A Grim Anniversary

I strongly disagree with article about Indian part and US government now realized and acted that there is no use of believing Indian neighbor since it does not have any stable leader,government or good foreign policy to support the growth,educate and create the job for their nationals. what US doing now should have been done five or six years back in order to control the terrorism and growing inside support.

I've never taken the trouble to respond to articles I find plainly disgusting before, but this one really takes the cake. Fair warning : I am Indian, resident in the US.
I am an Obama supporter (though I cannot vote) , but if this is old game of - Keep India at arm's distance, so the idiots in that fanatical paradise (also called Pakistan in some circles) are kept happy - is going to be the democratic policy, I'm seriously concerned. Or maybe these are just the views of the simplistic idiot who wrote this piece.
How does he get to don't co-operate with India from Bush screwed by going to Iraq ? I consider myself a logical person, but I must confess to missing the link altogether. The mullahs in Pakistan will be offended, and so we should let that define foreign policy for the lone superpower in the world. Wow ! Talk about caving in.
Somebody, please, please register this gentleman with the nearest mental health specialist.

It is not just about containing China, it is mainly about business benefits to the West - selling all kinds of nuclear power equipment and America seeking a friend in a world in which it has almost no friends. Michael Hirsh should be talking about why America is in such a mess economically, politically and if it does not set its house in order, telephone calls from India and China will be routed to call centers in New York - a reversal of fortune is a distinct posssibility.

"Oh, yeah, and we do have that great new strategic partnership with India. What do we get for that one???more calls routed to outsourced service techs in Mumbai?"

Well, we get a great new strategic partnership with a huge functional democracy bordering China and Pakistan. While I understand that you would prefer we continue to cater to a bunch of jihadists in the Pakistani military and civilian government, we've been doing that since 9/11 and it hasn't gotten us Osama yet.

Claiming that the nuclear deal with India is what's holding his capture up defies reason. And your obnoxious, unnecessary little crack about call centers in Mumbai has only served to convince me that you have a problem with Indians.

Micheal Hirsh, you are an idiot. And obviously so pro-Obama that it stinks to high-Heaven. There are MORE Muslims in India Mr. Lying Fool, than there are in Pakistan. India is NOT all Hindu FYI. You should watch cable TV sometime. And the counter-terrosrism CIA expert is CORRECT - Al Qaida is ONLY A HANDFUL OF LUNATICS who don't deserve to be called Muslim please! These Al Qaida lunatics are actually Islamo-phobics like yourself, who are AFRAID to find out the true meaning of Islam, one of the most peaceful and tolerant religions in the world!

Nuclear technology for India will mean a better economy for India. Yes, you arrogant pompous piece of white trash ass, it will mean calls routed to more centers in Mumbai. that's because your white trash population is so self-serving and exploding at such an ignoramously astounding rate and folks like you take so much for granted that YES, there WILL be more call centers all around the WORLD to cater to over-fed carcasses like yourself. And NO - nuclear technology for India doesn't mean war, it means PEACE in Asia. India wants eace, Indians want peace. Why do you think India let an other arrogant piece of garbage go its own way in 1947? Because Indians want peace, prosperity and plenty for all!

Micheal Hirch, get out of your bubble Fool!

The author makes the following arguments:
1. India should be treated the same as Iran and North Korea with regards to civilian nuclear cooperation.
This should be self evidently absurd. India did not sign the NPT because of its differential treatment towards the 5 original nuclear powers and everyone else. Its own screams of "discrimination" notwithstanding, India has made clear for about 25 years now that it will sign the NPT as a nuclear weapons state any time such a proposal is offered. Given this, the current nuclear deal, far from being a gift from the United States, is in fact a big climbdown by India triggered by its strategic objective of becomming closely allied with the US. Commentators like the author are tragically shortsighted and arrogant in assuming the Nuclear Deal is some kind of a handout.

2. US should embrace "Muslim Pakistan" who hate them, and shun "Hindu India" who like them
This idea is also self evidently absurd. India is not Hindu. Pakistan has had more than its share of embracing with little to show for it. India is 8 times bigger in population and more in the size of its economy. Pakistan asking US for equal treatment is like Mexico asking Georgia for equal treatment with the US. Embracing "Muslim Pakistan" is not a problem because Hindus are not terrorists. Aparantly, the "Hindu India" can prevent this embrace if they become terrorists. In fact, anybody who wants anything from America can try their hand at this trade.

The author seems to imply that the only reason for the U.S. to make friends with India, the largest democracy in the world, home to one-fifth of the world's population, would be a strategic need to "contain a rising China". He also implies that the U.S. should refrain from nuclear co-operation with India out of fear of retaliation from Muslims - even though such a measure would be the first step towards meaningfully addressing India's enormous energy needs- no small factor in global energy security. Such statements are at best naive oversimplifications. Equally naive is the phrase "by making friends with the Hindus in India"- the author conveniently forgets that India has the largest Muslim population in the world among on-Muslim countries - more Muslims, in fact, than there are in Pakistan.

