Singapore - Security in the South China Sea, tensions in North Korea, and the changing nature of Asian security will top the agenda this weekend at the Shangri-la Security Dialogue, the largest annual gathering of Asian and Pacific defense officials and experts in the world.

Your humble Cable guy is already on the ground as the top delegations from 28 countries, including 16 defense ministers, convene on the island city-state this weekend for the 12th annual iteration of the conference, run by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) out of London. Last year's event was packed with news, as when then Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled a new U.S. plan to increase the U.S. military commitment to Southeast Asia.

Gates met with Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie at last year's event and Liang fought off verbal attacks from several regional powers on China's aggressive activities in the maritime domain. He even answered several questions posed by The Cable. Although the United States and China tried to portray an image of improving U.S.-China military ties, last year's event highlighted the deep disparity between the two country's visions for the region.

This year, the United States is sending a large, high-level delegation led by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and including Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, Pacific Command chief Adm. Samuel Locklear, and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs Mark Lippert.

There will also be a hefty U.S. congressional delegation here in Singapore, including Senate Armed Services ranking Republican John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Rep. Eni Faleomavaega (D-Samoa), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Panetta, who is also traveling to Vietnam and India on the trip, will focus his speech in Singapore on the U.S. military shift toward Asia. He previewed those remarks in a May 29 speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland.

"America is a maritime nation, and we are returning to our maritime roots," Panetta said. "America's future prosperity and security are tied to our ability to advance peace and security along the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean and South Asia. That reality is inescapable for our country and for our military, which has already begun broadening and deepening our engagement throughout the Asia-Pacific." 

Panetta will travel to China for the first time as Defense Secretary later this year. For Washington, the conference is a chance to drive home its commitment to Asian security, said John Chipman, director-general and chief executive of IISS. For China, the conference is an opportunity to defend its actions and intentions toward its neighbors.

"This year the U.S. will reaffirm its rebalancing to Asia, what they earlier called the ‘pivot' to Asia that they are now calling ‘the rebalancing,'" Chipman said. "China has had a challenging year with the region, which is simultaneously attracted and intimidated by Chinese power."

In a change from last year, China won't be sending an official at the defense-minister level. Sources familiar with the discussions said that due to the sensitive nature of China's impending leadership transition, the Chinese government is being unusually cautious about its public interactions.

That will shift some of the attention to the other regional powers, such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia, and Malaysia. For example, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono will give the opening keynote address. Thai defense minister Air Chief Marshal Sukumpol Suwanatat will attend for the first time, as will the defense minister of Myanmar, Lt. Gen. Hla Min. Indian defense minister A K Antony will deliver another one of the keynote speeches.

"We know what the U.S. and China think. It will be interesting to see how the medium powers seek to frame the discussion," Chipman said. "Indonesia sees itself now not just as a leading country in Southeast Asia but as a G-20 power. It wants to play a larger role in defining the security agenda in the region."

As with many of these conferences, much of the real action will take place on the sidelines -- in a series of bilateral, small group, and off the record meetings that will occur alongside the official festivities. This year there will be an off-the-record session on tensions in the South China Sea in which Chinese and Filipino officials will participate.

Other special sessions will cover the role of armed forces in international emergencies, the evolution of submarine warfare, cyberwarfare, and the emergence of new military systems such as unmanned vehicles.

The United States, Japan, and South Korea will use the opportunity of the conference to hold a trilateral side meeting, where the North Korea nuclear issue is expected to be discussed. Indonesia, Australia, and India will hold another small multilateral meeting, possibly including Japan.

There will be more than 200 bilateral meetings in Singapore as well, in addition to the dozen or so small multilateral gatherings. That's the whole idea of bringing these officials to Singapore for three days, Chipman said.

"Almost all the defense ministers refer to it as ‘the indispensable forum' for defense discussions," he said. "It really allows for a larger variety of discussions that no other forum in Asia -- official or unofficial -- permits."

We'll be blogging and tweeting (@joshrogin) the entire time. Watch this space.

While Washington grappled with the consequences of Kim Jong Il's death, the United States, Japan, and India held the first meeting of what is shaping up to be a robust trilateral dialogue -- but all sides have been quick to say that it's not aimed at isolating China.

