66Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteCaptain, I should have researched the name first before going off. What a walking clusterfuck!Originally Posted by lemontree
Actually, it will continue to be a part of the big picture till it ceases to operate out of Pakistan against India.
DE, What gives you the impression that 'terrorism' cannot be an 'act of war'?I went down the 'retaliatory' path because those acts were described as terrorism in the media. You agreed with me that terrorism is reactionary. So i wondered as to what they were reacting to. The word terrorism threw me.
I've come to realise that those acts are not terrorism but acts of war. Offensive. Whether its JeM, LeT or some other bunch of alphabets the goal is the same. Hit teams sent to attack. Hit teams that may belong to terror groups but they were not indulging in terrorism in 2001 & 26/11. Its easier fo rme to see the picture this way.
ter·ror·ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
When terrorism is abetted by one state against another, it provides a casus belli for the state being attacked.
I'm not arguing that it is unlikely or impossible for India to wage a proxy war against Pakistan. I'm just saying, show the proof before you accuse.Now I would hope most can agree that India waging some secret proxy war is unlikely if not impossible.
You believe that by carrying out terror strikes against India, it somehow strengthens their diplomatic position during bilateral talks? Not sure if I agree. Elaborate how you think this helps them diplomatically. India's hardliners have only grown stronger thanks to terrorist attacks launched from Pakistan, so I don't see how it's helping them politically.I think this is a minor reason. I also think trying to unify a fragmented country as well as consolidating their position in the country are secondary.
The primary goal as always is to focus the world's attention on what Pakistan wants. They want to co-opt the world to their side as they've realised they do not have a chance otherwise. Now, when they see that position getting eroded that is when they try to start something. Over the years since 2001 that happened so 26/11 was launched. Their position still isn't good its actually worse than pre-26/11 due to their relations with the US.. That means they have to improve their image. This is why we see all the conciliatory gestures. Once they assess their perception is back to where it was they start another attack. Or to put it another so long as they think they can improve on that perception they will attack. There is no way to change this mindset unless we effect regime change over there and that is not going to happen.
If you want this is the position they are trying to consolidate and always seeking to shore up as opposed to their position with their people or being undermined. If they manage the former then the latter takes care of itself. They want to strengthen their position at the table whenever talks are held. There is a subtle difference here and what you said earlier.
This is the common pattern over most of the conflict we've had with them. This is their main plan. So they come up with ways to do that. 2001 & 26/11 are pretexts to cause tension. Tension that will hopefully get a response from India. The response is important as without it, whatever they did loses its purpose.
They have indoctrinated their people into thinking Kashmir is rightfully theirs. Therefore they have to look like they're doing something about it from time to time. Its not that they need conflict with India to prove their importance but rather strengthening their position as mentioned above.
The other point is whether the Americans are in the neighbourhood or not makes no difference at all. The main determining factor is if their position looks weak then they seek to strengthen it.
They signed a peace deal with Nek Muhammad less than a month after Wana. They pissed off the Taliban for the same reasons they pissed off everyone else. Their double dealings. The Taliban likes being lied to and played just as much as we do.Wana was 2004. They must have been doing something or they would not be enough resentment for the TTP & other anti-pak outfits to come into being. They were moving in on Al-Q from 2001 that's how they can brag they got over 300 of them. The small fry.That did not happen overnight but over a period of time.
Don't disagree with you. However, Indian response will have to depend on the situation. I'll admit that in the current scenario, an armed retaliation is a bad idea.They carried out surgical attacks on us twice. I see 2001 & 26/11 as such.
So what do we do about it. If you see the trend from war to insurgency to border incidents to hit teams. Their magnitude gets smaller because we ended up blunting their attacks progressively over time. We became stronger. They had to come up with new ways to generate PR for their cause.
How to blunt these hit teams they unleash on us ? Not give them the PR. If they don't get the PR then what use are these attacks to them. They aren't furthering their cause, they are making them look bad & ineffective.
