January 4, 2005

MUSCLE FLEX OF THE AXIS OF GOOD:

U.S., India plan series of joint army exercises (Stars and Stripes, January 4, 2005)

The U.S. and Indian armies have planned a series of joint exercises over the next two years, U.S. Army Pacific officials announced this week.

The plan, officially signed Dec. 9 during a visit by the 9th Executive Steering Group to U.S. Army Pacific, includes continuation of the annual Exercise Yudh Abayas that is held annually both in India and the United States.

This year, the platoon-level exercise was held in India and Hawaii. Next year, a portion of the exercise will be held in Alaska and India. Security cooperation program activities also will be held on subjects including aviation, medicine, logistics and others, according to the release.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 4, 2005 8:14 PM
Comments

So it's China and Russia vs US and India. I love outsourcing and the fringe benefits.

Posted by: andy at January 5, 2005 12:10 AM

Excellent news. It is none too soon to lay the groundwork for alliance in the Great China War of 2018 (give or take a few years).

Posted by: Axel Kassel at January 5, 2005 6:53 AM

If we can influence American low-level manufacture to move from the PRC to India, we can put the final nail in the Communist coffin.

Posted by: Bart at January 5, 2005 7:02 AM

Deciding to hold the exercise in Alaska is fascinating. There are only two wars that India could even conceivably need to fight in snowy, mountainous terrain, and our helping them prepare for either one will shake up the region.

Posted by: David Cohen at January 5, 2005 8:55 AM

Axis of Good? I thought it was "either for us or against us", and India rather famously opted not to join the "Coalition of the Willing".

Posted by: creeper at January 5, 2005 3:11 PM

creeper:

They had to guard the Eastern flank of Islam for us and the Western flank of Communism.

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2005 3:15 PM

That may well be a nice enough face to put on it after the fact, but at the time the Bush administration sure tried to get them to send troops into Iraq.

Posted by: creeper at January 5, 2005 3:22 PM

No, they didn't. We can't send Hindus to kill Muslims. We tried to get Turkey, but it had good reason to oppose Kurdish independence.

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2005 3:26 PM

I guess guarding the Eastern flank of Islam and the Western flank of Communism weren't such big priorities for Bush at the time. Or something.

Posted by: creeper at January 5, 2005 3:27 PM

To the contrary, this is one of those on-going stories that folks like you missed, but which demonstrate Bush's superior vision:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=axis+of+good

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2005 3:31 PM

The Bush administration didn't ask India to send troops into Iraq?

Posted by: creeper at January 5, 2005 3:33 PM

period, not question mark.

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2005 3:41 PM

No, it was a question. Putting a period after it would have made it a falsehood.

The US put in a request with the Indian government early in May for a brigade-strength deployment of over 17,000 troops in Iraq. If New Delhi had agreed the Indian contingent would have been among the largest in Iraq, second only to the size of the US military deployment there.
Several rounds of consultations have taken place between India and the US over the past month.[...]
The American invitation had generated heated debate in India. Indian opinion has been divided right down the middle on the wisdom of sending troops to Iraq. Those who supported deployment argued that India's ambition of being regarded as a regional or global player of significance would be furthered by sending the troops.

(http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EG15Df03.html)


The Bush administration did ask India to send troops into Iraq.

Period.

Posted by: creeper at January 5, 2005 3:53 PM

that was peacekeeping, not the Coalition.

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2005 3:57 PM

(a) The Bush administration did ask India to send troops into Iraq. Period. The statement stands.

(b) "that was peacekeeping, not the Coalition."

When exactly was the "Coalition of the Willing" disbanded?

Posted by: creeper at January 5, 2005 4:04 PM

The Administration asked them to send peacekeepers, not troops.

We decided to handle peacekeeping ourselves, instead of handing off to the UN--an obvious mistake.

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2005 4:12 PM

"The US put in a request with the Indian government early in May for a brigade-strength deployment of over 17,000 troops in Iraq."

Posted by: creeper at January 5, 2005 4:33 PM

yes. That's after the war, you'll have noted.

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2005 5:59 PM

So was the Coalition of the Willing disbanded?

Do we have troops in Iraq, or 'peacekeepers'?

Posted by: creeper at January 6, 2005 5:06 AM

Peacekeepers.

Posted by: oj at January 6, 2005 10:12 AM

Who also happen to be troops.

Posted by: creeper at January 6, 2005 10:19 AM

Peacekeeping in this world has always required killing. To deny that is to deny history.

Posted by: jim hamlen at January 6, 2005 2:28 PM

Exactly. It's not like calling them peacekeepers makes them somehow not troops.

Posted by: creeper at January 7, 2005 7:27 AM
« ROLL ME OVER ROMEO: | Main | COLLISIONS OF MONUMENTS: »