The four-hour meeting was held at the State Department on Dec. 19, and the U.S. delegation was led by Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Bob Blake. Other U.S. officials in attendance included State Department Policy Planning Director Jake Sullivan, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and Pacific Affairs Peter Lavoy, and NSC Senior Director for Strategic Planning Derek Chollet.

The Japanese contingent was led by Koji Tsuruoka, deputy vice minister for foreign policy, who was visiting Washington with Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba. The Indians flew in two officials, Joint Secretary for the Americas Jawed Ashraf and Joint Secretary for East Asia Gautam Bambawale.

Two State Department officials described the meeting for The Cable. "What I really loved about it was that it just seemed like a very natural conversation among friends," one of the officials said. "The amazing thing about our governments is that we really have shared values. That's the foundation of it all. That's the glue that binds us together."

The officials defined those shared values as democracy, human rights, rule of law, transparency, open markets, freedom of navigation, and an interest in international development work. "There wasn't a moment of dissonance in the whole thing," the official said. "The challenge now is to figure out what specifically we can focus on."

This was the first trilateral meeting between the three countries; the main objective of which was to set the foundation for future talks, discuss what issues would be on the agenda going forward, and set the goal of meeting again in Tokyo next year.

Topics that were discussed inside the meeting included Afghanistan, where Japan and India are large donors, the recent East Asia Summit, Central Asia, and Burma.

"We talked about how we can work together within all these Asian organizations to advance our shared values ... and what can do to help improve the workings of all these various fora," the State Department official said. "We agreed that we need to focus our collective efforts in Afghanistan to make sure all the values we share in Afghanistan are upheld and observed."

The U.S.-Japan-India trilateral dialogue is just the latest of the "mini-laterals" that the United States has undertaken recently. These groupings, which are smaller than often cumbersome multilateral groups, are becoming a preferred way for the United States to build consensus around policies with friends and allies.

There is another trilateral strategic dialogue between the United States, Japan, and Australia that has been ongoing for five years, and now has half a dozen working groups. The United States and India have had a bilateral dialogue about East Asia for over two years now, led by Campbell and Blake. That dialogue has held four official meetings.

The State Department official said the United States is interested in setting up some "mini-lateral" structures that include China. U.S. policymakers also want to start a U.S.-India-China trilateral dialogue, the official said, but the Chinese won't sign on.

"Our Indian friends are happy to do it, we're willing to do it, but our Chinese friends are a little wary," the official said. The Japanese have also put forth the idea of a U.S.-Japan-China trilateral dialogue.

The State Department wants to be clear that this week's meetings were not about China. In fact, they said that the rise of China and how to deal with it wasn't discussed at the Dec. 19 trilateral meetings.

"We did talk about China, but it was in the context of other things," the official said. "We were actually looking for things we could do jointly with China."

Experts said that even if the trilateral dialogue wasn't about China, the fact that all three countries are cooperating in the effort to deal with China's rise looms over the discussions.

"The growing cooperation with India and Japan is driven by China's rise, there's no doubt about that. That doesn't mean it's directly aimed at China," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). "They are all trying to respond to China's rise but not antagonizing China. From China's perspective, any cooperation is encirclement."

The initial Chinese reaction to the meeting was cautious. "U.S., Japan and India are countries with great influence in the Asia-Pacific region. We hope the trilateral meeting will be conducive to regional peace and stability," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin told reporters.

Countries like India are interested in deepening their ties with China as well as the United States, but joining U.S.-brokered diplomatic architectures allows India to approach its engagement with China from a position of greater strength, said Cronin.

He also said that the effort was part of the U.S. goal of increased burden sharing with India, to offset the financial cost of maintaining the U.S. presence in East Asia.

"The U.S. is not looking to spend a fortune, it's looking to be a facilitator," he said. "It brings India into East Asia and Japan into the Indian Ocean and it does that at a very low cost to the United States."

The State Department officials acknowledged that part of the driving force behind encouraging India to take on more responsibility was to shift some of the financial responsibility to countries whose economies are on the rise.

 "The Indian government, for the first time in a long time, has money. It's a country that can greatly complement U.S. efforts in the region.... This theme of them being a net provider of security takes on more significance when all of a sudden they finally have the resources to expand their role," the official said.

