Originally posted by Vintage.Wine
And one just can't say that all such
decisions by the US were noble. I bet
you know of Submarine Gazi, the Seberjets, The Paton tanks that were used in
the 71 war against India. They were all
supplied by the US. Can they reason
for that ? ..Did they rank Indian republic at par with nations governed by tyrant dictators ? That woulda posed a threat to the world? and endangered the peace? .. ..<<<< ..Can you justify that American action Birdie ? ..In any which way you can think of ?'C'mon we are going to be honest
here ..and didly but that
My thoughts on this in no particular order of importance:
You made a great point here in that, historically speaking, it was not always about liberation and emancipation for the US.
IMO, you took a panoramic view of the 71 war and displayed a confirmation bias by not giving due weight to all the actors involved - India, USSR, China, USA, East Pakistan and West Pakistan.
Foreign policy is a complicated business with too much strategy and too many social, economical, political compulsions involved. Often, motives are ill-defined and not easy to gauge. The assumption is that individuals, provinces, counties and countries are looking after their own interest and acting out of self-preservation.
The cold war between US and USSR dictated coalitions and international relations. China was an ally of Pakistan, US was kissing Chinese ass, and India signed a cooperation treaty with Soviet Union, and so on. In that sense, the 71 war was less about the sufferings of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and more about alliances. But if anyone did feel any moral pangs about the sufferings of the Bangladeshis, I would say it was India, even though the million of refugees coming in across the border and straining the economy might have influenced some of her decisions.
This might not be worth mentioning but the Bangladesh movement did receive widespread public support in the US; even the US congress was not in favor of military support to Pakistan but President Nixon overruled all sentiments. In my personal opinion, Nixon was a douche bag and morally bereft and he sort of got his comeuppance at the end of the Watergate scandal when he resigned with low approval ratings all around.
Lastly, in my personal opinion, Indira Gandhi during this period exhibited more testicular fortitude than any other Indian leader that ever took office, post Indian independence.