The writer is Secretary of State.

Condi on India, in today's Washington Post. She makes a strong point about false comparisons between India, Iran, and North Korea, but on the whole the editorial seems like just a lot of mush.

Nuclear (non)proliferation is one of the issues I know least about. Why is it a good thing for India to separate its military and civilian facilities? What's the point of international inspectors having access to the civilian plants if they can't get to the military ones? Why are we OK with India even having military weapons if they didn't sign the NPT? Will Congress agree to change the laws to allow us to share technology with India, and if they don't, will we do it anyway?

Mainly, I'm confused about the emphasis on India's civilian nuclear activities when we, they, and everyone else acknowledge that they have weapons. Is it just a smoke screen? Why is it important for us to see their civilian things when they won't give us access to their weapons? The Indian Prime Minister has even acknowledged publicly that this deal won't in any way constrain India's "strategic" activities. What does the US get in return, besides money for the US-based nuclear reactor business and some bad blood in the Middle East?

These are sincere questions. I really don't understand. Please, explain if you can.

Other related links from WP (which I've only skimmed) here, here, here, and here. By the way, is anyone else annoyed at the New York Times for limiting access to their archives for non-subscribers? I personally find it quite frustrating.