Not to be provoked into any offensive action. We shore up our defenses, improve our coordination, so that if there are more attacks we see fewer body counts. If the body counts reduce over time the utility of the tactic is diminished. We saw a number of bomb attacks upto 2008 and each time i notice the numbers were in the tens. Then 26/11 happened and went past that.
But its going to be a hard sell to the public to do what appears to be nothing after an attack with nerves all shot and the people demanding blood. Everybody wants a quick fix but there just isn't one. There are no good solutions.
For us to go into Pakistan and carry out surgical strikes, covert action or a naval blockade is playing to them. They want us to do that so they can play chicken with us. It's a trap. They will use it as a reason to increase the conflict. Up the ante any way possible. Double or quits. Then how do we play it. How far do we want to go. The politicians want this to be manageable otherwise they will just kill the idea.
Last edited by Tronic; 04 Jul 12, at 04:06.
The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands but seeing with new eyes.
Captain, I should have researched the name first before going off. What a walking clusterfuck!
Chimo
Yes and it ceases to operate when it lo longer delivers the expected results. Our job is to deny or progressively reduce them.
Intervening is debatable whether overt or covert. It gives them more chances to paint us in a bad light and weakens our position. For questionable returns.
It can be, and that's why i prefer to call it that. More precise.DE, What gives you the impression that 'terrorism' cannot be an 'act of war'?
Terrorism is the means. It's tactical intent is to perpetrate an act of war. That intent is what I want to highlight as its more meaningful than the action.ter·ror·ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
When terrorism is abetted by one state against another, it provides a casus belli for the state being attacked.
Their strategic intent or message is to push their agenda into the foreground. Internationalise it. For now we've managed to somewhat bottle their agenda. So they will be looking to pop the cork at the right time. But they cannot do that until their image improves from its present perception. So i would be expecting conciliatory gestures from them in Afghanistan just like we've seen them offer to India.
Cannot accuse without evidence. I'm not even alleging. It was just an idea, a provocative one. So as to enquire into its effectiveness as future policy by suggesting whether its in use already. To learn about its performance in the past.I'm not arguing that it is unlikely or impossible for India to wage a proxy war against Pakistan. I'm just saying, show the proof before you accuse.
No, i'm suggesting that its their new way to force their issue into the foreground. That's what they want every time through acts of war though the means has changed over the years the goal remains unchanged.. Force us or get others, in effect co-opt the great powers into doing their bidding to get us to talk to them about what they want.You believe that by carrying out terror strikes against India, it somehow strengthens their diplomatic position during bilateral talks? Not sure if I agree. Elaborate how you think this helps them diplomatically.
The dialog will take place, it will predictably fail and the cycle restarts again. Though this last time we refused to even start the dialog until we close the 26/11 case. This is a good move. Now what more can they do to force the dialog on us ? Yet another attack when the time is right ?
How so ?India's hardliners have only grown stronger thanks to terrorist attacks launched from Pakistan
The 2009 general election results as well as the state polls in Maha state did not reflect a growth in hardliners. The state poll, less than a year after 26/11 was the biggest surprise as the incumbent party retained its seat..
It helps them if hardliners that come to power are impulsive. Easier to bait.so I don't see how it's helping them politically.
Good then they aren't very good hosts.They signed a peace deal with Nek Muhammad less than a month after Wana. They pissed off the Taliban for the same reasons they pissed off everyone else. Their double dealings. The Taliban likes being lied to and played just as much as we do.
yes, how can they innovate further on hit teams is the question. What will they do next to force the dialog.Don't disagree with you. However, Indian response will have to depend on the situation. I'll admit that in the current scenario, an armed retaliation is a bad idea.
The difference between what i said and your position is I don't think the pak public matters too much to the PA. The PA serves itself and acts to further its own interests. The number of dictatorships they've had since inception is an indicator of this. The PA cannot be undermined internally and therefore does not need to consolidate its position. Only external forces can undermine the PA.
The bad thing is people to people initiatives don't matter except when they are for purposes other than promoting peace. Neither do govt ones. As their govt is just an interface to the PA with no say in foreign policy. Their govt has accountability with no power and the PA the other way around.