"The whole world has been a free-rider on the United States for so long, if the Indians can help with that in an era when we face budgetary constraints, the more the better," the official said. "The U.S. has had the luxury in the past of going it alone, but it certainly makes sense to do it with your friends."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led a huge interagency team in New Delhi on Tuesday that has a strong focus on opening up Indian markets to U.S. companies, especially those in the defense and energy businesses.

"With regard to trade and investment, the ties between our countries are strong and growing stronger. The United States is proud to be one of India's largest trading partners and direct investors, and we welcome India's investment in the United States, which is rapidly on the rise," Clinton said at the start of the 2nd U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue. "This is a good news story -- but we would be remiss if we didn't strive to make it even better."

A State Department official told The Cable that the United States is aiming to reach $100 billion in two-way trade with India within a couple of years. "Our whole focus on this trip was to set some ambitious goals," the official said.

"Priorities include, number one, trying to deepen our economic cooperation, which has been growing substantially year on year, and she'll point out a few ways we think we can take it to the next level," one official told reporters on Clinton's plane.

Clinton was accompanied by a host of high-level U.S. government officials, including  Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the President's Advisor for Science and Technology John P. Holdren, Department of Energy Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman, Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute, Federal Aviation Administration Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt, Export-Import Bank Chair Fred P. Hochberg, Overseas Private Investment Corporation Chair Elizabeth L. Littlefield, U.S. Trade and Development Agency Director Lee Zak, White House Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra, and Acting National Security Staff Senior Director for South Asia Michael Newbill.

From the State Department specifically, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs Robert Hormats, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake, Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, and Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues Melanne Verveer.

The meetings were not limited to trade, and covered almost every aspect of the bilateral relationship, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, East Asian strategy, counterterrorism, cyber security, science and technology, education, civil aviation, and climate change.

But economic issues and trade is certainly the primary focus of Clinton's time in India. Tomorrow, she will travel to the Indian city of Chennai, a huge manufacturing and information technology hub. Meanwhile, the administration's economics team will go on to Mumbai, India's financial center.

The Obama administration has been working hard to drum up defense and civilian nuclear business for U.S. companies in India. The United States lost out when India passed over U.S. companies  for a $12 billion contract for new fighter jets. Clinton, however, praised a smaller subsequent deal to purchase $4 billion worth of U.S. transport planes.

"The Indian Air Force went in a different direction with the fighters, but we don't see that as the end of the world," the State Department official said. "We see billions of dollars of other defense deals coming down the pipeline."

Clinton also promised to stand by the U.S.-India civilian nuclear agreement signed during George W. Bush's administration, despite a change in rules by the Nuclear Supplier Group that restricts the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) equipment. She urged India to sign the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) this year.

"Our strong view is that the NSG decision regarding ENR technologies changes nothing about the U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal," the official said.

U.S. defense and nuclear trade with India always riles Pakistan, but the administration is determined to show both sides that the United States will not pick one over the other.

"The era of zero sum calculations with respect to U.S. relations with India and Pakistan should be over," said Karl Inderfurth, senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It will be necessary to make it clear to both parties that the U.S. will not exercise a Sophie's Choice in these relations."

The meeting comes only one week after a terrorist attack in Mumbai that killed 19 people, and one week before Pakistani and Indian leaders are set to resume talks that broke off following the devastating 2008 Mumbai terror attack.

Tuesday's meetings were also Clinton's first opportunity to explain President Barack Obama's strategy for drawing down U.S. troops in Afghanistan to the Indian leadership. India fears that Pakistan may exploit a power vacuum in Afghanistan, where it has both economic and security interests..

The U.S. government, however, is internally divided between those who want to see more Indian activity in Afghanistan and those who are concerned that increased Indian involvement there endangers U.S.-Pakistan cooperation.

"Half of the U.S. government wants India to play a useful role in Afghanistan," said Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Stephen Cohen. "It's ludicrous because India is a crucial player in Afghanistan... We don't have an integrated policy."

The State Department's Sajit Gandhi will join the professional staff of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to be Chairman Howard Berman's (D-CA) new lead advisor on all things South Asia, The Cable has confirmed.

Gandhi, a young and well-respected foreign affairs officer, currently works in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research covering South Asia and before that was on Af-Pak envoy Richard Holbrooke's staff.

