China’s View of South Asia and the Indian Ocean

[Ray]

China’s Strategic Eggs in South Asia


China is not a South Asian power, but it has been seeking to build up for itself a strong South Asian presence which could cater to its strategic needs in the long term.

2. It has made inroads in the South Asian countries in recent years by taking advantage of their hunger for the development of their infrastructure and their requirement of financial assistance for major infrastructure projects and for the exploitation of their natural resources.

3. While India too has been helping these countries in these fields, China has definitely had an advantage over India due to its large cash reserve built up from its huge trade surpluses and the reservoir of excellent construction engineers with experience in infrastructure building which it has built up over the years.

4. The fact that China has no contentious issues affecting its bilateral relations with these countries --- as against many contentious issues in the relations of India with its neighbours--- has also worked to its advantage.

5. The Chinese policy in the South Asian region has a mix of the strategic and the opportunistic dimensions--- that is, working for carefully calculated long-term strategic objectives while not missing short and medium term opportunities that come its way. One sees the strategic dimension in the case of its relations with Pakistan. One sees a mix of the two in its relations with other South Asian countries.

6. Its relations with Pakistan, which continue to enjoy the highest priority, are driven by a strong strategic calculus. That calculus arises from its perceived need for a second front to keep India preoccupied.

More at:

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5C...paper4595.html

There are 40 points given.

Mr B Raman is no greenhorn in this field or an armchair strategist!

But then one has to accept that this peaceful rise of China, right?

Is it immoral for the countries of the region or even the US to be concerned?

If China's claim that the US is encircling her is taken as valid by their admirers, is it wrong for others to be worried and not consider it a threat that China is encircling them?

Or is there a different set of rules for China and another for others?

Strategy is not one event agenda. It encompasses many issues and it is over time. One should not go overboard or despondent over single issue but look at the issue holistically and in time slots of short term, medium and long term.

Iraq and Afghanistan, as far as the US is concerned, to my mind, is not a knee jerk reaction. There is more to it than what meets the eye. And I don't think that the US Govt or its planners, civil and military, are people who have no insight. If they were then the US would not be where it is!

If indeed, gold, cobalt, lithium etc are not important to industry and the economic good of a country, I sure would like to know how much of it is used in the US (benchmark) and what is its shortfall, if any or its over-abundance of the same!

Or should they believe in the propaganda that China is a benign nation and this is all in the goodness of China's "Peaceful Rise"?

Neville Chamberlain comes to mind!

How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.

[Dayuhan]

Views on the strategic importance of Afghanistan from a variety of sources.

All I'm seeing here is repetition of the same old mantras, with little credible justification. These arguments simply don't hold up under any kind of scrutiny, especially the circular reasoning contained in the assumption that there has to be some strategic/economic motive because otherwise the US wouldn't be there. And really, what's the point of looking at a Chomsky opinion seriously? We all know already what's going to emerge from that fringe. The line about how "Washington is trying to set a military vice around the Caspian Basin" is too stupid to even warrant a response, for reasons anyone with access to a map can see..

Is it immoral for the countries of the region or even the US to be concerned?

Morality is not in the picture in any way. Concern is reasonable, hysteria is not.

If China's claim that the US is encircling her is taken as valid by their admirers, is it wrong for others to be worried and not consider it a threat that China is encircling them?

Both claims are exaggerated for political purposes. This is very normal.

Iraq and Afghanistan, as far as the US is concerned, to my mind, is not a knee jerk reaction. There is more to it than what meets the eye. And I don't think that the US Govt or its planners, civil and military, are people who have no insight. If they were then the US would not be where it is!

People outside the US, unfamiliar with the way the US government operates, often assume that there must be "more to it than what meets the eye", and drive themselves to distraction looking for the vast plan. There usually isn't one. The vast plan is to get re-elected, and that means pandering to the political pressure of the moment. The US doesn't do vast plans or long-term strategy, everything in the political structure mitigates against it.

If indeed, gold, cobalt, lithium etc are not important to industry and the economic good of a country, I sure would like to know how much of it is used in the US (benchmark) and what is its shortfall, if any or its over-abundance of the same!

