Why does America back Pakistan and not India?

[manowar821]

Because "we need an enemy to fight"?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummm Bush is more popular in India than any other country in the world, including the US. We must be doing something right.

I don't think I'd see that as a positive thing PJ...Why do you?

Originally posted by: jonks
not back india? not back india? we gave them ALL our tech support jobs for chrissake! when's the last time you spoke to a support technician in islamabad? thought so.

For that matter, when's the last time you spoke to a first-level support tech in the USA? IME, you have to get at least ONE level past the first-level techs to actually speak to someone who can answer a question without referring to a script.
"Hello, my name is Steve and I vill be happy to be helping you tonight."

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

The extremists in Pakistan were condoned by Musharaf. When he lost power a moderate government came into power, but they do not have much control over the extremists yet. They do not protect them as much as Musharaf did though.

India and Pakistan have always had 'strong arguments', but the current Pakistani government is more willing to help India than the extremists in this situation.

The extremists responsible for these attacks (whether from Pakistan or the border region of India) wanted to provoke an aggressive response from the Hindu extremists, as the people who would fall victim to that would be normal citizens and this would be a powerful recruiting tool for the extremists again.

Now back to the original question: The 'War on Terror'. The Pakistani government does not want a bloodbath, and is willing to help India hunt for those responsible. If India keeps on claiming Pakistan is responsible and wants to attack Pakistan you'll probably get a nuclear war in the region. Pakistan knows threatening won't keep those wanting a war at bay, so while talking with the part of the Indian government which wants peace they want the US to keep those that want war at bay.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

"And thereafter we might finally have a rational foreign policy in regard to that region. First, as others have pointed out, India has by in large been self declared neutral during the cold war, but they have historic ties with Russia in terms of arms deals. Hardly making them trusted allies. Pakistan, at least under Musharraf was our open ally, but rouge elements inside of the Pakistani ISI have openly sided with the Taliban.

....

As usual, Lemon Law's shallow read of history outdoes itself. After she got mauled by the Chinese in 1962, India went shopping for arms from whoever would provide them. American arms came with all sorts of strings attached and worse, with the obvious threat of no support in time of war with Pakistan, if it came to that. The Soviets basically wrote a blank arms cheque for India with zero strings attached. Under such circumstances, who would you choose?

And, if anything, it's the U.S. propensity to look for "allies" in all the wrong places that's brought it's foreign policy to such a disastrous pass. With "allies" like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia et. al., who needs enemies? How many terrorist attacks have originated from Indian soil against Westerners or Western interests? How many from Pakistan? Current U.S. policy is basically correcting this aberration caused by the cold-war.