However media companies might do it as it's just good business.
Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jul 12, at 21:28.
Who are you referring to?
Deepak Kapoor
Chimo
Ah yes that COAS. Yes, what a walking clusterfuck. He was the one who couldn't get IA ready in response to 11/26 but dithered and played according to Congress's tune. Have totally lost respect for him.
None of them condone it.
Wrong!. I want to know how to retaliate effectively for their terror. Nuke retaliation was not even a serious point in all my arguments. My arguments have nothing do with Gen.Sundarji's doctrine. So drop the bs.
If deliberate murder of civilians are acts of war, you have truly blurred the lines that differentiate warfighting from genocide. If what you are saying is true, then India has to fight this "war" too. After all, Deterrence is not war fighting.
Then Balochistan is also an internal problem ? How about Kashmir, Punjab, Bangladesh, NE terror etc etc ? NCTC is a whole different issue. States like TN, Gujarat, AP etc have fought and won terrorism without NCTC.
You are contradicting yourself.
There is always an effective way of dealing with terror. Killing the terrorists. You don't stop cutting your nails, just because they keep growing. (borrowed from an unknown Israeli counter terrorism expert).
I thought you wanted success stories from the past. The aim of any insurgency is to survive and hurt the opposing armed forces, not getting hunted like wild animals and turn the local population hostile to its presence.
No Country, no matter how stupid its leaders are, never gives up its Intel assets on foreign soil. More so on a country that is an enemy.The most common reason to discontinue a program is that it isn't effective or needed any more
The express article mentioned covert was not good enough as they should know who did it.
Please enlighten us how Indian Intel wasn't effective or wasn't needed anymore. Forget express article. What are you trying to say?
Last edited by hammer; 05 Jul 12, at 13:06.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)
On the contrary, they found it very hard to deal with Hardliners. IG is a perfect example. She was merciless and brought them to their knees in 1971.
LinkThe Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, which was waging a bloody separatist campaign with its base in Birmingham and its foot soldiers in Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, claimed responsibility for the abduction. As the price for Mhatre’s release, it demanded, among other things, the release of JKLF prisoners in India, including the group’s founder Maqbool Butt, then lodged in Tihar.
Butt, one of the most high-profile Kashmir separatist-terrorist leaders of that time, had been arrested in 1966 for leading an ambush of an Indian security patrol in Kashmir, but escaped to Pakistan by digging a tunnel from the Srinagar prison.
Arrested again in 1976, and facing the death sentence for his earlier crime, Butt filed a clemency petition, which was under consideration even until 1984, when the JKLF abducted Mhatra and demanded his release.
But two days after Mhatra was kidnapped, his body was found near Birmingham. Evidently Indira Gandhi had refused to negotiate with the terrorists, although that meant she and the country had to deal with the pain of seeing a senior diplomat killed.
Exactly three days later, Butt, the convicted terrorist, was hanged when his clemency plea was rejected.
They never tried this tactic again, as long as IG was in power. Why ? they already know how she was gonna deal with them.
Last edited by hammer; 05 Jul 12, at 16:34.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)
Condone what ? See your previous posts, its about 'affirming'.
There are no military options that i've heard of that can 'effectively' deal with it. If those military options require a special kind of leadership then they are useless. What do we do with the leadership we have and are likely to continue having in the future ?
The record does not look promising.
Surgical Strikes and India | Express | May 03 2011
Until such time blunt their attacks as we have in the past with their earlier tactics. Better intel & coordination within our country. We absorb their attacks and not get drawn into a larger conflict as that's what they want. If we don't give them that then their incentive to attack us in this manner reduces. It does not stop completely.The key elements of a surgical strike are a capable force and a decisive political leadership. In Indian case sadly both are missing whether it is the present UPA or during the NDA coalition regimes.
Yes, people are going to die. The idea is to have fewer do so after each attack. There is no quick fix.
Genocide ?
I don't know what we can fight it with. All we can do is make it harder.
No i have not. They crossed the red line in the former but not the latter as we did not react in that case.