Nobody said they weren't important. They just aren't scarce, and supply within stable countries in the western hemisphere is more than sufficient to meet US needs far into the future. American companies are risk-averse: they know that the return horizon on mining investments is extremely long and US government commitments are extremely unreliable. Would you make a 20-year deal with a government that may not be around in 20 months, and is likely to be replaced by a bunch of guys who think your head would look good on a stake? Why do you think there's been so little interest from US companies in bidding for oil contracts in Iraq, except as minority members of diversified consortia? Too much risk in it and the terms are unattractive. The chance of attracting major US investment in Afghan mining ventures approaches zero.

Or should they believe in the propaganda that China is a benign nation and this is all in the goodness of China's "Peaceful Rise"?

Neither benign nor malignant, neither goodness nor evil. Just another power relationship that needs to be managed... with concern, yes, but not with panic, hysteria, or the sort of exaggerated threat responses that are so eagerly manipulated by politicians. Rally behind your leaders and don't look in their closets, for we are threatened from outside by the sinister ones and we must all stick together... one of the oldest scams in political history.

[Ray]

Ah! of course.

Everyone is wrong and hysterical!

And every article, commentary around the world and think tanks including the US and the Congressional Inquiries are totally bosh!

Even the Chinese who have mentioned that there is a plot to encircle them reported in their print media have no idea of what they are saying!! Nor does Col Liu know the Han attitude (mentioned in an earlier post). And Deng Xiao Peng was merely hallucinating when he propounded his '24 Character Strategy", while the Chinese Defence Policy of 'Doctrine of Pre-emption and Surprise' is a Chinese fable! Lt Gen Zheng, the Chief of PLAAF had said that without a pre-emptive strategy, the chance of a PLA victory was limited. I presume that too is silly and stupid.

I presume that these people of the US Congress are also talking through their hat!

Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan possess large reserves of oil and natural gas, both on-shore and off-shore in the Caspian Sea, which they urgently seek to exploit. Uzbekistan has oil and gas reserves that may permit it to be self-sufficient in energy and gain revenue through exports. Estimates of Central Asian oil reserves vary widely, but are usually said to rival those of the North Sea or Alaska. More accurate estimates of oil and gas resources await wider exploration and the drilling of test wells.
Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies.
In addition, as has been noted by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the United States seeks to discourage any one country from gaining control over the region, but rather urges all responsible States to cooperate in the exploitation of regional oil and other resources.

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 12, 1998

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...fa48119_0f.htm

I hope it will not be too much of a licence on my part to believe that the US Congressmen and Secretaries/ Asst Secretaries know their onions; or do laymen and armchair experts the last word on US policies.

The US doesn't do vast plans or long-term strategy, everything in the political structure mitigates against it.

US does not plan ahead in time blocks of short term, medium term or long term?

There are no professionals in the US? All are politicians seeking survival?

That is news!

Have you read National energy Policy or Defence Policy Guidelines that was formulated during Dic.k Cheney's tenure as the Secretary of Defence?

Or were they also talking through their hat.

How is force structuring and modernisation done? By Political Knee jerks?

I get the impression that you alone know what is the US mindset, policy and what is happening.......and yet you claim you are far away in the Orient!!

Having said that, I will recuse myself from the discussion since there is nothing worthwhile to know because, as per you, everyone who should know actually knows nothing and are merely sinecure and fooling the world being in positions of power!

In short:

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

right?

[Ken White]

And every article, commentary around the world and think tanks including the US and the Congressional Inquiries are totally bosh!

Not totally but pretty much; Congressional inquiries are common and laughable -- they are designed to give the appearance of great concern while eliciting votes. Most Think Tanks do not; Most news reports take their cue from US media whixh is among the worlds' most inept.

Even the Chinese who have mentioned that there is a plot to encircle them reported in their print media have no idea of what they are saying!! ...I presume that too is silly and stupid.

Not necessarily but I would remind you that the US and the USSR misread each other for over 50 years...