He replaces Jasmeet Ahuja, Berman's previous South Asia advisor, who played a large role in the crafting of the $7.5 billion Kerry-Lugar-Berman Pakistan assistance package passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama earlier this year. She began her studies at Stanford Law School this month.

Gandhi started out at State in 2004 as a foreign affairs officer, entering the diplomatic corps through the Presidential Management Fellowship program. Gandhi served as the action officer for South Asia in the office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism and as the political officer at the U.S. embassy in Colombo, Sri Lanka. He was also an advisor on South Asia in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, where he received a Meritorious Honor Award for his work on the State Department's annual country reports on human rights.

He has also worked as an associate for the Cohen Group, a Washington-based business consulting firm, and as a research associate for the National Security Archive. He holds a master's degree from the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and a bachelor's degree from the Elliott School at the George Washington University. He is married to Bhumika Gandhi and the couple just welcomed to the world their first child, a beautiful girl named Seva.

Congrats to Sajit and the whole Gandhi family!

Most will point to President Obama's announcement that he will visit India in early November as the biggest news to come out of the ultra-swanky reception he attended at the State Department Thursday evening to celebrate the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue.

But the real news was buried deeper in Obama's remarks. Did you know that during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July trip to India, a local restaurant named a dish after her called the "Hillary Platter"?

"What does it have, chapati?" Obama joked, to the delight of the assembled elites of the U.S.-India policy community, who convened in the ornate Benjamin Franklin room to celebrate what was clearly a warm and friendly set of interactions between the two sides, led by Clinton and Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna over the last two days.

"It's got all kinds of things," Clinton responded, getting a good laugh from the crowd, which included a host of officials and luminaries, including Policy Planning chief Anne-Marie Slaughter, her deputy Derek Chollet, Under Secretary Bill Burns, Assistant Secretary Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell, NSC South Asia Director Anish Goel, Indian Ambassador Meera Shankar, U.S. Ambassador Timothy Roemer, Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, India expert Ashley Tellis, and many others.

Obama promised to try the dish when he gets to India, in response to a yelled-out question from an Indian member of the audience, and declared, "I intend to create an ‘Obama Platter.'"

Man, that guy is competitive!

He also gave a shout-out to 2009 National Spelling Bee champion Kavya Shivashankar, who is an Indian-American.

In her remarks, Clinton gave credit to employees of the State Department and other agencies, who did the heavy lifting to make the Strategic Dialogue happen.

"Mr. President, we have worked hard today, and we've actually been working hard ever since the strategic dialogue was agreed to between you and Prime Minister Singh. Many of the people you see before you are the people who are actually doing the work that make minister Krishna and I look like we're fulfilling our responsibilities," she said.

The reception was elegant, with a menu that included savory parmesan flan, carrot and apricot fritters with vanilla-apricot chutney, Argentinean pulled chicken, petite lamb burgers, samosas, and sesame-encrusted salmon. Your humble Cable guy felt it was his duty in reporting on the event to sample each dish, washing them down with glasses of champagne flavored with hibiscus flowers.

By the way, Clinton isn't the only Washingtonian to have an Indian dish named after them. Next time you are at your local Indian restaurant, try ordering the Rogan Josh (seriously).

When India looks at the United States these days, it sees a world power that is too consumed with crises and problem countries to give it the attention and respect it deserves. When the U.S. looks at India, it sees a growing market for goods and services that can help it recover from years of economic malaise.

That's the frame for this week's first-ever U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue in Washington, when a host of senior leaders from both sides will spend days going over various aspects of the complex relationship and seeing where improvements can be made. Some big issues are on the table: Afghanistan, nukes, China, Iran, etc. But with few expectations of new advancements on those issues, the key deliverables the U.S. side is seeking are mostly on the economic front.

The Obama administration made some missteps in its first months in dealing with India, leading many there to conclude that the Bush administration's drive to improve ties was not being continued by the Obama team.

Since those early days, said Ashley Tellis, a South Asia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "both sides are making really strong efforts to show that the momentum has not lapsed."

"Whether that has paid off will depend on what they will announce at the end of the dialogue," said Tellis. "The burden on the administration with respect to showing their commitment to the relationship is higher than usual."

But the success or failure of the dialogue will be more about tone than substance, analysts say. The U.S. side has some specific "asks": the Obama team wants India to open up its economy by increasing caps on foreign direct investment, allowing increased market access, indicating openness to genetically modified foods, paving the way for American insurance firms to enter India, and increasing access for American retail firms like Walmart.

