Sometime would you say more about what you mean by “playing hard to get”?

Do you mean that we are in a superior position and can demand an arrangement that fits our interests and may require India to do things that they have not yet spent the resources to do? Or, do you mean that we can advance our interests by somewhat ignoring India?

How about increasing clear communications and building enough familiarity so that we can deliberate a wide range of options and arrangements and in the end not be ambiguous about our mutual arrangements that will probably change in the not too distant future and require more discussion? Hopefully, we will jointly find ways to achieve mutually beneficial goals in a very complex situation where India may know and understand more than we do.

Bob Spencer

This goes beyond realism. It's magical realism.

Perhaps if India should sell a couple of 500 MW PHWR reactors to Iran, which oh BTW can be easily modified to churn out excellent quality bomb-grade Plutonium, then the likes of Mr. Walt might argue in India's favor.

Perhaps India can call Pakistan's nuclear bluff and retaliate militarily after Pakistani terrorists launch the next Mumbai and force the US to be "with us or against us", then perhaps Mr. Walt might think about India more.

Perhaps India can actively court the likes of Brazil to torpedo Obama's non-proliferation treaty dreams, then Mr. Walt might rethink...

**Note to geniuses like Mr. Walt**: Be careful what you wish for. If the US forces countries with long-term shared goals to show their nuisance value before they are treated with respect, then you create a system where only rogues get rewarded and thuggerry will be the global norm.

So let me get this straight. You're announcing that you're ratcheting up your troop levels in Afghanistan to almost 100,000 on Tuesday. You've practically had to beg the Pakistanis to do SOMETHING on their border to curtail their own Taliban problem. You're convinced that their intelligence services are one and the same as the Afghan Taliban, THE MOST DIRECT EXISTENTIAL threat to your own troops. You're trying to reason with them and contain this threat. Your Secretary of State just insulted their intelligence services standing in their capitol less than two weeks ago. The aid bill your congressional allies concocted last month was a source of great trepidation and humiliation to the Pakistanis, and you're losing public trust in their country (as well as ours) EVERY DAY.

So naturally the logical thing to do is host their arch nemesis with pomp a week before you send our kids to man the border regions with the country.

I think this administration fails to recognize time and time again the immense amount of distrust that exists in Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan. And they don't have an appreciation for the limitless ways those 'pushover' Pakis and Afghan Taliban have of screwing us over asymmetrically.

Don't get me wrong... long term think and increasing economic cooperation with India are absolute MUSTS for Indo-US ties. India deserves respect on par with the Chinese, if not more so, but the only one that seems to be acting like morons right now is us. Couldn't we have had this state visit like, next month? Or after the troops started arriving?

It's been said before and I'll say it again, our goals are totally out of whack with realistic possibilities.

A good article.

But with flawed logic.

1. America is not in Asia. Hence, why should it be even worried about the safety of a nuclear armed unstable Pakistan? But lo and behold, India is. And if Pak were to go south, it would be India that would do the US' dirty work. Worried that orgs like the LeT would have its hands on nukes, India would respond. (The Israelis could also contribute, for nukes among jihadis is not good news in Tel Aviv.)

Why should the US involve itself with a regime and state that is a pariah, and be seen as propping up Pakistani military, as it has been doing since ages? The US has not exactly covered itself in glory with its involvement with Pakistan.

Leave all the dirty work to India.

If indeed you want to have such a detached attitude towards inter-state relations, your concern as regards Pakistan is unfounded. You seem to have a stake in Pak's stability. I think it is flawed.

2. Yes, India benefits from US engagement in Afg. and has requested the US to stay the course. But this is not an unreasonable demand. Obama himself seems inclined to send 30,000+ troops to Afg. Where is the problem? If it was against the US national interest, it would not be sending troops (we still have to wait for the confirmation). Hence, India and the US are on the same boat. Surely this is not the first time in history that national interests have converged? And such convergence need not always be bad.

3. As regards your mantra of India needing to do more (so that Uncle Sam doesn't play hard to get), it is nebulous and terribly open-minded.

Might I also add that your thesis that it's OK for the US to play hard to get just 'cause it's powerful is a bit vulgar. If India were like an errant child, it would be fine to employ such a tactic. But when the US has tremendous goodwill in India and the bilateral relations have been strong, this sudden bout of egotistical/"realist" tendency is unseemly. Maybe the Obama adm has got its priorities wrong in South Asia, and the neglect is borne out of ignorance (I think this is the case). But you seem to add a realpolitik slant to this mistake, and in the process advocate that India do more - and leave this phrase wonderfully vague. Hence, you very well could be justifying a flawed policy and assigning a logic where there exists none.

Hi,

You implicitly assume that India needs us more than we need India. This is not actually obvious.

A deal with India aimed at reducing our dependence on exports from China might be very useful in the middle term. Right now, when it gets down to it, China has us over a barrel. If we don't do what they want, they can sell dollars, nationalize US owned plants in China, etc. So Obama has to go to China, and up to a certain point, he has to give the Chinese what hey want. If the US could reduce its debt to China some, and build up India as a possible alternative source of some of the goods China currently sells the US, this might do a lot to reduce China's leverage.

If China backs the Naxalites, and the Maoists threaten to take over India, we'll probably feel like we have to intervene. After all, for the first and third greatest industrial powers in the world to be allies against us, when we are the second strongest industrial power in the world, could get ugly. So we may want to offer a good deal to the Indians because if things turn badly for the Indian government on the subcontinent we'll be pulled in anyway. Given this risk, it might not hurt to help them before things turn ugly.