US does not plan ahead in time blocks of short term, medium term or long term?...There are no professionals in the US? All are politicians seeking survival?...That is news!

The news is not that the US does nor have such people. It does and many of them are quite knowledgeable -- the news is that they often disagree on things and that our form of government is by design adversarial, slow and full of checks and balances. We bicker and fiddle a lot. An awful lot. We only tend to focus totally during existential threat periods and we have had few of those. Our foreign policy is almost always based solely on US domestic politics. We have been able to afford that and a clunky, slow governmental process in the past and will almost certainly continue to do so. Whether that is wise today remains to be seen.

Have you read National energy Policy or Defence Policy Guidelines that was formulated during Dic.k Cheney's tenure as the Secretary of Defence?...Or were they also talking through their hat.

I read it back then, it was overstated and struck me as yet another exercise in policy skewing that would not work. Dick Cheney quite often talked through his hat, both as SecDef and VP. Most politicians around the world seem to do so in my observation.

How is force structuring and modernisation done? By Political Knee jerks?

More than any other one thing, yes. Amazing it works as well as it does.

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

right?

As always...

[Ray]

Thanks.

It gives me great insight that the US does not know what it does and is staffed with near incompetent, ponderous people at the helm of affairs, if I have understood correctly.

It does leave me uncomfortable.

Though I will confess that it was not the impression I got when I interacted with the US military personnel.

I thought they knew their job and missions.

But then since so many of you feel that the US policies are a huge sham and rudderless, so be it!

Maybe it is better for many nations in the world to change boats, while the going is still good!

[Ken White]

It gives me great insight that the US does not know what it does and is staffed with near incompetent, ponderous people at the helm of affairs, if I have understood correctly.

While that is of course sometimes true, issue dependent, most often we know in three or four variations what should be done. Any one choice of a course of action would likely be quite successful. The problem arises when our political milieu which strives for compromise interjects itself and we end up picking feature of two or more of those COA and the combination, as is always true of compromise, will not be as good as any single would have been. When confronted with real -- and serious -- emergencies we can and do act decisively but under ordinary circumstance, i.e 98% or more of the time in our view, we tend to putter a bit. It's a design feature and, as I said, has worked fairly well in the past -- I (and others) are not sure it's going to be adequate for the future due to changes in the speed and ease of communication and travel.

It does leave me uncomfortable.

It leaves most of the world uncomfortable because what we do or do not do and how those things occur can have far reaching impacts.

Though I will confess that it was not the impression I got when I interacted with the US military personnel...I thought they knew their job and missions.

They did and do but they inhabit a closed circuit, demanding heirarchial society within the broader far more open and less 'disciplined' (for lack of a better word) American society, the one in which the government operates. *

But then since so many of you feel that the US policies are a huge sham and rudderless, so be it!

No one has said that, there is no sham (other than that practiced by politicians in every nation or that done deliberately by us to divert or disrupt...) and not rudderless, just with several steersmen.

Remember, that 'several steersman' bit is by design. Unlike Parliamentary democracies where the majority party(ies) ARE the government, here the parties most frequently split governance with all that implies. Many of us regret that check and balance thing intrudes on other nations but internally, we wouldn't change it.

As an aside, those aforementioned military folks { * ) really, really get frutrated with that competing steersmen bit -- not least due to the adverse impacts on organization and force structure, not to mention missions...

Maybe it is better for many nations in the world to change boats, while the going is still good!

I've been hearing that since 1947 when I was old enough to start paying attention. As I moved about the world in uniform and out over the next 50 years, I heard it again and again. Often from the same nations for a second or third time. I've heard that several times from Indians and IIRC the first time I heard something along that line from an Indian military person was from Major-General Indar Jit Rikhye in 1965 who was quite scathing about the US in general and its conduct in the Congo and Dominican Republic (both places he and I bumped into each other) in particular.

Of course, he later retired -- to the US -- and lived here until his death in 2007...

[Dayuhan]

Everyone is wrong and hysterical!

No, but everyone who is hysterical is wrong, or at least ineffective.

And every article, commentary around the world and think tanks including the US and the Congressional Inquiries are totally bosh!