But since these are decisions that have to be made in New Dehli in accordance with the next budget cycle, there probably won't be any more than general acknowledgement by the Indians that they intend to move in that direction.

"We're really not focused that much on deliverables," Assistant Secretary Robert Blake said about the dialogue. "The purpose of this dialogue is really to think strategically and to get the key people who work on these issues together to think ahead to the president's visit and to think strategically about what we can do." Obama is due to visit India later this year, but no date has yet been announced.

India's wish list is of a more diplomatic and political nature. Manmohan Singh's government, like its predecessors, is looking for overt U.S. support for its drive to be named a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. U.S. officials say that could only come as part of an overall U.N. reform effort (which nobody predicts is imminent). India also wants assurances that the United States will not link U.S.-India relations to Pakistan, China, or any other issue that might constrain U.S. decision making.

Under Secretary of State Bill Burns referred to that concern directly in remarks Tuesday.

"Some in India worry that the new administration is tempted by visions of a G-2 world," he said, referring to last year's popular buzzword for the U.S.-China relationship, "... that we've downgraded India because we see Asia exclusively through the lens of an emerging China, with India's role secondary."

"Let me speak plainly to those concerns. This administration has been, and will remain, deeply committed to supporting India's rise and to building the strongest possible partnership between us."

Indian anxieties about China were exacerbated during Obama's trip to Beijing in November, when he issued a joint statement that said the U.S. and China would "work together to promote peace, stability and development" in South Asia. The Indians are extremely sensitive to any hint that China, a close ally of Pakistan, has a role to play in what it sees as Indian affairs -- like the fraught subject of Kashmir.

The Obama administration quickly had to clarify that its intention was never to legitimate a Chinese role in South Asia, and the Chinese themselves disavowed any intentions of meddling. The wording was an oversight by the Obama administration, U.S. officials have said, not an intentional slight or a change in U.S. policy.

Burns addressed the controversy obliquely Tuesday, saying, "We do not see relations in Asia as a zero-sum game. Instead, we attach great significance to India's expanding role in East Asia, and welcome our partnership across the region." (Some might say Burns's comment risks a fresh diplomatic protest -- this time from China.)

President Obama himself irritated the Indians when he came into office, saying that working with Indian and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir crisis would be a "critical task" of his administration. He now says the U.S. would only play a role if asked to do so by both sides -- and India won't be asking.

Most experts see the Obama administration as being on message about the India relationship recently, despite Indian diplomats' ongoing concerns about the level of attention they are getting from Washington.

"The Obama administration is doing OK. It's a crisis-driven administration and India is non-crisis country. That's misinterpreted in India as ‘We don't love them enough,'" said Teresita C. Schaffer, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

She said that the apparent U.S. focus on India's economy does not indicate a lag in the Obama administration's commitment to engaging India on strategic issues.

"That's a false distinction," she said, "because the strategic significance of the relationship rests on India's expanding economy and economic issues have become national-security issues and factor strongly into India's strategic calculus."

Nevertheless, U.S. and Indian priorities regarding perhaps the most important international issue among them -- the ongoing U.S.-led war in Afghanistan -- are somewhat different, particularly when it comes to the role of Pakistan.

"India does not want to see the U.S. involvement end in failure or the U.S. leave too soon. What it mostly does not want to see is Afghanistan as a client state of Pakistan," said Schaffer. "Pakistan's objective in Afghanistan is to minimize India's influence ... The rub is that U.S. is trying to keep Pakistan in the mix so they don't become a spoiler."

The agenda this week is full. On Wednesday, Burns and his counterpart, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, will lead a foreign-policy dialogue that will cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, China, and other issues. Separately that day, top White House economic advisor Larry Summers will give the keynote address at a related meeting of the U.S.-India Business Council.

Then on Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will lead the full dialogue session with her counterpart, External Affairs Minister SM Krishna. There will be a working lunch and a reception that evening. Other notable officials on the Indian side will include Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the deputy head of the planning commission, Education Minister Kapil Sibal, and Prithviraj Chavan, the minister for science and technology.

On the U.S. side of the table, important officials include National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and others. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will not be there. He's on travel and will be represented by Under Secretary Michèle Flournoy. Education Secretary Arne Duncan will also be absent.

Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, will also not be in attendance -- but don't read anything into that, U.S. officials say. His spokesman said he was away on a pre-arranged trip to Barcelona to celebrate his 15^th wedding anniversary. His deputy Paul Jones and senior advisor Vali Nasr will attend in Holbrooke's absence.

Is there any connection between Pakistan's stunning arrests of top Taliban leaders and last week's rare meeting between senior Indian and Pakistani diplomats? And did the Obama administration somehow deliver India to the table in exchange for Pakistan's cooperation?

Those were the questions lingering in Washington Friday as a handful of South Asia experts sat down for lunch with Vice President Joseph Biden. But two India and Pakistan experts who attended the lunch saw no link between the events, though they said it's in the administration's interest to act as if they were.

"The story is far more prosaic than it appears," said Ashley Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wouldn't comment on the specifics of his conversation with Biden. "I don't think the administration is sure that there actually is a fundamental change in Pakistani behavior. Only time will tell on that score."

"For various reasons, the administration is happy to insinuate they had a role, because if nothing else it gives them a little more leverage against Pakistan. But I think they know very clearly that these talks occurred because the Indian prime minister wanted them to happen," said Tellis. "I don't think there is anyone in the administration that seriously believes that it is what they did that brought [Indian Prime Minister] Manmohan Singh to the point where he was willing to talk to the Pakistanis."

The Obama team has been advocating for a renewed India-Pakistan dialogue for many months, and the speculation that U.S. intercession influenced India's decision also allows Pakistani government to defend its cooperation with the Obama administration to a skeptical domestic audience, Tellis said.

"It's almost wishful thinking," Tellis said. "This is one instance where both Pakistani and American interests are satisfied symmetrically by the survival of the story."

Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at The Atlantic Council, agreed that the U.S. role in both the Pakistani decision to change its approach and the Indian decision to resume talks was minimal.

"All of this was really motivated by their own interests ... It appears that it was almost an accidental coming together of the objectives of the U.S. and Pakistan," said Nawaz, who also was in the Friday lunch with Biden and wouldn't comment on their conversation. "I frankly don't think there was any deal done; I don't think there was any strategic shift."

There are plenty of conspiracy theories out there, mostly in the Pakistani press, claiming that the U.S. made some deal with the Pakistani government in exchange for the recent arrests, but Nawaz was skeptical.

"What did Pakistan get out of this at this point from the U.S.?" asked Nawaz. "I don't see an awful lot that appears to have emerged."

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA, agreed that while the administration has been active on encouraging the Pakistanis to move against the Afghan Taliban, there was no quid pro quo.

"There's a lot of U.S. role in terms of the long discussions over what's in their interest, but we didn't give them anything," said Kerry, who was just in Pakistan only two weeks ago.

He also said the United States wasn't directly involved in pushing for or setting up the India-Pakistan summit.

"We didn't broker it; we urged both sides that they needed to get it going," Kerry said. "So it's been on our agenda but they finally just decided it was in their own interests."

There is still a laundry list of things the Pakistanis want from the United States, including increased military aid (some of which is coming) and reimbursement of what Pakistan sees as its outlays for operations already completed.

Following the recent visit of Special Representative Richard Holbrooke to Islamabad, the U.S. agreed to reimburse Pakistan some $349 million for military operations covered by the Coalition Support Fund, a congressionally appropriated pool of money designate for that purpose.

But Pakistan estimates its out-of-pocket expenses covered under the fund were $2 billion through 2009, leaving a hefty tab left to be paid. That's all separate from the $1.5 billion set to go to Pakistan this year under the Kerry-Lugar aid bill.

When the Kerry-Lugar aid money gets disbursed, that will be the next test of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, Nawaz said, because the ability of the Pakistani government to responsibly handle the money could reduce the need for costly and intrusive American monitors and inspectors. That's crucial in the trust building between the two governments and the two populations.

"The Obama administration understands that it's still not a perfect relationship, that there are questions on both sides," he said. "We also have to understand that public sentiment in both countries appears to mirror each other and that complicates the state-to-state relationship."

When Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh comes to Washington next week, the Obama administration will be challenged to reassure India, and the Washington foreign-policy community, that the relationship is keeping up the momentum established during the Bush years.

