Hagel strongly committed to India-US strategic partnership: Pentagon

[Bang Galore]

As Chuck Hagel took over as Barack Obama's new defence secretary amid a controversy over his comments on India's role in Afghanistan, Pentagon - the US defence department headquarters - said that Hagel will work to strengthen ties to India.

Hagel's strong commitment to fostering a close defence relationship was reported Wednesday by Washington Free Beacon, the rightwing online newspaper that had disclosed a video-recording of a speech Hagel made in 2011 about Indian aid to Afghanistan.

"Secretary Hagel is strongly committed to the US strategic partnership with India and to fostering an even closer defense relationship with India that builds upon the work of Secretary (Leon) Panetta, Deputy Secretary (Ashton) Carter, and their Indian counterparts," Free Beacon quoted Pentagon spokesperson George Little as saying.

"Secretary Hagel looks forward to working closely with Indian national security and defence officials," Little told the newspaper that had dug out the controversial comments during Hagel's contentious confirmation hearings with his former Republicans attacking him for his positions on Israel and Iran.

In his previously unreleased 2011speech, Hagel had said: "India for some time has always used Afghanistan as a second front, and India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on that side of the border.

"And you can carry that into many dimensions, the point being (that) the tense, fragmented relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been there for many, many years."

The remarks raised a furore in New Delhi. However, in a calibrated response to the Free Beacon, the India Embassy said that Hagel's 2011 remarks were not grounded in "reality."

"Such comments attributed to Sen. Hagel, who has been a long-standing friend of India and a prominent votary of close India-US relations, are contrary to the reality of India's unbounded dedication to the welfare of the Afghan people," the embassy spokesperson said in an email to the newspaper.


"India's commitment to a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan is unwavering, and this is reflected in our significant assistance to Afghanistan in developing its economy, infrastructure, and institutional capacities," the spokesperson said. "Our opposition to terrorism and its safe havens in our neighborhood is firm and unshakeable."

The existence of the video of Hagel's speech at Cameron University in Oklahoma was disclosed by the online newspaper hours before the decorated Vietnam veteran was confirmed by the Senate after weeks of severe criticism from former Republican colleagues.

The former Republican senator from Nebraska, who won two Purple Hearts for his bravery as a soldier during the Vietnam War, was accused of being critical of Israel and weak on Iran's alleged nuclear weapon ambitions.

Hagel committed to ties with India: Pentagon





Pentagon Clarifies Hagel’s Position on U.S.-India Relations

Chuck Hagel’s 2011 gaffe sparks international incident

The Pentagon was forced to clarify the views of the new defense secretary on the United States-India relationship after a Free Beacon report detailing controversial 2011 remarks by Chuck Hagel sparked an international protest.

“India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan” in Afghanistan, Hagel said during a 2011 address on Afghanistan at Oklahoma’s Cameron University.

The remarks caused an uproar in New Delhi where government officials and numerous political observers panned Hagel’s comments.

Pentagon spokesperson George Little told the Free Beacon late Wednesday that Hagel will work to strengthen ties to India.

“Secretary Hagel is strongly committed to the U.S. strategic partnership with India and to fostering an even closer defense relationship with India that builds upon the work of Secretary [Leon] Panetta, Deputy Secretary [Ashton] Carter, and their Indian counterparts,” Little told the Free Beacon.

“Secretary Hagel looks forward to working closely with Indian national security and defense officials,” Little responded when pressed to elaborate on the situation.

The U.S. Embassy in India has reportedly distanced itself from Hagel’s controversial stance.

“The United States strongly supports the positive role India continues to play in Afghanistan,” IBN reported the U.S. embassy in India as saying. “We continue to support India’s bilateral assistance program with Afghanistan, its leadership on private sector investment there, and promoting regional economic integration and linkages.”

A spokesperson for the Embassy of India told the Free Beacon earlier this week that Hagel’s 2011 remarks were not grounded in “reality.”

