief. India was discussing sending a full division, 17,000 troops. After India announced its decision, the Pentagon delayed the return of the exhausted 3rd Infantry division from Iraq.

Reportedly miffed by the Indian decision, the Bush administration insists it will not harm the long-term partnership between the world's two largest democracies. But the Indians delivered a clear message that the administration should heed.

Without a mandate from the United Nations, the Indians could not sell the idea of sending Indian boys to Iraq. ---

[varun]

1. Its likely that

India will send the troops as soon as the U.N. comes into the picture.

India wants stronger relationship with U.S. and wants its business. This decision (not to send the troops) was a hard one for India. There was political opposition on both sides (right and left) against sending Indian troops to Iraq. however, Indian businesses wanted to send the troops, to get more American businesses to invest in India.

[Larkspur]

2. "The love of wealth is the root of all evil."

Glad the government didn't cave into the businesses wish and send their young men to die in one of the most mismanaged occupations in history.

[Cha]

3. It's Good that India is too smart to get into the Quagmire called

Iraq. The rummy, rice, cheney, bush, pearle, wolfowitz, powells all went on the Sunday talk shows and SOTU and whatever to have this Attack on Iraq ...now lets see them get us out?!