The visit comes at a time when the Obama administration is making overtures to China and focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Indians are worried their rank on the White House priority list is falling. While U.S.-India relations are generally strong, in what is often seen as the zero-sum struggle for White House attention, New Delhi simply can't compete with Beijing and is increasingly worried about what that means for power politics in Asia.

"From the Indian point of view, they are very unhappy with Obama," said Stephen Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, "Indians are really bent out of shape by what they see as a shift of American policy from India to China in Asia. This is complicated by America's dependence on Pakistan."

Administration critics saw Obama's joint statement with Hu Jintao in Beijing as an implicit downgrading of the U.S.-India relationship. The statement said the "two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region."

"If China and America work together on South Asian issues, such as peace between India and Pakistan, then China is the great power while India is simply another South Asian country that needs help from others to solve its problems," wrote former Pentagon official Dan Blumenthal, "With the joint statement, Obama officially accorded India junior status in Asia."

Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific security program at the Center for a New American Security, said that while "the relationship with India is clearly coming second," progress in the U.S.-China relationship indirectly benefits India.

"If the United States and China can't figure out a way to manage their strategic competition, then India and all of us lose," said Cronin. "They need to give the administration more space to try to put the U.S.-China relationship on the most positive trajectory possible."

Nevertheless, the Obama-Singh summit will stand in stark contrast to Singh's 2005 tête-à-tête with George W. Bush, when the two countries embarked on a "strategic partnership" that has taken the relationship far and paved the way for the U.S.-India nuclear agreement.

"Bush already capitalized on what you could from that relationship," said Cronin. "They picked already the low-hanging fruit."

The trip is likely to result in agreements to move forward on second-tier issues, such as an educational agreement, some new military sales to the Indians, or shared information on homeland security. But on big issues like Iran, moving forward with nonproliferation, and coming to terms on climate change, India hands expect little movement.

Underlying the dynamic is a sense that the Obama administration has yet to really commit to a real plan for advancing the U.S.-India relationship. A State Department review is ongoing.

One issue is that there is no real powerful driver for India policy within the administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is well versed on India, but too busy to address it day-to-day. That work has fallen to Under Secretary of State William Burns, but he too has a broad portfolio. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake is the highest identifiable official with a constant, determined focus on the relationship. Even at the National Security Council, India doesn't have a strong advocate yet.

India lobbied against having Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, as its lead interlocutor, leaving the relationship without a specific manager.

Ashley Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is hoping the Obama administration will take the opportunity to announce its support for India to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

"Although it would have no short-term practical consequence, it would provide the benefits in ‘atmospherics' sought from Prime Minister Singh's visit," he wrote.

That's not likely, according to most observers, but many argue that Obama must make some show of commitment to actually advancing the relationship, not just maintaining it.

"Obama needs to show that we are trying to institutionalize what is the growing strategic relationship with India," said Cronin. "He can't have the prime minister go back to New Dehli without having a sense that we know where we are going together."

Cohen pointed out that the White House might also be frustrated that India hasn't come through in the one area that could really benefit U.S. interests right now: reducing tensions with Pakistan so that Pakistan can divert its attention and resources toward cracking down on terrorism and militancy.

"Where is their contribution to what's going in Afghanistan and what are they doing with respect to Pakistan that might make our problem there easier?" asked Cohen of the Pakistanis. "What have they done for Americans lately?"

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

The CIA played a back-channel role in serving as an arbiter and vehicle for intelligence sharing in order to ease tensions between India and Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks, the Washington Post reports today. "In the aftermath of the Mumbai terrorist attacks, the CIA orchestrated back-channel intelligence exchanges between India and Pakistan, allowing the two former enemies to quietly share highly sensitive evidence while the Americans served as neutral arbiters, according to U.S. and foreign government sources familiar with the arrangement," the paper writes.

Former U.S. intelligence sources concerned about the potential for the situation to escalate had brought the channel to the attention of The Cable a few weeks ago. A few days before Christmas, they said, the United States sent then Director of National  Intelligence Michael McConnell and veteran CIA analyst Charlie Allen, who at the time was a top DHS intelligence official, to India. Allen and McConnell were there to talk about Mumbai. Both have since retired and could not be immediately reached.