“Such comments attributed to Sen. Hagel, who has been a long-standing friend of India and a prominent votary of close India-U.S. relations, are contrary to the reality of India’s unbounded dedication to the welfare of the Afghan people,” the spokesperson said in an email.

“India’s commitment to a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan is unwavering, and this is reflected in our significant assistance to Afghanistan in developing its economy, infrastructure, and institutional capacities,” the spokesperson said. ”Our opposition to terrorism and its safe havens in our neighborhood is firm and unshakeable.”

Hagel’s comments appeared to run afoul of the official U.S. policy regarding India and Afghanistan, the embassy spokesperson said.

“India’s development assistance has been deeply appreciated by the people and the government of Afghanistan, and by our friends around the world, including the United States,” the embassy statement said. “We do not view our engagement with Afghanistan as a zero sum game.”

The report of Hagel’s remarks appears to have sparked an international incident.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday, “Opposition politicians and foreign policy analysts in India are demanding a clarification from Hagel.”

“Chuck Hagel’s simplistic remarks surfacing amid the rushed U.S. exit from Afghanistan, co-option of Pakistan as facilitator with benefits, and beatification of unreformed Taliban, have India on edge,” said K. C. Singh, a former Indian diplomat, told the Post. “The situation requires immediate retraction of Hagel’s statement to avoid damage to India-U.S. relations, particularly defense cooperation.”

The Post went on to quote a senior U.S. official who said that Hagel’s remarks had created “discomfort.”

“It has obviously caused us discomfort because U.S. officials keep telling us, ‘We want more of India in Afghanistan, not less,’ ” the official was quoted as saying. “There is certainly a dissonance here.

Additionally, “‘Will Chuck Hagel clarify?’ was the title of the prime time television debate on the Indian news channel Times Now on Tuesday night,” according to the Post.

Chuck Hagel

 

[muse]

Interesting that none of the statements out of the pentagon retract the Defense Secretary statement about Indian activities with regard to creating problems for Pakistan from Afghanistan.

 

[Bang Galore]

Hagel’s Distorted Views on India

Lisa Curtis



Former Senator Chuck Hagel’s (R–NE) unfounded comments on India’s role in Afghanistan during a speech in 2011 provide yet another indication that he is poorly qualified to lead the U.S. Department of Defense.

In a video recording of an unreleased speech by Hagel at Cameron University in Oklahoma, the nominee for Defense Secretary alleges that India has over the years “financed problems” for Pakistan in Afghanistan and “always used Afghanistan as a second front.”

The statement is not only contrary to reality; it goes directly against the policy of the Obama Administration, which has been to support a robust Indian role in Afghanistan. Senior Obama officials have rightly avoided being baited by the Pakistanis into thinking that India is the source of trouble for U.S. interests in Afghanistan. By contrast, India has been one of the largest donors to Afghanistan, assisting with its humanitarian needs, energy projects, and even the construction of the parliament building in Kabul—the most powerful symbol of the burgeoning democratic process in the country.

New Delhi strongly supports the U.S. goal of ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a haven for international terrorism. Indeed, the Indians would be more directly impacted by a Taliban victory in Afghanistan, since the Islamist extremist group would most likely facilitate terrorist training camps for jihadists seeking to stir the pot in Kashmir, as they did in the 1990s.

The U.S. has long tried to convince Pakistan to crack down on the Taliban leadership and the affiliated Haqqani network, which finds safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, but to no avail. To assert that India is somehow at fault for supporting the same anti-Taliban elements that the U.S. supports in Afghanistan borders on absurdity.

The fact that the nominee for U.S. Secretary of Defense could misjudge so badly the situation in one of the world’s most important regions is alarming. The Indian embassy has also registered its shock at Hagel’s statement but acknowledged that he had been a “long-standing friend of India and a prominent votary of close India-US relations.”

Perhaps Hagel misspoke. If he hopes to restore credibility both here in Washington and in this important part of the world, especially with India—a crucial Asian partner of the U.S.—he needs to correct the record. Otherwise, he will have handed his critics one more reason to doubt his credibility for the nation’s top defense position.

