Americas Next Target: Indian military bases

[newuser]

<font size==2>Americas Next Target: Indian military bases</font>

 

Rediff: 04/22/03

 

A classified report commissioned by the United States Department of Defense, states that the country wants access to Indian bases and military infrastructure with the United States Air Force specifically desiring the establishment of airbases in India.

 

The report on the future of Indo-US military relations, being distributed among decision-makers in the United States and made available to a handful of senior members of the Indian government, also speaks of the USAF's desire for 'having access closer to areas of instability'.

 

"American military officers are candid in their plans to eventually seek access to Indian bases and military infrastructure. India's strategic location in the centre of Asia, astride the frequently traveled Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) linking the Middle East and East Asia, makes India particularly attractive to the US military," the report says.

 

The report can be distributed only with the permission of Director, Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defence. The report is the most comprehensive picture of American perspective of its military relation with India and its future aspirations. To some extent it also uncovers Indian military thinking vis-à-vis the US.

 

It has quoted US lieutenant generals as saying that the access to India bases would enable the US military 'to be able to touch the rest of the world' and to 'respond rapidly to regional crises'.

 

The report, prepared by Juli A MacDonald, an associate at Booz Allen Hamilton, for the department of defence, is based on interviews of 42 key Americans, including 23 active military officers, 15 government officials and four others.

 

In India MacDonald met 10 active Indian military officers and five government officials besides several members of the National Security Council, and outside experts advising the government. For understandable reasons, none of the individuals are identified by name, but by their ranks or other positions. The report points out that many American military planners are thinking about 'different sets of allies and friends for addressing a future strategic environment in Asia that may be dramatically different from today'.

 

"For many, India is the most attractive alternative. For this reasons, several Americans underscored that eventual access to Indian military infrastructure represents a critical 'strategic hedge' against dramatic changes in traditional US relationships in Asia," the report says.

 

A South Asia Foreign Area Officer of the US state department has been quoted as saying that India's strategic importance increases if existing US relationships and arrangements in Asia fails.

 

He cites three key possibilities for that: If US relations with other traditional allies (eg Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia) becomes more acrimonious or politically uncomfortable for both parties; or if access rights that the United States takes for granted become more restrictive; or if our traditional relationships collapse resulting in a US military withdrawal.

 

The FAO, who is specialises on South Asia and among those few American diplomats who can converse in Hindi, says, "The United States needs to develop alternatives in Asia. India is the optimal choice if we can overcome the obstacles in building the relationship."

 

An American Colonel says, "The US Navy wants a relatively neutral territory on the opposite side of the world that can provide ports and support for operations in the Middle East. India not only has a good infrastructure, the Indian Navy has proved that it can fix and fuel US ships. Over time, port visits must become a natural event. India is a viable player in supporting all naval missions, including escorting and responding to regional crises. In the same vein, the US Air Force would like the Indians to be able to grant them access to bases and landing rights during operations, such as counter-terrorism and heavy airlift support."

 

It is significant that during the 1991 Gulf War-I, India provided refuelling facility to US warplanes. And during Operation Enduring Freedom, several US warships used Indian facilities for rest and recuperation. As part of Operation Enduring Freedom, Indian naval ships provided escorts to merchant vessels from North Arabian Sea till Strait of Malacca in the most active cooperation with US navy in history. In fact, it is in naval cooperation that America sees the immediate future of Indo-US military relations. It is not just access to bases and ports that the US military hopes to get in India, but also training facilities in India.

 

A common theme among high-ranking American officers is that the US military would benefit from training with Indians, particularly if the training could occur on Indian territory. "India has a variety of landscapes, from ice-clad mountains to deserts, and it would help the Americans because military training ranges shrinking and becoming increasingly controversial in the United States," the report says. And for the US navy training with Indian navy is the best way to become 'proficient in the Indian Ocean region', the report adds.

 

The American decision-makers 'believe that the military relationship should result in shared technology and capabilities, and ultimately they would like to be able to respond jointly to regional crises'.

 

Such American dreams are sure to set off significant political resentment as it would offset India's long held tradition of non-alignment, especially its military neutrality. In real terms it would indicates how India, thrust strategically into the Indian Ocean, could emerge as America's key ally in Asia as the continent goes through a historic political churning.