Yes but India going into Pakistan isn't one of them. We have to do better at killing them when they are in India. Taking 60 hours to accomplish that as in 26/11 is a case in point.
You mentioned one instance where our intel helped, i asked whether you know of any more.
Speculating.
I found the reason that Gujural shut down our intel assets there to promote good relations with as you put it 'an enemy' a little lacking.
The obvious weakness here is, so long as IG was in charge there were no recurrence of this particular problem. So what happens after IG. If we have to depend on the personality of a leader for out security we already have a problem. The state has to be able to deal with these situations regardless of who is in charge.
You previously had trouble believing in what B.Raman had said about Indian Intel being liquidated in Pakistan. And then you "proved" his credentials by proving he worked in Intel for "27" years. And then you said, a lot might have changed after he left. You said, you can't prove it but Indian Intel is causing trouble in Pakistan. And that terror is reactionary to those actions. Then you said that we quietly made a direct u-turn to Gujural's policy of '98.
And now you are posting articles to "affirm" the opposite ? I know very well it happened. I have been harping on lack of Indian Intel agents in Pakistan from the start. so what are you trying to say?
Then maybe we can use IAF punish them. Intel/Other forces that operate behind enemy lines should be made available. Sectarian forces and Anti-Pak Groups should be supported clandestinely. The point is where there is a will, there is a way.
Elect someone with balls?
Errr.... Thanks for telling us what we already know.
Better intel & coordination within "our" country, would've stopped 26/11 ? hmmm... larger conflict! Are you saying Pakistanis are wishing for a bigger confrontation with us? very rational huh? what is a larger conflict ? What do they achieve with a larger conflict? We have never given them their incentive to attack us, yet terror strikes continued. We were always reactionary and then we back off. case in point: Operation Parakram. Can you explain that?
If 10 armed/trained men infiltrating Mumbai and mowing down unarmed men,women and children is "warfighting", then Indian army walking into Lahore and shooting dead as many civilians as possible is warfighting too.. Don't you think ? Heard about Nanjing Massacre ? How about Jalianwalabagh? All warfighting?
Not with a defensive attitude. Hafiz Saeed and a lot more terrorist pigs are sleeping peacefully every night. They don't have any reason to believe that their life is in danger. They are most probably right. They have no incentive to stop their attacks against India. Sure they are lying low now. But not for long.
We did not react in both cases. We just tried to scare them in the former but did nothing. Okay, so whats the use of harping on the "red line"? They had already crossed it. So what are we waiting for?
Killing them in Pakistan is the only way to stop it. If we don't feel safe at our homes, they shouldn't at theirs. Terrorism can only be dealt with in an offensive way. There are a million ways/methods to conduct a successful terror strike in India. Our borders are long and porous. As long as the terrorists are running for their lives, they won't be planning the next strike.
No, I said we should use non-state actors against Pakistan. you mentioned Non-state actors are cheap for Pakistan. I said it would be the same for us too. you said,
I said, Mukhti Bahini, which is "our" success story. Kashmir insurgency is "their" failure.Tell us how you would evaluate such a policy. How would you promote it. Are there any success stories from the past etc.
So why else do you think they shut down? You still believe India cannot have such stupid PM's? Whats your theory?
Last edited by hammer; 05 Jul 12, at 17:55.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)
The state is nothing without an able leader. That is very basic. When you are facing a situation where radicalism and terror is threatening your country, you can't have a weak leadership and expect the "system" to work it out. It does not work that way.
Nehru was ready to give away Ladakh (Not a blade of grass grows there) without a fight. Atal gave him an acerbic rely in the Parliament for the same. He publicly said on All India Radio, "My heart goes out for Assam..... " assuming it has already fallen to the Chinese. While IG displayed here true self even then. She travelled to Assam to be a morale booster to the troops and the people. He humiliated INA and denied them funds and then ordered that Chinese be thrown out. India has had more than its fair share of looney tunes as its PM.
