Gates: U.S. is "building trust" by selling weapons to both India and Pakistan

By Steve Hynd

From the department of feeble excuses (h/t Kat):

On his arrival in Pakistan, a television news interviewer put the question bluntly: "Why re-arm both countries?" The Pentagon chief sidestepped the question.

But Gates and other officials explained afterward that Washington hopes the military cooperation will help the U.S. win the trust it needs to advance its goals in the region. And, besides, they said, the two countries could get weapons elsewhere, so why not from us?

"I think we have to make these decisions judiciously," Gates said. "But we also do not simply want to turn over these military relationships to other countries who don't have as many scruples as we do in terms of making these decisions."

The excuse got thinner and sillier too:

Military officials said the Pentagon was being careful to not alter the balance of power in South Asia, even when providing F-16s to Pakistan.

"Another squadron of F-16s means they [Pakistan] will lose the next war with India a little slower," said a U.S. military official in Islamabad, speaking of the arms sales on condition of anonymity. "They are not going to defeat India because we gave them a squadron of F-16s. The military overmatch India enjoys is just too great."

..."How do we close the trust deficit? By acting like friends," the official said. "By being willing to do things to meet their perceived needs, even if it does nothing for us."

I'm sure India feels reassured that all the extra casualties it might suffer from the US providing F-16s (that can easily be adapted to nuclear missions), harpoon missiles, anti-tank missiles, artillery and attack helicopters won't actually stop it winning a war with Pakistan eventually. Ditto for Pakistanis, who can feel all fuzzy with trust over the knowledge that America's nuke deal with India means that, should their own American weapons help them lose enough of "a little slower", more of their cities might fry.

Actually, it'd be easier if Gates and the Pentagon just took the hint. That Pakistani jounalist wouldn't have asked the question if selling arms to the two rivals wasn't a zero-sum game, trust wise.

Perhaps Gates and Co. should try to remember the words of Dr. Jo Husbands of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, speaking at a think-tank discussion in D.C. back in 2003:

I at least would argue that the question of the potential risks of major arms transfers relations with India and Pakistan deserve a great deal more debate and consideration than they have yet received. And certainly, it is a place where, since we're on Capitol Hill, there's a major congressional interest and role in any future progress...what I'd really like to do in the time available is to talk about what I think are some of the key issues that make arms transfers relationships to this region something worth real debate and discussion.

And the first one is simply the thuddingly obvious point that we are... now engaged in arming both sides of a situation where there have been major conflicts in the past and major recent crises that threatened serious violence and conflict. And that's a situation of which we should be very much aware and very sensitive.

Well, Duh. I know there are lots of Pakistan and Indian readers of Newshoggers. I wonder if any feel they trust America more because it sells weapons to their old rival too.

The simple truth, shorn of all pretenses, is that the business of America is the arms business, and it isn't all that fussy about its customers. Gates and the Pentagon are shills for the arms industry here, and making thin excuses for something that makes no objective sense except in dollar terms.