Not all of them... maybe 97%, though. There's an incredible amount of nonsense on the Internet, and a huge majority of what passes for "analysis" starts with a conclusion and works backwards to try and justify it. A huge amount of skepticism and a whole lot of grains of salt are called for.

Even the Chinese who have mentioned that there is a plot to encircle them reported in their print media have no idea of what they are saying!!

Of course they know what they are saying. That doesn't mean it's true, or even that the people on top believe it. Every tyrant needs an external threat to run up the flagpole: if people are afraid of the other and convinced that they need a strong government to defend them, they don't look too closely at what that strong government is doing to them.

I presume that these people of the US Congress are also talking through their hat!

That's always a valid presumption when discussing the US Congress, but even were it not, there is nothing in this list of interests that requires or would be significantly advanced by having a US military presence bogged down in Afghanistan.

I hope it will not be too much of a licence on my part to believe that the US Congressmen and Secretaries/ Asst Secretaries know their onions; or do laymen and armchair experts the last word on US policies.

You'd have a hard time finding an American citizen to agree with you on that. As Ken says, US foreign policy is driven by domestic political imperatives. That's what US Congressmen know, though they step on their equipment on a regular basis in that field as well.

US does not plan ahead in time blocks of short term, medium term or long term?

Short term, sometimes. Medium term more rarely, and the plans often change midstream. Long term - meaning beyond typical political tenure - hardly at all, and what plans are made are generally ignored.

A lot of people outside the US find the oddities and vagaries of US policymaking frustrating and incomprehensible, but before jumping ship you might want to consider that the outcome is surprisingly resilient. After all, the Soviet system was extremely conducive to long term planning and policy continuity, and who was the last man standing in that showdown?

Re China, with a hat tip to Surferbeetle it may interest you to note that Credit Suisse recently revised its estimate of the non-performing loans held by Chinese banks from 4.5%-5.0% to 8.0%-12.0%, which ""would work out to 65–100% of banks’ equity" (Chinese banks run very high loan-to-asset ratios). What does that tell you about the unstoppable Chinese economic juggernaut and the invincibility of continuity and central planning?

[Ray]

Washington: Projecting an image, like power, can be tricky for a country because you should neither hype nor hide the real picture for maximum impact. The image can be designed to help achieve larger political and strategic goals. China has achieved a near-perfect balance where its aura-building bolsters its diplomatic agenda in the US and elsewhere. Americans feel a combination of fear, awe and reverence when they deal with the Middle Kingdom.

China has managed to create a parallel universe in the American mind, which it inhabits alone, largely unhampered by history or disputes or neighbours. To the extent they exist, they do so at their own peril. Chinese “sensitivities” must always be considered, or China will become an adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy no one wants to contemplate. This is the mantra of many influential American academics and policy experts, the chanting of which is encouraged by Beijing and its vast network of friends. If China throws out a nifty slogan (Peaceful Rise in the 1990s) to obfuscate intentions, it is quickly adopted as part of the local discourse......

A US expert on China is rarely interested in India and reads history from one perspective - the Chinese.......

The director of China Studies at Johns Hopkins last month dismissed the spike in Chinese aggressive behaviour as "the unskilled period" of diplomacy which was already over. He clearly wasn't aware of the many recent instances involving India. He stressed the US was in no economic shape to fashion the new Asian order by showing up at what was essentially China's party. In other words, let China "deal" with Asia, a line that Beijing is happy to promote......

The evolution of this China-friendly narrative is not entirely natural or innocent. Beijing exercises extreme discretion and leverage over US academics it permits into the country. They go to officially sanctioned think tanks, meet certain Chinese academics and visit Communist Party bigwigs and come back to write "safe" analyses. Those who dare to write critically are denied visas and blacklisted. For life-long academics and heads of China departments, the lure of returning to China unhindered is often great, sometimes greater than the crush of reality or the denial of access to the rest of the one billion Chinese. There is also the blinding dazzle of China's extreme success: if they can deliver so much, so quickly and so well, they must be doing it right.....