Hagel

 

[HAIDER]

Hagel these blogs are useless.......blogs has no value in real world geo political dialogues .

Hagel’s Distorted Views on India

Lisa Curtis



Former Senator Chuck Hagel’s (R–NE) unfounded comments on India’s role in Afghanistan during a speech in 2011 provide yet another indication that he is poorly qualified to lead the U.S. Department of Defense.

In a video recording of an unreleased speech by Hagel at Cameron University in Oklahoma, the nominee for Defense Secretary alleges that India has over the years “financed problems” for Pakistan in Afghanistan and “always used Afghanistan as a second front.”

The statement is not only contrary to reality; it goes directly against the policy of the Obama Administration, which has been to support a robust Indian role in Afghanistan. Senior Obama officials have rightly avoided being baited by the Pakistanis into thinking that India is the source of trouble for U.S. interests in Afghanistan. By contrast, India has been one of the largest donors to Afghanistan, assisting with its humanitarian needs, energy projects, and even the construction of the parliament building in Kabul—the most powerful symbol of the burgeoning democratic process in the country.

New Delhi strongly supports the U.S. goal of ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a haven for international terrorism. Indeed, the Indians would be more directly impacted by a Taliban victory in Afghanistan, since the Islamist extremist group would most likely facilitate terrorist training camps for jihadists seeking to stir the pot in Kashmir, as they did in the 1990s.

The U.S. has long tried to convince Pakistan to crack down on the Taliban leadership and the affiliated Haqqani network, which finds safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, but to no avail. To assert that India is somehow at fault for supporting the same anti-Taliban elements that the U.S. supports in Afghanistan borders on absurdity.

The fact that the nominee for U.S. Secretary of Defense could misjudge so badly the situation in one of the world’s most important regions is alarming. The Indian embassy has also registered its shock at Hagel’s statement but acknowledged that he had been a “long-standing friend of India and a prominent votary of close India-US relations.”

Perhaps Hagel misspoke. If he hopes to restore credibility both here in Washington and in this important part of the world, especially with India—a crucial Asian partner of the U.S.—he needs to correct the record. Otherwise, he will have handed his critics one more reason to doubt his credibility for the nation’s top defense position.

Hagel

so just a blog,.just ignore it

 

[Bang Galore]

Interesting that none of the statements out of the pentagon retract the Defense Secretary statement about Indian activities with regard to creating problems for Pakistan from Afghanistan.

Probably because it was made when he was a private citizen. The Pentagon cannot retract such a statement, it will be left to Chuck Hagel himself to do anything, if at all.

 

[muse]

Probably because it was made when he was a private citizen. The Pentagon cannot retract such a statement, it will be left to Chuck Hagel himself to do anything, if at all.

I thought he was a US Senator when he made those remarks - it will be interesting to see how this will play out - How will Indians play this?

 

[Bang Galore]

Hagel these blogs are useless.......blogs has no value in real world geo political dialogues .
so just a blog,.just ignore it

From a top conservative think tank - The Heritage Foundation. Not suggesting that it necessarily has any value because of that but Ms. Curtis is regularly asked to speak in hearings at the Capitol.

I thought he was a US Senator when he made those remarks - it will be interesting to see how this will play out - How will Indians play this?

He wasn't. Those remarks were made in 2011, he was a senator from 1997 to 2009.

 

[KRAIT]

Hagel these blogs are useless.......blogs has no value in real world geo political dialogues .so just a blog,.just ignore it

Have you read PKKH articles ?

 

[EyelessInGaza]

I thought he was a US Senator when he made those remarks - it will be interesting to see how this will play out - How will Indians play this?

Well, this could be the start of a significant policy shift by the US, but I doubt it.

How will Indians play this?

With our usual, easily assumed, self righteous hysteria (media), some back of the scene manouevring by Indian leadership, some calibrated statements by US leadership, some mutual whining, and then business as usual, realpolitik as usual.

Whether there is any basis to Hagel's comments remains unresolved.