Last edited by hammer; 05 Jul 12, at 17:51.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)
That article also mentioned we still DO NOT HAVE the capability. let alone the will. That is in May 2011. I picked that article because it dumped on what the chiefs said about India possessing the capability to do surgical strikes.
Here is an older article from Jan 2009, that says we did not retaliate because we were not ready at the time. This is different to the Aug 2010 Express article posted earlier that says we were unsure about escalation.
To be willing one has to be able first.
Indian army 'backed out' of Pakistan attack | Asian Times | Jan 21, 2009
It would appear then that we've quietly reversed Gujural's policy post 26/11.Indian army 'backed out' of Pakistan attack
By Siddharth Srivastava
Jan 21, 2009
Reluctance for battle by an ill-prepared army could have resulted in India not launching an attack on Pakistan in the aftermath of the Pakistan-linked terror attack in the Indian city of Mumbai on November 26 in which nearly 200 people died
High-level government sources have told Asia Times Online that army commanders impressed on the political leadership in New Delhi that an inadequate and obsolete arsenal at their disposal mitigated against an all-out war.
The navy and air force, however, had given the government the go-ahead about their preparedness to carry out an attack and repulse any retaliation from Pakistan.
Over the past few weeks, it has become increasingly apparent from top officials in the know that the closed-door meetings of top military commanders and political leaders discussed the poor state of the armory (both ammunition and artillery), and that this tilted the balance in favor of not striking at Pakistan.
According to senior officials, following the attack on Mumbai by 10 militants linked to Pakistan, India's top leadership looked at two options closely - war and hot pursuit.
Largely for the reasons cited above, the notion of an all-out war was rejected. Hot pursuit, however, remains very much on the table.
The government sources say that a framework for covert operations is being put in place, although India will continue to deny such actions.
How much of this article is true ?Crack naval, air and army forces backed by federal intelligence agencies will be involved. The target areas will be Pakistan-administered Kashmir and areas along the Punjab, such as Multan, where some of the Mumbai attackers are believed to have been recruited.
The coastal belt from the southern port city of Karachi to Gwadar in Balochistan province will also be under active Indian surveillance.
Thumbs down to war
Following the Mumbai attack, New Delhi's inclination was to launch a quick strike against Pakistan to impress domestic opinion, and then be prepared for a short war, given the pressures that would be exercised by international powers for a ceasefire to prevent nuclear war breaking out.
The expectation of New Delhi was that the war would go beyond the traditional skirmishes involving artillery fire that take place at the Kashmir border, essentially to check infiltration by militants, or the brief but bloody exchanges at Kargil in 1999.
It was in this context that the army made it apparent that it was not equipped to fight such a war, given the military's presence along the eastern Chinese borders, and that India was at risk of ceding territory should an instant ceasefire be brokered with Pakistan.
This would have been highly embarrassing, not to mention political suicide for the Congress-led government in an election year. So instead, New Delhi restricted itself to a strident diplomatic offensive that continues to date, and the option of hot pursuit.
The air force, on the other hand, was confident that it was prepared to take on the first retaliatory action by Pakistan, expected at forward air force bases along India's borders in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Indian-administered Kashmir. The role of the navy in the operations was not clearly defined, but it was to cover from the Arabian Sea.
Not ready to fight
Various experts, former generals and independent reports have voiced concern over the past few years about the state of preparedness of the Indian army.
For example, the Bofors gun scandal of the 1980s stymied the army's artillery modernization plan, with no induction of powerful guns since the 1986 purchase of 410 Bofors 155mm/39-caliber howitzers. The army has been trying to introduce 400 such guns from abroad and another 1,100 manufactured domestically, without success.
The latest report by the independent Comptroller and Auditor General said the state's production of 23mm ammunition for Shilka anti-aircraft cannons and 30mm guns mounted on infantry combat vehicles lacked quality. Further, supply was nearly 35% short of requirements.
India's huge tank fleet is in bad shape due to a shortage of Russian spare parts, while indigenous efforts, such as the main battle tank Arjun, have failed.
Signs of trouble emerged during the Kargil war when it was revealed that India's defense forces were dealing with acute shortages in every sphere.