I read the article ''A Grim Anniversary'' (Michael Hirsh, Sept 11
2008) with great dismay. It's implication that letting India get the
nuclear waivers will somehow strengthen the Jihadists' resolve to get
hold of Pakistan's nukes is erroneous. Firstly, the USA should have
warmed up to India a long time ago. India is a democracy (or at least
tries to be, to the best of it's ability) and is one of the few sane
states in a region marred by dysfunctional politics.

The author worries that the USA will enrage the terrorists by making
friends with Hindus in India. Firstly, India is a secular country and
not a Hindu one. Secondly, the idea that American foreign policy will
keep terrorist rage under check by not cultivating their rivals
(India) reeks of appeasement. If there is one thing history has taught
us, is not to pander to terrorists and appease them. Eventually, they
will turn against every sane society built on reason and order.
Personally, I would not like to see America do that (appeasement)
again, after arming them against the Soviet backed regime in
Afghanistan a few decades ago.

America should understand that India and 'Israel are perhaps the few
countries which have been victimized by terrorism long before 9/11 and
understand America's pain and anguish post the Twin Tower atrocity.
These countries are it's natural allies in the war against terror. So
America must cultivate them rather than relegate them as ''Hindu'' or
''Jewish'' and dismiss them.

The article laments how little has been achieved in the war against
terror but that has nothing to do with the Indians or their waiver.
This was a risk President Bush took when he controversially opened a
second front in Iraq.

In conclusion, in an increasingly insane world, it is in America's
self interest to cultivate rational and progressive nations which keep
the democratic system despite their inner contradictions and chaos.
The multi-polar world experts say we are heading for would be a better
place if this happens.

http://michaelhirshopenletter.blogspot.com/

I disagree with the author's casual "outsourced tech calls to Mumbai" comment and hope it doesn't reflect an American arrogance. But as someone who briefly studied international security under former Sec. Def. William Perry for a quarter in college, I have to say his analysis is dead-on.

I've been completely opposed to the Iraq War from day one and have fought tooth and nail to remind people that MOST Muslims have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or this kind of Muslim extremism. But ACTUAL Al-Qaeda getting its hands on a bomb scares me. The rhetoric about Iran does not scare me, because the only states Iran would be likely to target with a nuclear bomb would be states that possess enough retaliatory firepower to reduce the entire nation to radioactive ash. But Al-Qaeda is not bound by the precepts of mutual assured destruction, as they have no borders, no real population to speak of, and cannot be destroyed by a nuclear bomb.

The trick to winning this war is greater understanding of the Arabic language, more counterterrorist work in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and building a GENUINE support network amongst their people that can lead to better intelligence on extremist actions. Occupation tactics aren't going to work - they alienate the local populace and make them less likely to reveal anything.

I do not believe it when I see people who argue against a greater need to understand the culture and language of the ideologies that birthed our opposition. It's one of the reasons we're losing these battles. In World War II you'd have been considered insane to think that we didn't need every bit of understanding of German communiques, propaganda tactics, resistance movements, and other communicatory forms of warfare and propaganda in order to gain an advantage. But these recent wars have been fought with more troops, less understanding, and bigger bombs.

This isn't a war that can be won with bigger bombs. A well-hidden opponent is outside the radius of any bomb save one that would send the world into radioactive collapse. This is a war that is ONLY going to be won with more translators, and more people fluent in Arabic culture and custom who can actually go undercover in extremist areas to provide intelligence. We need an about-face, people, or we may be in REAL trouble.

4carol - why give Obama a pass - he's pandering around (prostituting?) today with the best of them.

Of course, Al Qaeda still lives!! How good of you to notice!!
Have you also perhaps noticed how this day, 9/11/08, a day of mourning, remembrance of bravery and courage and unity has been exploited by the GOP!????!!
This action dishonors all those who died on that day and all those who have died since in a war of deception and all those who continue to die!!
Perhaps if we had gone after the correct terrorists, many lives would have been saved and many more unmaimed!!!

Hyperbolic nonsense to compare one clash of ideology with another clash of ideology? Yet the author has no difficulty in comparing a war against nation states with a war against a non-state actor like this is anyway analogous? Your thought process is comical at best and laughably transparent. Absolutely nothing of value here ??? in the context of an action (war in Iraq) which is barley defensible ??? you manage to elicit sympathy for missteps and miscalculations. You would think an informed opinion would not be difficult to find. Go read a book.

From the day in 79 when we funded the M.A.K. while bankrupting Russia!! WE created the Al-Queda and from that day they stay till the sands never shift again, ie:Du!! ya they still exist and ARE stronger now than they were on this day 7 years ago, BECAUSE OF THIS ADMIN,, WHICH MCCAIN IS PROUDLY PART OF!!! NOW YOU KNOW WHY BUSH DOES NOT WANT IRAQ SOLDIERS IN THE USA,, BY NOV, THEY SPEAK AND VOTE!
Besides death! I can see no reason for them "to have to wait til the next guy" as Bush says so well???