News that should be more prominent

Afghanistan now has a road in the western part of the country that links to an Iranian route to the coast. India built the road at a cost of $85 million in order to be able to trade with Afghanistan by sea and through Iran, thus avoiding the need to go through Pakistan--to-date the only viable access route to Afghanistan. India has a major vested interest in a free, prosperous Afghanistan, much more so than the U.S., because of historic (and well-founded) worries that Afghan radicalism will quickly transfer to northwest India through Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistan, being joined at the hip with Afghanistan thanks to the Durand Line monstrosity, cannot tolerate an independent Afghanistan or a close Indo-Afghan relationship for fear that India will seek to destabilize Pakistan from the west. Afghanistan for its part needs an alternate route to the coast to reduce its dependence on Pakistan. This is one of the reasons why India and Afghanistan have much to gain from a closer relationship with Iran, something the previous U.S. administration was loath to sanction because of their deep distaste for the Iranian regime. IMHO, Iran is the key to Afghanistan's future development. U.S. interests would be well-served if we recognize this. The Central Asian route being planned right now for U.S. military access is fine for the short- and medium-term, but this only connects you to the Caspian Sea and you also have to worry about numerous sources of instability, including the Russians and the Caucusus. A normalized relationship with Iran would be a Gordian Knot solution to Afghanistan--a country that one can safely say will persist as a concern for the long-term.

Indo-Pak Strategery

The madness of the terror attacks in Bombay has focused the world's attention on South Asia for the moment. India's first reaction, predictably, was to blame Pakistan instead of taking coherent action to take out the terrorists who were still alive and murdering people. Naval-gazing is just beginning, with the consensus so far pointing fingers at a completely inept Indian security apparatus. Helpful intel insiders are clambering over themselves to point out that they had warned so-and-so that this was going to happen, as if that would have mattered when India's anti-terror capacity is non-existent. Here's a revealing bit:

The information was relayed to domestic security authorities, but it was unclear whether the government acted on the intelligence.
The Taj Mahal hotel, scene of much of the bloodshed, had tightened security with metal detectors and other measures in the weeks before the attacks, after being warned of a possible threat.
But the precautions "could not have stopped what took place," Ratan Tata, chairman of the company that owns the hotel, told CNN. "They (the gunmen) didn't come through that entrance. They came from somewhere in the back."

There you go: "tightened security" means that they didn't even think of covering every damn entrance. In fact, having experienced India's security measures first-hand, I bet that the metal detector (I doubt there was more than one) in the front was active for no more than a day before people simply ignored it and walked around it. India has vowed before to take a comprehensive look at gaps in [insert security need] and prevent [insert crisis name] from ever happening again. I think Mark Tully gets it exactly right when he says about what will likely happen this time: '...will India wake up? If the past is anything to go by the answer has to be "no". '

The U.S. and other major powers are worried about an Indian military response against Pakistan and the likely resultant nuclear conflagration. Secretary Rice and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm Mullen are headed to the region to calm India and pressure Pakistan to help with the investigation. Marc Ambinder helpfully calls the region "A Second Middle East":

It's the Middle East with nuclear weapons on both sides. If soft power doesn't work, do you despose the Pakistani government and take possession of their nuclear program? Let them have a nuclear exchange and hope that it somehow does not spread? The next steps for the US aren't clear. President Obama might appoint an envoy to the region, empowered to engage in shuttle diplomacy a la Richard Holbrooke, Geroge Tenet or Dennis Ross.

Which brings us to how the Obama administration thinks it needs to deal with the region. I think it is a mistake for them to put too much emphasis on solving the Kashmir issue in order to normalize Indo-Pak relations. By comparison, I believe it is much more straightforward to solve the Israel-Palestine border issue than to sort out the messy ethno-religious tangles that bog down the Afghan-Pak-N. Indian region. IMHO, it is probably better to look at a region-wide (to include Central Asia) economic strategy of increasing trade and reducing barriers to investment as a means to achieving the political end goals. Natural gas pipeline from Iran to India through Pakistan? Check. Central Asian hydropower to India and Pakistan? Check. Joint Tourism initiatives in Kashmir? Demilitarized borders? Infrastructure projects? Removing tariffs on cross-border trade?

