Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SirRealist who wrote (16852)	1/20/2002 12:29:31 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Staying On In Central Asia By Jim Hoagland Sunday, January 20, 2002; Page B07 ISLAMABAD -- Mobs do not march in the streets of Pakistan or India waving signs that say Yankee Go Home Very Slowly. But that message is being sent to Washington by the leaders of these two rival nations, who do not want American military involvement in their region to end when the hunt for Osama bin Laden is over. This is a historic change for India, which long treated the idea of U.S. bases and troops on foreign soil as anathema to India's prickly nationalism. In New Delhi, Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh caught me by surprise by declaring, "I don't think America can give up its Central Asia presence now." He then added casually that U.S. forces should also stay on in Pakistan indefinitely to help stabilize a neighbor that India normally treats as a mortal enemy. For Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, keeping U.S. air power on call indefinitely is the key to peace in Afghanistan. He doubts that the fragile interim Afghan government and the small international security force now deploying into Kabul can keep the peace unless they are supported by "a coercive force in the background." There must be "a U.S. commitment" to conduct airstrikes when the peacekeepers are challenged by resurgent Afghan warlords, Musharraf said here yesterday. "The force will not be able to move on the ground otherwise . . . the U.S. presence in the region must remain as long" as it is needed. Musharraf's appeal, and his accompanying heavy pessimism about recent developments in Afghanistan, have immediate and uncomfortable policy implications for the Bush administration. Washington does not want to participate in peacekeeping or nation-building missions in Afghanistan. But Pakistan's logistical support for the U.S. campaign makes it hard for President Bush to ignore Musharraf's view. The parallel appeals from the two South Asian nations for U.S. forces to linger in the neighborhood underscores how thoroughly Bush's war on global terrorism has broken the mold of international politics and diplomacy. You know that the world has turned upside down when India's leaders praise an American bombing campaign on an Asian neighbor. The United States and India "are natural allies," Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said in New Delhi. "We would like to develop relations on a long-term basis. . . . There has been close cooperation during this crisis" on defense and security, which Vajpayee hopes to expand. A new Indian strategic confidence shimmers through the remarks made by Vajpayee and Singh on Thursday to members of the Aspen Strategy Group, an unofficial body of American foreign policy analysts. Vajpayee's coalition government has adroitly seized advantage from the global changes that Sept. 11 ushered in. India is emerging as the biggest strategic winner in the aftermath of the terror attacks on the United States. The U.S. bombing of Afghanistan destroyed one of India's enemies -- the Taliban -- and has seriously hobbled another, Pakistan. Rival China "feels somewhat isolated" at the moment because "the changes since Sept. 11 have not been to China's advantage," in Singh's words. And the war has allowed India to escape from the international pariah status Washington hung on New Delhi three years ago for testing nuclear weapons. Fortune has smiled on India, and the debonair Singh smiles back with the satisfaction of a man who knows that he has a good thing going. American power is finally serving India's interests rather than thwarting them. Why hurry away? America "will be criticized" for staying in Central Asia, he acknowledged. "The U.S. presence troubles Russia and China. But you won't be able to give it up. And you won't be able to leave Pakistan," either. In answer to my question, Singh said U.S. bases would have a stabilizing influence on India's hostile neighbor. There is more than meets the ear to all this. Singh will gladly give the United States more time and standing to squeeze Musharraf even more severely. And the Indian diplomat does not fret over possible long-term U.S. bases in Uzbekistan and elsewhere alienating Beijing from Washington by stirring up China's fears of encirclement. Musharraf says he will host U.S. bases only for immediate short-term Afghan duty. More than that would be too provocative for public opinion here. "Palestine, Israel, the Arabs and Kashmir" -- along with Pakistan's resentment of being "left high and dry by America": "These are reasons I cannot recommend that U.S. forces remain here" for the long-term, he says. The Bush administration is wary even of the short-term when it comes to stationing troops abroad. But demand for greater engagement is rising as America's power produces sweeping global change. This president will shortly face fateful decisions that will shape events in South Asia, and on the world stage, for a decade or more. washingtonpost.com

To: SirRealist who wrote (16852)	1/20/2002 1:11:40 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I've not heard a credible motive for Jonathan Pollard's actions either, yet am reasonably certain he was breaking the law at Israel's instigation. Not sure whose motive you're referring to - Pollard's or his Israeli handler(s). Re. the Israeli intelligence people - the motive would be that Pollard had been able to acquire intelligence information involving Arab countries that would be of potential use to Israel and was willing to give to them. Though I don't approve, I can see they had a motive to take advantage of his willingness to be a traitor. Re. Pollard's motive - who knows?