The only legacy will be as a talking point for serious debating or flaming or trolling by internet denizens.

 

[HAIDER]

Advice to Indian, learn to take HEAT. Look at us The Pakistani, all hijackers of 911 were Saudi and for no reason Pakistan took the HEAT. Even last week a report publish in which US Ambassador to Pak sent memo to UAE and Saudi to stop funding terrorist groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, because Pakistani govt is tired of these two countries, after sending many direct and indirect dialogue on this matter and including few more.....even then if some on fart in India whole media start flashing Pak flag on their screen.

But again after Siachin and Bangladesh, it will take a while for Pakistan to trust India.

 

[muse]

I doubt this is a policy shift - after all the statement was made in 2011 -- but I don't think Mr. Hagel detractors will allow him to have thumbed his noses at a lobby that has the fearsome reputation that it does, without that lobby working long and hard to make an example of him.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Interesting that none of the statements out of the pentagon retract the Defense Secretary statement about Indian activities with regard to creating problems for Pakistan from Afghanistan.

@muse;
Firstly, Chuck Hagel was not the DefSec when he spoke.

Secondly, as the US Embassy statement says: the US is distancing itself from the statement. It cannot disown the statement, because that will mean that the Administration has taken on board a person who is not in consonance with the US administration's views. So let us wait and see if the US administration supports that particular statement or even more importantly if Hagel re-iterates that statement; which he can if he wants to!
Till then it is neither here nor there about what Hagel said and what the US administration believes.

Of course the Indian Govt can now find reasons to "higgle with Hagel" about this. Just as it shunned Richard Holbrooke and made sure that India got removed from his brief.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I doubt this is a policy shift - after all the statement was made in 2011 -- but I don't think Mr. Hagel detractors will allow him to have thumbed his noses at a lobby that has the fearsome reputation that it does, without that lobby working long and hard to make an example of him.

@muse;
The fact that the video was leaked by a right-wing body in the US leads me to believe that the pro-Israel lobby in USA was gunning for Hagel and was hoping to use the leak to build up the opposition to his nomination. That lobby is still formidable yet.

The above having been said; I believe that there are some changes to be expected in US policy; but not vis-a-vis the Indian involvement or presence in Afghanistan.
The change will be re: the relationship with Iran. The USA (and I have said this many times before on PDF in Afghan related threads) is looking to make some connect with Iran wrt to Afghanistan in the long term perspective. USA needs to do it and will be wise to do it. Afghanistan has long ceased to be a "Two-Nation" or "Tri-Nation" issue. Consequently USA will re-jig their Iran policy in a carefully calibrated fashion. This process; will incidently involve Russia and India too at various times and in various measure. @muse, in this regard I will again point you towards the little discussion that we had on a thread regarding Pakistan-Russia relations.

Otherwise all the "Hoo-Haa" regarding Hagel's 2011 statement is pure accidental and co-incidental. I'd call it "collateral damage".
Yaaneki; teer maara kidhar, pahuncha kidhar!!

 

[muse]

Could not agree more with regard to Iran --- and it's not just Afghanistan - US just needs to make up with Iran

 

[Bang Galore]

Could not agree more with regard to Iran --- and it's not just Afghanistan - US just needs to make up with Iran

@Capt.Popeye

An interesting article connected(loosely) to the U.S.-Iran relationship

Any Solution to Syria?

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

SHOULD the U.S. intervene to stop the bloodshed in Syria? I find myself torn between four different perspectives — from New Delhi, Baghdad, Tel Aviv and the U.N.

Last week, I met with a group of Indian strategists here at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses to talk about how America should withdraw from Afghanistan and navigate the interests of India, Pakistan and Iran. At one point, I tossed out an idea to which one of the Indian analysts responded: That was tried before — “in the 11th century.” It didn’t work out well. That’s why I like coming to Delhi to talk about the region. Indian officials tend to think in centuries, not months, and they look at the map of the Middle East without any of the British-drawn colonial borders. Instead, they only see old civilizations (Persia, Turkey, Egypt), old faiths (Shiites, Sunnis and Hindus), and old peoples (Pashtuns, Tajiks, Jews and Arabs) — all interacting within long-set patterns of behavior.