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/h...w/10330871.cms

[Dayuhan]

The evolution of this China-friendly narrative is not entirely natural or innocent.

Neither is the evolution of the Sinophobic narrative. Always there are those with something to gain from the presence of an enemy. If there isn't one, they'll make one.

There is also the blinding dazzle of China's extreme success: if they can deliver so much, so quickly and so well, they must be doing it right.....

Somebody's not looking at a large part of the picture. The reference above to the non-performing loan stock held by Chinese banks is but the tip of the iceberg. They're not "doing it right" (nobody ever does), and that will in time come back at them.

[Ray]

Ken,

In a democracy, no political decision can be without political overtones that affect the domestic audience. It is true of the US as it is true of India and other democracies.

Only dictatorship, quasi democracies (under control of the military) and totalitarian regimes can take policy decisions that can ignore the domestic audience.

Therefore, to feel that the Govt and the bureaucracy dithers in a democracy is but a ‘flaw’ one has to pay for the freedom of thought and action that the citizens enjoy.

Militaries, all over the world and not only in the US, are frustrated by the Govt. The military looks at military solutions and rarely are concerned with the domestic or international political ramifications.

Given that, I don’t think the US is any less in resolve to achieve its aim. Though the posts have been disappointingly indicating a chaotic and rudderless knee jerk scenario, on second thoughts, I find it being extraordinarily simplistic an argument put forward to circumvent the view trotted that the commentaries, article, think tanks, Congressional Hearing are totally to be disregarded being fiction/ political chicanery/ fudges.

I also would be surprised if Cheney’s documents I mentioned (DPG and NEP) were as misdirected as his quail hunting foray and violating the provisions of the licence to shoot! Bush’s Iraq War was a copybook endorsement to what he has postulated that should be done. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to swallow hook, line and sinker that the US has no short term, medium term or long term assessments. Further, if one believed that, then one wonders why the NIA is not disbanded to save the taxpayer’s money since its Assessments are fiction and fantasy which has no bearing to the US Govt policy making or for that matter why have the NSA, CIA etc? Or for that matter why have the ‘Contractors’ meddling in Pakistan and attempting to change the direction of pursuance of the WoT? I hardly think that one has to go to such horrendous exercises merely to be knee jerk!

As far as Gen Inder Rikhye is concerned, he was a political appointee of Nehru and was related to the Royal family of Punjab. He was an adherent to the Nehruvian socialist vision. He was with the UN from 1959 till 1969. If indeed he thought it was with the USSR that India should hitch its future, it would not be unusual. Notwithstanding, Nehru’s socialist vision, which should not be surprising given the abject poverty, illiteracy and decadence prevailing, India initially wanted to be pro US in view since Nehru was a great advocate of democratic processes. However, he baulked given John Foster Dulles inspired US Foreign Policy which found resonance in Bush’s infamous lines – you are either with us or against us!!

To expect a nation that had emerged from the colonial yoke after 300 years to then switch masters, would be too thick an option to buy! Given that, India slowly veered towards USSR without selling itself to the USSR, unlike Pakistan, which totally aligned with the US and joined the CENTO and the SEATO!

It was when the Soviet Union collapsed and China showed it true colours, did India realise that the US was the best option so much so, the PM Manmohan Singh, possibly at the bidding of the National Mentor, Sonia Gandhi (Edvige Antonia Albina Maino) made that remark in the US (which he now rues) “Mr Bush, India Loves You!”.

Unfortunately for Manmohan, he must have realised that the US was merely dishing out cosmetic sops that meant nothing in real terms (strategic partnership, military exercises, the nuclear deal etc) except that it was in the US interest to enter the vast Indian market emerging from the shackles of socialism and hence raw meat, as also sell its defence goods. That is why there seems to be a change of tack, wherein awarding lucrative defence deals to non US parties and emerging out of the shadows of the US nudged foreign policy (Iran, Myanmar, Vietnam, address in the UN General Assembly, surprising trade agreements with Pakistan etc). I believe the Vietnam top man and also of Myanmar is in the Indian capital today!

