Hi frankw1900; Re: "It's not run by a military junta?" What, you want Musharraff to run an election in the middle of a war? The guy has acknowledged that the country will return to democracy, that's the best you can hope for in the middle of a crisis. Let me make this more clear with an example from our own history. The US didn't assemble for a constitutional convention until the revolutionary war was over. And even then it took years before they got anywhere.
Re: "Of course thay can. They're intimate with al Qaeda. They give as little as possible, grudgingly, and much of their officer corps and security agencies energetically attempt to sabotage the help and would love to find an opportunity to back shoot US forces. I said Pakistan is an ambiguous ally." Who exactly is this "they"? Governments are composed of complicated groupings of individuals, each with their own views and interests. It's not possible to make a government turn on a dime. It's never been done in the US, for example, even when there was clear guidance at the top. As an example, look at how long it took the US to excise racism from its legal structures in all its individual states.
You're making the mistake here of assigning to a large collection of diverse individuals a single characteristic. Like any nation, the Pakistanis have diverse interests. Musharraf is about as good a leader as we're going to find right now. Let me make this more clear from an event from our recent history. Jimmy Carter didn't like the Shah of Iran because he was authoritarian. So he didn't support the Shah (not that there was significant support Carter could give), and the result was 20 years of islamic fascism that made the Shah look like Benny Goodman.
Re: "The US, I repeat, will not [refuses to] sell to Pakistan the weapons it does sell to India." #reply-17524360
You gave 7 links. The first two talk about Israeli sales to India. I don't think that Israel and the US are the same thing, or has there been a coup I was unaware of? The next link talks about US arms sales to Pakistan and India. A simple quote from the article puts the relative sales (and gifts) to Pakistan and India in proper prospective: "We are at the beginning of a very important arms sales relationship," Robert Blackwell, US ambassador to India, recently told Agence France-Presse. The meaning of the word "beginning" is very clear to me. The next link quotes: "On 25 February, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to India of Firefinder weapon locating radars." On my planet there is a difference between "possible" sales of weapons and real sales of weapons. Wait till we find out if the sale goes through, given India's recent saber rattling. Your next link illustrates the incredible paucity of US arms sales to India since September 11th. I quote: 2/7/2002 four helicopter crew seats. $ unknown 2/7/2002 112,200 microdetonators (fuses) for antiaircraft guns. $ unknown 2/7/2002 540 LAT-0570 electrical motors. $ unknown 2/7/2002 eight AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder Weapon locating systems and 26 AN/VRC-90E SINCGAR radios with their associated equipment and technical, logistic and maintenance support $146 million.
This is negligible compared to historic US supplies to Pakistan. 40 F-16s, for example, cost about $600 million.
piads.com.pk
Your next link notes: "But following the attacks, most sanctions were waived for both countries after they demonstrated support for the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. Now the radar system is one of about 20 Indian military purchases in the works, and U.S. officials are on record promising to push them through licensing procedures." This in itself is incompatible with your statement: "The US, I repeat, will not [refuses to] sell to Pakistan the weapons it does sell to India," but the article goes further: "But Pakistan is also in line for weapons purchases from the United States and has been promised a whopping $600 million in security assistance, though its larger weapons requests — particularly for F-16 fighter jets — remain stalled. To spell it out, the Pakistanis are getting smaller weapons for free, while the Indians are being made to pay good money for a few expensive systems. And your last link is a restatement of the long range radar sale that may or may not go through. The article states: "U.S. President George W. Bush has been trying to boost its strategic ties with India, even as it has courted Pakistan in its fight against the al Qaeda network and the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan. While India has taken a diplomatic backseat to nuclear foe Pakistan since Islamabad's assistance to America in the war on terror, New Delhi has also given substantial logistical support to U.S. forces during their campaign in Afghanistan. India, which has fought three border wars with Pakistan since independence from Britain in 1947 and one with China in 1962, has long been a buyer of Russian and British military equipment." The thing to note here is that it is Pakistan that is being "courted", while with India, ties are merely being boosted. Also, since it is a fact that most Indian military equipment is Russian, it is not possible for the US to supply India with much in the way of resupply. The only thing we can do, pretty much, is sell them full weapons systems.
So. What is this weapon system that the U.S. is selling to India but we won't sell to Pakistan? Here's a clue: The Pakistanis don't have a hell of a lot of money, so they have to take what they're given.
By the way, the exporting of weapons is one of the traditional strengths of the U.S., dating back even to before the revolution. The impetus of the British naval blockade turned the US into a significant player in this area and it has remained that way ever since. For the US to cut off possible purchasers of weapons systems is contrary to free trade practices.
Note that it is not the US government that is selling radars to India, it is Raytheon, a US company. Raytheon undoubtedly would love to sell the same thing to any country it can, but the problem is that most countries (Pakistan in particular) don't have the cash to pay for it.
-- Carl |