Also, how do I put this, the Pakistanis seem to be betting that we will have to withdraw from Afghanistan fairly soon, and to be involved in some under the table cooperation with the Taliban. The Pakistanis probably just want to make sure they have ties to the winning side, but I'm pretty sure the Taliban want us gone from Afghanistan. If we want the Pakistanis to cooperate with us, we'll have to convince Pakistan that waiting for the US to leave Afghanistan will not get them what they want. Threatening Pakistan with the possibility that the US will hand over its position to India and maybe even Iran might be the only way to get our enemies to the table.

This doesn't prove that we should cooperate more closely with India. It does mean that we have reason to seriously consider closer cooperation with India, because it is not obvious that India will get more out of it than we will.

Ray,

I don't believe either side needs to play hard to get. They are actually in reality hard to get for each other anyway. The rapid positive developments in relations between the two countries, which took place during the former Washington administration, are likley to slow down now.

Although such visits are usually good news for defense share -holders, as inevitably talk of weaposn purchases would be on the agenda, yet, the US proposed taxation on US outsourcing companies, and American insistance on increasing its share in investments in Indian information technology, defense and educational sectors, are likely to cause difficulties.

Politcially, India has always been suspicious of China to say the least. Is President Obama capable or willing to help alleviate those suspicions, without inviting trouble from China; which he neither wants nor needs?. I would say highly unlikely. On the other hand, is India willing to play a role in Afghanistan and undertake an attitude change towards Pakistan, in line with US interests, without hurting its own percieved strategic interests. The answer here is NO. Both the US and India have different outlooks on the future of Pakistan. India accuses Pakistan of state-sponsored terrorism against it; not only in Kashmir/Azad Kashmir, but also on mainland India, while Pakistan continues to accuse India, of sponsoring Baluch troubles for Pakistan through Afghanistan.
khairi janbek.paris/france

Why I ask do the Indians have to all the running. India is stronger than Pakistan at a moments notice India could effectively end Pakistan as an Independent state yet they choose not to, surely the Pakistanis know this and are using it as an excuse not to commit more troops to crushing their insurgency(which would solve one half of the problem) as at the moment they are only using the bear minimum to fight a dug in enemy.The Chinese know this and is happy to let both the U.S and India focus on their mutual problem the AFPAK region while they build up both economically and militarily.It would be suicide for the U.S to 'play hard to get' as in 10-15 years you will see the consequences of not having an effective counter-balance to china in the region if the situation is allowed to continue especially if the U.S. keeps treating India as a plaything only getting attention when the U.S. needs them, it will end badly.

Yes, nations should be unromantic when dealing with each others. But, India has held its tongue when Pakistan diverted the billions in aid it received to combat Al Qaeda and other groups, and instead bought billions in heavy weaponry aimed at India. India did not even engage in a limited military strike against well-known terrorist camps in Pakistani Kashmir, despite frequent terrorist attacks that would have destabilized a more fragile country.

Democratic debtor US should rely more on dictatorial creditor China more than it should on meek poor democratic India even if China refuses to help US out in Afghanistan. Afterall meek India is not being appreciated by US for providing economic aid to Afghanistan any way.

Obama’s US offered UNSC seat to dictatorial China (‘communist’ is a dirty word in American lexicon ever since Deng’s China decided to wear a capitalist mask) on silver platter while same US has no stomach to even hint that democratic India is worthy of UNSC seat.

Obama’s US humbly requested China to get involved in Afghanistan while same US expresses reservations about India’s aid to Afghanistan, claiming that aid upsets Pakistan.

Obama’s US willingly and gladly overlooks China’s nuclear proliferation to Pakistan and North Korea while same US pressures meek non-proliferating India to sign highly discriminatory NPT and CTBT.

Obama’s US would accept China’s suppression of minorities while same US demands that India protect its minority that terrorizes majority.

Obama’s US pressures India to turn the other cheek when attacked by terrorists from Pakistan but same US is showing understanding for almighty China sustaining rogue regime like North Korea.

US news media is really mocking naïve India when it tries to humor India with a claim like “US is trying to promote India as a counter weight to China’.

Hopefully Manmohan Singh will read this excellent column and -

1) Order a military strike on terrorist training camps in pakistan within the next few weeks, this will lead to a massive response from the paki army and their leaving the Afghanistan border and moving towards india.

Inconvenient for the US? 100s more casualties from attacks across the AfPak border. Well, too bad, this is how the real world is - you screw your friends whenever you get the chance.

2) Complete transfer of technology agreements and gas pipeline deals with the iranian govt in the next few months. Wisely the indians met with Iranian Foreign Minister in New Delhi, right before leaving for Washington DC!

http://trak.in/news/irans-foreign-minister-meets-s-m-krishna/24169/

See realism can work both ways ! And dont forget the indians did without US partnership from 1947 to 1990.

So maybe, just maybe, and I am no deep thinker or harvard professor, its better to focus on shared goals (and aspirations) versus playing games with your allies?

The world is changing, and clearly US does not have the hegemonic position it enjoyed immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall. I personally believe that is all downhill from here for US, but I do not mean this in a catastropic way.

Still, some principles never change. The idea outlined by Mr. Walt was made popular by the old Roman Dictum: divide et impera. In our Modern times, our MSM rediscovered this principle under the name of triangulation, and thought Dick Morris invented it. Alas, he and Bill Clinton are only good practitioners.

In any case I subscribe to Mr. Walt's general philosophy that carefully playing the chinese-indian insecurities could be beneficial to US.

But it seems to me that China is our greatest strategic competitor, so it would make more sense to cozy up to India more as a hedge against China. Didn't Kissinger engage with China as a hedge against Russia?

It is mostly internationalists like Mort Zuckerman who view China as the cute girl at the dance.