It would be difficult to switch from the US to China, but the rise of Russia seems to once again attract. In the interim, it appears India is biding time with a more independent foreign and economic policy with a slight tilt to appear accommodating the US.

Pakistan is an ideal example to emulate in the game of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. On this count, India has much to learn from them, they having honed it to the realm of a fine art! They are doing a remarkable job indeed!

[Ray]

INVISIBLE NEIGHBOUR

Winds of change are blowing through Myanmar. The new civilian government of President Thein Sein has of late been busy ushering in reform, of both political and economic kinds. There are unprecedented gestures of goodwill towards the democracy movement leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, freer debate in the parliament, crackdown on corruption, moves to bring competitiveness and transparency to the opaque business sector, some more freedom for the muzzled media. Even Myanmar’s fiercest critics are taking note of the changes, the only question being, is the government serious about staying the course? Doubt over sustainability is legitimate, given Myanmar’s past faltering at liberalization. But in India, we must take the shifting winds for real — these developments are both a challenge and an opportunity — and fine-tune our policy......

While on the subject of privileged relationships, there is speculation about China’s future standing. If they are able to find greater acceptance from the rest of the world with their new openness, would Myanmar’s leadership still need China’s protective umbrella? China not only stood steadfast, on innumerable occasions, between the old regime and global accountability, it also threw, even if as much in self-interest, vital economic lifelines that Myanmar needed when shunned by powerful nations. Starting in the late 1980s, especially volatile times for Myanmar, China cemented its position through astute policy and determined implementation. And this happened in spite of Beijing’s being caught on the wrong side of much of Myanmar’s modern history.

China’s current ranking as pre-eminent external partner is unlikely to change any time soon though, faced with greater openness in Myanmar’s society and potentially keener competition from others, Beijing may have to change its style of diplomacy. One is already hearing of bursts of popular discontent over China’s heavy-handed execution of infrastructure projects in sensitive ethnic minority areas, something that could have been easily taken care of in the old days. China is too big, strong and proximate to ignore. But it may have to be more accountable for its actions in future.....

The first change we need is in mindset. Unlike China, we have never consciously focused on our Myanmar relations. In spite of its indisputable strategic significance, Myanmar for us is an ‘invisible neighbour’. How often does it figure in policy debates in seminar rooms or the media, and if it does, is it for the right reasons? In interminable discussions over the need for a transit route for India’s Northeast, the focus is always — even if justifiably — on Bangladesh. Myanmar’s capacity to offer a similar route is hardly noticed, as also the fact that a transit project, Kaladan, is currently in implementation. In discourse on India’s Look East policy, Myanmar being an actual, and only, land bridge to the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations does not register.....

India does enjoy a healthy enough relationship with Myanmar. But the Northeast as spearhead can impart to our policy the edge that we may need in a changing Myanmar. In that sense, India’s Myanmar policy may be inseparable from India’s Northeast development policy.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/111101...y_14610494.jsp

[Ken White]

I find it being extraordinarily simplistic an argument put forward to circumvent the view trotted that the commentaries, article, think tanks, Congressional Hearing are totally to be disregarded being fiction/ political chicanery/ fudges.

No indicator should be totally disregarded by anyone IMO. Nor has anyone suggested that -- what has been said is that (a) one should not take at face value everything one reads or hears; (b) the US media is inept; (c) the US political system is more prone to divisiveness and discord than are most; and (d) the US cult of primacy of the individual overlays all that. That does not say "disregard" -- it says be skeptical, don't rush to judgement and be careful not judge US actions through the prism of ones own national proclivities. Please note the US has a bad tendency to do just that in reverse, thus compounding misunderstandings, ala the US and USSR or the US and China --or India...

On the Think Tanks, perhaps my personal bias comes through. Having worked with several of them over the years, my opinion of their net worth is quite low and I will note that to justify their existence, they are tend to manufacture minor 'crises' or surface 'problems' for which, given an additional fee, they will find 'solutions.' Note that they will bear no responsibility for the failure of those 'solutions' but will certainly tout any successes...

Bush’s Iraq War was a copybook endorsement to what he has postulated that should be done.