Also on the trip to India, another U.S. government official said on condition of anonymity, was Michael Leiter, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. "It was a quick in and out trip," the US official said, of the previously undisclosed visit of the three intelligence officials to India. "They got in on a Sunday [Dec. 21], and were out on Tuesday morning," Dec. 23. McConnell had previously visited India last June, the official said.

But the former intelligence officers said the person the United States should be sending to defuse a potential India-Pakistani conflict is Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "The only guy in this administration they are likely to listen to is Gates," one former U.S. intelligence official said. "He's done this twice before." Gates, who was then deputy national security advisor for the first President Bush, was sent to "talk the Indians and Pakistanis out of war" in both 1988 and 1990, the former official, who had been among those involved in briefing Gates at the time, said.

The former official said the message Gates told India is, "If you go to war with Pakistan, you'll win. But your industrial infrastructure will be destroyed." And the message Gates told Pakistan is, "If you go to war with India, you'll lose. And at the end, you will not have a country."

"Bob Gates was the cool hand in keeping the Indians and the Pakistanis from going to war during Brass Tacks (Indian military exercise) in 1987," another former U.S. intelligence officer said, referring to when Gates was then serving as acting Director of Central Intelligence. "It was very tense."

"They are constantly shooting at one another along the line of control," the first former intelligence official said. "These little skirmishes risk getting out of hand. Both [India and Pakistan] feel they are great players at brinkmanship. But in fact they are terrible at it. They lose control very quickly. They don't know where their people are and what they are doing."

The former intelligence official strongly supported the regional approach to Afghanistan suggested by US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke. "Afghanistan is a classic power vacuum," the former official said. "Neighbors see it as point of instability to guarantee their own stability or an opportunity to score points."

While the U.S. media has frequently reported on Pakistani ties to jihadi elements launching attacks in Afghanistan, it has less often mentioned that India supports insurgent forces attacking Pakistan, the former intelligence official said. "The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan," the former intelligence official who served in both countries said. "The same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting at American soldiers are getting support from India. India should close its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of there."

"None of this is ever one-sided," he added. "That is why it was so devastating and we were so let down" when India got taken out of Holbrooke's official brief.

Holbrooke flew to India Sunday night after visits to Pakistan and Afghanistan. "Mr. Holbrooke ... said he was shocked by the problems he saw in the country [Pakistan], which he last visited a year ago," the New York Times reports. "He said he was especially concerned that the Swat Valley, a onetime ski resort about 100 miles from Islamabad, had been seized by Taliban guerrillas, who blow up schools, assassinate police officers and beat -- or behead -- those who do not adhere to their strict version of Islam." On Sunday, the paper also reports, the Taliban declared a 10 day cease-fire with Pakistani forces in Swat valley.

The Post report, sourced initially to unnamed Pakistani officials, could be interpreted as an effort by Pakistan to prevent Indian actions against the country that some U.S. military analysts predict are likely before Indian elections this spring.

"The Indians are almost certainly going to do something before [their] elections," said AEI military analyst Thomas Donnelly. "They will strike camps in Pakistan. They are really pissed about the incompetence of the response to the [Mumbai] attacks.  .... It doesn't look like the Pakistanis are willing to or even can do anything that will satisfy the Indians. I would really be surprised if something doesn't happen, unless that changes. They got an election coming up in March or April. It will be an interesting test for the United States."

A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said it would have no comment on travel taken by the DNI.

UPDATE: A Washington South Asia expert, among others, wrote to dispute the allegation made by a former U.S. intelligence official cited in the piece that India is aiding the Taliban, although he said such support may be going to other anti-Pakistan insurgent groups.  "It doesn't square with my observations/sources, even though lots of Pakistanis will say it is true," one said. "The Indians have - by many accounts - had a longstanding connection with Baluch nationalists/separatists in Pakistan, but these are not Taliban and they aren't active in Afghanistan fighting against US/NATO forces. So yes, India gives Pakistan grief (as Pakistan has in India), but I've seen no evidence that it comes from Pakistani or Afghan Taliban.

"As for the consulates, that's a regular refrain from Pakistani government and military," the expert added, "but there's very little US evidence to support the claims of major Indian activity in these locations, which appear to be minor operations with rather few personnel." The former U.S. intelligence officer who made the allegation said that U.S. policymakers do not require the U.S. government to collect intelligence on the issue.