In remarks that underscored the problems, the then-army chief, V P Malik, said his forces would make do with whatever was in hand, given the fears of a full-scale war that was eventually avoided due to pressure by America, then under president Bill Clinton.
The Kargil review committee report noted, "The heavy involvement of the army in counter-insurgency operations cannot but affect its preparedness for its primary role, which is to defend the country against external aggression."
Although there have been attempts to hasten India's overall defense modernization program, estimated at over US$50 billion over the next five years, gaping holes need to be plugged, including corruption and massive delays in the defense procurement processes.
India's defense expenditure has dipped below 2% of gross domestic product for the first time in decades, despite experts pegging 3% as adequate.
Other defense arms are in dire need of enhancement. Fighter jet squadrons are much below required strength, while the bidding process for medium fighter planes has only just begun and may take a few years to complete.
Meanwhile, the prospects of an India-Pakistan conflict are not over. India's army chief, General Deepak Kapoor, said last week that Pakistan had redeployed troops from its Afghan border to the western frontier with India. "The Indian army has factored this in its planning," Kapoor said.
Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist.
If it is true and we are still not able then when will we be able.
Read my posts #118 & #123
Maybe Hanlon's razor applies here.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
British version is shorter - cockup before conspiracy
Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Jul 12, at 23:12.
Wrong. Did you even read that article completely?
Surgical strikes are a combination of precision intel and spec ops. We have enough trained/motivated people for spec ops. Its Intel that we are/were lacking.Nobody in his right senses would deny that India does not have the either the capability or capacity to conduct surgical strikes. However, this option is easier said than done as it involves precision planning on the basis of top-of-the line technical inputs and above all faultless execution.
AF and Navy were more than willing. Army would've been too, had the leadership been a little more competent. The military options available to Pakistan are also limited considering the superiority of the Indian army in every sphere of warfare. How are they going to respond to a surgical strike ? With an invasion? more Terror strikes? Terror strikes were anyway happening at regular intervals. At least this way we would be responding to them and making it much more costlier for the Pakistanis.
This in 2009!.. Which only again validates the stupidity of Gujral's action. How long before you build up a decent Intel program in a country whose population has been hostile forever?The government sources say that a framework for covert operations is being put in place, although India will continue to deny such actions.
You are talking about a nation that successfully broke its arch enemy into half without much fanfare. A nation that successfully ended two insurgencies that had full backing of an enemy state. A nation that successfully brought the biggest NE insurgency group to its knees. All thanks to its Intel and spec ops. The just retired Army chief was a commando then and was personally training Mukti Bahini. Don't tell me we are not able. If a country such as Pakistan that is plagued by so many problems can carry out so many terror strikes and spend so much on terror. Imagine what we can do. Nobody would be sleeping peacefully there for even a night. We are more than able. What we is lack is political will/vision.
Neither answers what "larger conflict" they are trying to push us towards. They won't survive a larger conflict. They know that. Hence their policy to "bleed with a thousand cuts". Their policy of bringing Kashmir to the fore has failed. Both with wars and insurgencies. Even low intensity warfare like Kargil backfired on them. What other options does the Pakistanis have? None. Except Terror. If India does not answer terror appropriately, it will invite more terror.
Maybe Hanlon's razor applies here.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
British version is shorter - cockup before conspiracy
Leaders with vision and balls are nowhere on the scene anymore. Not even in BJP, the supposedly hardline group. Whaddya know? One more proof that we have leaders par excellence.
LinkLate Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru told then Defence Minister V K Krishna Menon in 1961 that he had received reliable information that the Chinese would not offer resistance if there was a show of force to make them vacate the check-posts...
Last edited by hammer; 06 Jul 12, at 14:50.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)
Oh yes,
You missed the qualifier 'however'While Americans visibly demonstrated their capability to mount an operation of the level of Operation Entebbe in 1976, the Indian capability to conduct a surgical strike only exists on paper with little evidence on ground.