“If you want to understand this region, just take out a map from the Ganges to the Nile and remove the British lines,” remarked M. J. Akbar, the veteran Indian Muslim journalist and author. It takes you back to the true undercurrents of history that have long ruled the Middle East “and to interests defined by people and tribes and not just governments.”

When you look at the region this way, what do you see? First, you see that there is no way the U.S. can keep Afghanistan stable after we draw down — without working with Iran. Because of the age-old ties between Iranian Shiites and the Shiite Persian-speaking Afghans of Herat, Afghanistan’s third-largest city, Iran always was and always will be a player in Afghan politics. Shiite Iran has never liked the Sunni Taliban. “Iran is the natural counter to Sunni extremism,” said Akbar. It’s in Iran’s interest to “diminish the Taliban.” That’s why America and Iran were tacit allies in unseating the Taliban, and they will be tacit allies in preventing the reseating of the Taliban.

So from India, the struggle in Syria looks like just another chapter in the long-running Sunni-Shiite civil war. Syria is a proxy war between Sunni-led Saudi Arabia and Qatar — two monarchies funding the Syrian “democrats,” who are largely Syrian Sunnis — and Shiite Iran and the Shiite-Alawite Syrian regime. It’s a war that never ends; it can only be suppressed.

Which is why in Israel some Israeli generals are starting to realize that if Syria is a fight to the death it could pose as great a strategic threat to Israel as Iran’s nuclear program. If Syria disintegrates into another Afghanistan — on Israel’s border — it would be an untamed land, with jihadists, chemical weapons and surface-to-air missiles all freely floating about.

Can that collapse be avoided? From Washington, some hoped that by quickly toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, the West and the Sunnis could “flip” Syria from the Iranian-Soviet orbit to the Sunni-Saudi-American orbit. I’m dubious. I doubt that Syria can be flipped in one piece; it will break apart in the air into Sunni and Alawite regions. And, if we did manage to flip Syria, Iran would try to “flip” predominantly Shiite Iraq and Bahrain into its camp.

Some Arab diplomats at the U.N. argue, though, that there is a middle way, but it would require the U.S. to lead: First, mobilize the Security Council to pass a resolution calling for the creation of a transitional government in Syria with “full powers” and with equal representation of Alawites and Sunni rebels. If the Russians could be persuaded to back such a resolution (not easy), it could break the stalemate inside Syria, because many regime loyalists would see the writing on the wall and abandon Assad. The stick would be to tell the Russians that if they don’t back such a resolution, the U.S. would start sending weapons to the secular/moderate rebels.

Can there really be such a policy between George W. Bush’s “all-in” approach to transforming Iraq and Barack Obama’s “you-touch-it-you-own-it-so-don’t-even-touch-it” approach to Syria? One should study Iraq. The lesson of Iraq is that deep historical currents were at play there — Sunnis versus Shiites and Kurds versus Arabs. The December 2010 Iraqi elections demonstrated, though, that multisectarian parties and democratic rule were possible in Iraq — and actually the first choice of most Iraqis. But America would have had to keep some troops there for another decade to see that shift from sectarianism to multisectarianism become even remotely self-sustaining. Syria is Iraq’s twin. The only way you’ll get a multisectarian transition there is with a U.N. resolution backed by Russia and backed by a well-armed referee on the ground to cajole, hammer and induce the parties to live together.

It’s the Middle East, Jake.

If you will the ends, you’d better will the means. You can’t change the politics “unless you say you’ll stay for a hundred years,” insists Akbar. But no one wants to play empire anymore. In which case, he argues, it’s always best not to stay long in any of these countries — five months, not five years. Five years, says Akbar, is just long enough for people to hate you, but not fear or respect you, let alone change their long-held ways

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/opinion/sunday/friedman-any-solution-to-syria.html