 

Tomorrow: Part II - What does the Indian military want?

 

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/21josy.htm

[gHari]

Nothing could be better for India.

[livingentity]

Military bases bring economic growth to the areas where they are located. The military and their families shop, eat etc so the businesses in the areas benefit and also they employ civilians so it brings jobs. New businesses also will develop. So where is the problem?

[gHari]

Pakistan devils dare not spill American blood. I hope they use an airstrip in Jammu.

[Guest guest]

Did some quick checking and as far as I can tell we have 42,000 troops stationed in Germany. If on average each troop earns $30,000 per year that would be expenditures of $1.26 Billion every year in Germany. I'm sure there are also other expenditures besides salary, that goes to the German economy. For simplicity sake, lets just say we spend $2 Billion each year in Germany (could be less, could be more, not sure). Well we've been there for over 50 years, and out troop level is at its lowest today (in other words we've spent much more in the past).

 

This means that over 50 years we have put over $100 Billion into Germany (in today's dollar terms). Now what does that mean? Well, in economics we have whats called the multiplier effect which is:

 

1/(savings rate)

 

If the savings rate is 10% then the multiplier effect is a factor of 10. Basically for every dollar you earn, you save 10% then spend the other 90%. That other 90% is now income to other people (grocery stores, toy shops, restaurants etc....). They take that 90% and keep 10%, and then spend the rest. On, and on, and on.

 

Essentially that $100 Billion would be an economic benefit from America to Germany of close to 1 Trillion dollars over 50 years. Now, for an economy the size of the U.S. that is alot. But Germany is only 60 million people. In such a case a Trillion dollars is huge. Also, this is for the country as a whole. Entire cities are based on U.S. military money.

 

Now, if the U.S. were to redeploy its military bases out of Germany (the job is done, lets face it) and move them to Poland (a supporter of the U.S.) we could put in that same 1 Trillion dollars into the Polish economy. And 1 Trillion over 50 years in Poland is even bigger to Poland (population of 40 million, and not as wealthy due to communist past) than it is to Germany. Plus you have the added advantage of pissing off Putin.

 

Same economics works in India.

[Guest guest]

Quick correction. I think their population today is actually closer to 80 Million (I don't think I was counting "unified" Germany).

[theist]

Besides salary some of those other expenditures are money paid to the govt. of the host country to occupy the land. Utilities used by the base.

 

As mentioned above the pyschological deterrant factor on Pakistan would make it worth it alone. Remember a couple years ago they threatened to bomb the Taj Mahal? Who knows what will happen in Pakistan in terms of their leadership. That is a country filled with jihadi's.

 

Problems to look out for are areas around any base springing up that are for catering to the lowest desires of the soldiers. Prostitution and low class night life. That would need to be strictly controled from day one.

[Guest guest]

Peace overture from Pakistan to India

 

Pakistan has made a major peace overture to India with a telephone call from Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali to his Indian counterpart Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

 

Jamali asked Vajpayee to resume negotiations with Islamabad, offered to visit India "in the cause of peace," and urged the two arch-enemies "to resolve outstanding issues through dialogue."

 

Tensions have been high between the two South Asian neighbours, who have fought two of their three wars over the disputed Kashmir region.

 

So far India has refused negotiations with Pakistan, demanding Islamabad first end cross-border infiltration by Muslim militants into Indian-ruled Kashmir.

 

Pakistan says it is doing all it can to seal the border and has asked for an increase in international monitors to verify Islamabad's claim.

 

During the conversation Jamali told Vajpayee he welcomed his original offer of talks. Vajpayee made the offer during a visit last week to the troubled Indian-Kashmir capital Srinagar.

 

But Vajpayee qualified the offer, saying Pakistan had to close training camps for militant secessionists and end cross-border infiltration. Pakistan denies involvement in either.

 

Islamabad does, however, say it gives political and moral support to separatists operating in Indian-ruled Kashmir.

 

International attention focused on the region only after India tested a nuclear device in 1998 and Pakistan followed with a test of its own.

 

Both countries have declared themselves nuclear powers and there are fears that another conflict could escalate into a nuclear confrontation.

 

© Associated Press

 

Story filed: 18:03 Monday 28th April 2003