True but Bush was no Neocon and he merely took A solution, the one offered by the Neocon crowd and implemented it in part to suit his goals. It is important to realize that Bush's acceptance of Cheney as his VP (and therefor of Wolfowitz, Bolton, et.;al.) was the condition of the big Republican donors contributing to his campaign; it was certainly not that Bush believed in Cheney or that they were even friendly. Bush adapted the Neocon solution for his own purposes. It was flawed, no question -- but IMO it was better than many alternatives that had powerful supporters and there is little question that something needed to be done to send the Middle East a message that attacks on American interests world wide were no longer going to be ignored (just as Afghanistan was to send the broader message that attacks on US soil were not going to be accepted at all).

Therefore, it would be wrong of me to swallow hook, line and sinker that the US has no short term, medium term or long term assessments.

No one said we did not. What was said was that we don't do them at all well due to our electoral cycle at 2, 4, 6 and 8 years with often concomitant changes of direction AND that there were often competing assessments and the battles for selection often resulted in stalemates and unfortunate compromises.

Further, if one believed that, then one wonders why the NIA is not disbanded to save the taxpayer’s money since its Assessments are fiction and fantasy which has no bearing to the US Govt policy making...

Nor was that said, though there's an element of truth in your statement in that the NIA is an unneeded bureaucratic overly that adds expense for little real gain -- it was added due to US domestic political concerns, post 9/11 -- not due to any real need.

The publicly released and discussed assessments are tailored for domestic consumption and will fudge reality toward the goals of the Administration (sometimes) or of the Intel Community (more often). All are not so skewed but some certainly are and the Iranian atomic effort of 2007 is and example. It is noteworthy the Classified stuff can differ markedly.

or for that matter why have the NSA, CIA etc? Or for that matter why have the ‘Contractors’ meddling in Pakistan and attempting to change the direction of pursuance of the WoT? I hardly think that one has to go to such horrendous exercises merely to be knee jerk!

Heh. That's true but I suggest the 'Contractor' in Paksitan event is an example of less than stellar performance. We aren't super - but we aren't totally incompetent, either. We do perform a lot of "knee-jerks' because we're impatient and often, circumstances will not allow our ponderous decision making process time to do the right thing...

Note also that the NSA, CIA etc are in fact overly bureaucratic and due to our political and budgeting system very turf protective -- but they doesn't mean they're totally incompetent, just that they aren't as good as they could be. They do well enough overall.

As far as Gen Inder Rikhye...

Understood and that's fine, merely cited him as but one example of something I've heard from many people many places.

Notwithstanding, Nehru’s socialist vision, which should not be surprising given the abject poverty, illiteracy and decadence prevailing, India initially wanted to be pro US in view since Nehru was a great advocate of democratic processes. However, he baulked given John Foster Dulles inspired US Foreign Policy which found resonance in Bush’s infamous lines – you are either with us or against us!!

Yes, we've made many a foreign policy error -- too many driven by US domestic politics, as was the one you cite. Instead of a sensible and pragmatic decision based on US interests and the merits, it was a course dictated by strident opposition to anyone to the left of Attilla...

Unfortunately for Manmohan, he must have realised that the US was merely dishing out cosmetic sops that meant nothing in real terms (strategic partnership, military exercises, the nuclear deal etc) except that it was in the US interest to enter the vast Indian market emerging from the shackles of socialism and hence raw meat, as also sell its defence goods.

No question the sales aspect is part of it; that's from part of the huge, fractious US government. There's also no question that the strategic partnership is part of it -- and that comes from another part of that huge, fractious government. Ponder that...

It would be difficult to switch from the US to China, but the rise of Russia seems to once again attract. In the interim, it appears India is biding time with a more independent foreign and economic policy with a slight tilt to appear accommodating the US.

As they should be.

Pakistan is an ideal example to emulate in the game of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. On this count, India has much to learn from them, they having honed it to the realm of a fine art! They are doing a remarkable job indeed!

Not so fine as to preclude you and I among others from noting that. The questions are under what circumstances and how long will the Hounds tolerate it...