So there is a technical component missing as well as political will. That points to a double weakness.Nobody in his right senses would deny that India does not have the either the capability or capacity to conduct surgical strikes. However, this option is easier said than done as it involves precision planning on the basis of top-of-the line technical inputs and above all faultless execution. But what it also requires is a stroke of political dare-devilry. The probability of either victory or defeat in Operation Geronimo was even and a botched up operation would have sounded the political death knell for Obama.
Some people saying politicians are weak & others saying army is lacking in certain areas is a circular argument with both covering their backs. It does not answer the reason for inaction that the man on the street wants to know. Earlier I bypassed this argument and started from the premise that we are not responding to acts of war. We should be but for some combination of reasons it does not happen. What good are all the army cheerleaders when there is no action to show for it. That is why i started off with a defensive mindset. Hunker down and defend the fort.
If one element in the equation is missing the result is inaction. That points to still incapable.
The underlined bit is what i have trouble in assessing. The Asian Times article mentions the following lacunae. This requires inputs from the pro's. Specifically as to what extent we were restricted by..
To me this points to unpreparedness. Whether that comes about by lack of competence in the army leadership or other, the bottom line to me is we were not ready.- the army made it apparent that it was not equipped to fight such a war, given the military's presence along the eastern Chinese borders, and that India was at risk of ceding territory should an instant ceasefire be brokered with Pakistan.
- Various experts, former generals and independent reports have voiced concern over the past few years about the state of preparedness of the Indian army.
- The latest report by the independent Comptroller and Auditor General said the state's production of 23mm ammunition for Shilka anti-aircraft cannons and 30mm guns mounted on infantry combat vehicles lacked quality. Further, supply was nearly 35% short of requirements.
- India's huge tank fleet is in bad shape due to a shortage of Russian spare parts, while indigenous efforts, such as the main battle tank Arjun, have failed.
- Although there have been attempts to hasten India's overall defense modernization program, estimated at over US$50 billion over the next five years, gaping holes need to be plugged, including corruption and massive delays in the defense procurement processes.
- Other defense arms are in dire need of enhancement. Fighter jet squadrons are much below required strength,
No idea, they need funds and there are groups that are inimmical to the PA. The danger of dancing with terrorists is risk, they are unpredictable and cannot be controlled as Pakistan is in the process of finding out. They have their own agendas and keeping them in line is subject to what gain they derive from the partnership. If your dump them then they come after you. IG found out and her actions also resulted in the death of her son. There is a very fine line to tread here.
Points to potential & the past record. Yes, it is possible, the question is when will be ready.
Slight quibble about the two insurgencies, Punjab is done, Kashmir is still dormant. Its on the decrease for some years now but how can you be certain it will remain that way. True we've broken its backbone but that remains the case so long as our troops are tied up there. Remove those troops and will it come back again. This is main reason not to lift AFSPA in Kashmir. And if that's the case then the insurgency is as yet to be settled.
This begs another question, would Pakistan indulge in such activities in the first place if they assess we are ready. Its much riskier to bet that the political leadership is unwilling when the forces are ready & capable. Its safer if they see there are inherent operational difficulties that may affect an army leader's assesment of whether IA are ready. Couple that with being pinned down in a number of areas due to dormant insurgencies and our potential response is stymied.
They will not stop at forcing the issue, only now they don't have to specifically mention it. By larger conflict i mean simply, a hit team marks the beginning of a potential conflict. If we mobilise and carry out some strikes then that conflict has enlargened. Now going by the past record the world will come down heavily on both sides to keep it short. The neutral observers will say we need to talk.
And that is what Pakistan gains, you say 'Their policy of bringing Kashmir to the fore has failed' but as a result of the minor conflict it is inevitably back again on the agenda. This is what they want and they got the world to help them with it. And they will keep at it, using different tactics when required.
Everybody would love to have a leader with guts & vision but those are rare and only come about once in a generation. What are we to do until then ?
I find in the west this reliance on a strong leader is much less than it is in India because the system on the whole largely works. That we are so reliant on a strong leader is an indication that there are stlll many issues that remain to be worked out so the system can still function satisfactorily without the need for a great leader.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: