William Cohen, who was in Mumbai when the attacks of November 2008 began.
Were the Mumbai Attacks of November 2008 intended to help the US defence industry?
On 28 May 2009, William Cohen, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, wrote about India's relationship with the USA (The Cohen Group: What should Obama ...):
"Indians are waiting for a signal from Washington that the new president is interested in furthering the relationship and that the US is committed for the long term.
"One vital area of co-operation is counter-terrorism...
"The Obama administration should find avenues for new co-operation in the fight against terrorism – between our two governments and also between our private sectors, where collaboration in areas such as homeland security could benefit both nations...
"We must also expand defence co-operation.
"A framework agreement signed in 2005 has unfortunately not yet translated into a significant increase in commercial defence programmes. But now that Mr Singh has secured a strong majority in parliament, his government has the ability to work with the Obama administration to increase defence trade between our countries."
Photo India - Bombay - 04 - Chowpatty Beach by McKay Savage
The Mumbai attacks, of 2008, began on 26 November 2008.
William Cohen, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, was in Mumbai at the time of the attacks.
Cohen is Chairman of The Cohen Group, a strategic consulting and advisory firm based in Washington, D.C.
In February 2008 we read that trust deepens for U.S.-India Defense Cooperation Reuters
In February 2008, the U.S.-India Business Council (USIBC) arrived in India.
It was led by USIBC Board Member, William S. Cohen, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense
USIBC means top defense companies, including GE Aviation, General Dynamics, ITT, Lockheed Martin, The Boeing Company, L-3 Communications, Northrup Grumman, Oracle, Raytheon, Sikorsky, Stonebridge International, BGR Holdings, The Cohen Group, Tri Polis, EP Team, The Fremont Group, and DRS Technologies.
Rahul Rao, on 30 November 2008, asked about Mumbai: Why?
According to Rao, "It cannot merely be a coincidence of timing that an attack like this occurs at a time when India has decisively overturned its historic post-independence policy of non-alignment and edged ever closer into the US strategic embrace.
"The recently concluded Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement is only the latest in a series of moves that suggest the emergence of a strategic alliance.
"In recognition of India's strategic value (read: its potential utility in balancing China), the US has effectively legitimised India's possession of nuclear weapons by negotiating an agreement whereby it becomes the only nuclear NPT non-signatory in the world to be permitted to engage in international civilian nuclear commerce.
"India's quid pro quo for this special treatment is only beginning to become evident, in the form of a foreign policy that is steadily less independent (exhibit 1: India's obliging vote against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency, reversing a historic and principled stand against a world of 'nuclear apartheid' divided into nuclear haves and have-nots).
"The nuclear deal is only one element, albeit an important one, in this emerging alliance.
"Less commented on, but perhaps more far-reaching, is the India-US Defence Framework Agreement, under which the two countries have promised to enter into hitherto unprecedented levels of military cooperation.
"As the journalist Siddharth Varadarajan has reported, the agreement reflects the Bush administration's desire to outsource some of the lower-end aspects of security management in Asia to India (peacekeeping, search and rescue operations, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, etc.), thereby freeing itself to concentrate its resources on high-end fighting missions.
"In return, the agreement goes some way towards satiating India's thirst for advanced military technology.
"Indeed the sale of US military technology to India enables 'interoperability' between the two militaries, satisfying the objectives of both parties."
OBAMA'S PROBLEM WITH GAS