Skip to main content
Regular readers will recall that a month ago I emphasized the importance of Nicholas Sarkozy's military and nuclear overtures to India.

Now Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is getting the US into the game, according to Al Jazeera:

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, has visited India for talks on military deals including a possible $10.2 billion fighter jet purchase....

Earlier this month India agreed to buy six Lockheed Martin military transport planes worth about $1 billion.

The deal marked a major shift in military policy for India, which has traditionally looked to Russia for arms and aircraft....

The discussions come despite talks stalling between the two nations on a landmark nuclear co-operation deal which would reverse decades of US anti-proliferation policy with a nation that has tested nuclear weapons and refused to sign non-proliferation treaties.

The agreement permits the US to send nuclear fuel and technology to India, which in turn would separate its military and civilian nuclear programmes and allow international inspections at civilian facilities.

However the agreement ran into stiff opposition in India and the US, with members of US Congress and India's communist parties expressing anger at the deal.

Some Indians worry that it would allow the US to exert influence over their country's foreign policy, while in the US officials have expressed concern that it could lead to India's increasing its nuclear weapons supply.


First question: does anybody think this is NOT related to the Sarkozy initiative?

Second question: does everybody recall that India and Pakistan are not bosom buddies?

Third question: so if we're propping up the current Pakistani regime and sending them military hardware out the ying-yang, while at the same time looking to sell fighter jets to India, is US foreign policy (a) cynical (b) moronic (c) based on the economic value of selling arms to both sides in yet another potential theater of conflict, or (d) all of the above?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...