History shows the way. For centuries, Afghanistan and Central Asia (and Iran) were most closely linked to the Indo-Pak region in terms of cultural and economic ties. There is still more that these regions have in common than not. Just figure out where India's Bollywood movies are most popular (outside India).

Sad Day in Pakistani Politics

Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the ISI, has unilaterally decided to withdraw from domestic politics. As the BBC reports, the agency was widely believed to have been heavily involved in the political process over the last several decades in order to "safeguard national security." These benevolent manipulations included funding rival political factions and vetoing potential ministerial and gubernatorial appointments. Without these essential acts of watchfulness, the people might well have elected treasonous leftists who would have gutted the military and capitulated to the country's enemies through "peace agreements."

However, in a commendable display of self-control, the ISI has now decided to retool and focus on its core competencies instead:

A senior security official, requesting anonymity, told the BBC Urdu service on Monday: "The ISI is changing, it wants to keep out of politics and concentrate on counter-intelligence."

...ISI insiders believe the agency's over-indulgence in politics has cost the service the trust of the public.

Public trust being the thing that politicians safeguard most jealously, the agency is once again modeling selfless devotion to the greater good above narrow, parochial interests. Most remarkably, the ISI's withdrawal from domestic politics emphatically disproves the conventional wisdom that those in power do not let go of it voluntarily. Those that despair of the country's future now that the spy agency has recused itself from politicking, should take hope in the fact that the ISI did not actually fire its political wing, merely inactivated the wing's staff. These fine public servants are presumably undergoing major job skills training because they have not yet "been given any new assignments."

The news report did not mention whether the ISI plans to also withdraw from its international politics efforts such as ensuring the Taliban have sufficient support to survive in Afghanistan's young democracy.

David Frum Can't Google

Frum is ordinarily one of the more reasonable opinionators over at National Review, which, these days, is a bit like praising the designated driver at a frat keg party. But, ol' Frumps decided to burnish his anti-liberal credentials a bit this week by posting this gem, modestly titled, "The International Case Against Obama":

From a regular correspondent, a young Indian national doing graduate studies in the United Kingdom:

An Obama presidency will embolden terrorists. I admit that this administration made too many inexcusable errors, but Obama will only offer palliative prescriptions, not permanent cure to the problem. If his presidency is a peaceful one, it will be so not because he has gone after the terrorists, but because he has conceded. That's really not leadership.

Recently, an Indian newspaper asked Obama what he knew about India. His ignorance was startling. Other than Gandhi, he couldn't mention a single name. I can almost imagine the day when Pakistan strikes India, and Obama asks Indians to follow the example of Gandhi and sit still. McCain at least recognises the importance of democracy.

The chief, and probably, only, merit of this post is that it brings to attention an important topic (at least for India-watchers): what would a President Obama's policies toward the Indian subcontinent look like? Would he continue Bush's unprecedented expansion of cooperation with India? How would he deal with the thorny India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir?

Leaving aside the tortured "logic" of this young graduate student's missive, what this piece accomplishes is to painfully expose dear Frumpy's complete ignorance of India matters, something that should be clear to even a casual India-observer. However Obama may view India, ignorance is not the problem. A simple Google search on "Obama India" would have revealed a wealth of information on the candidate's positions to Frumpelstiltskin.

First, Obama (and McCain) voted for the recent U.S.-India nuclear agreement, one of Bush's most significant foreign policy achievements. Hardly a "Gandhian" peace dove-y view; controversial to be sure, even in India, but not quite "anti-India." Second, Obama criticized U.S. assistance to Pakistan on the grounds that it was being used not to fight terrorists but to arm against India; a nuanced position that is obviously more "pro-India" than even this administration who accepted, maybe unwillingly, the tacit compromise when funding Pakistan. Third, Obama has been the most plain-spoken of the candidates in asserting a willingness to take out high profile terrorists in Pakistan if that government does not do so itself. Obama has been criticized for saying that, and this position certainly did not make him any friends in Pakistan, but I have a hard time visualizing hawkish Indians being dismayed at this stance.

Now, my point is not to defend Obama about his India views, just to say that Frumpsky does not know what the hell he's talking about. To be sure, Obama has some positions related to India that concern some people there. For example, his constant railing against outsourcing (read software and call center jobs) and his generally protectionist stances on trade. There are many others; if you'd like to know more, do your own damn Google search (and tell the Frumpster what you found).