On the discussion going on here, I believe that anyone who has taken a cursory glance of the map beyond point NJ9842 and who has been following the Pakistani perfidy and its collaboration with China would not demand withdrawal from Siachen and Saltoro.
That is indeed the conclusion one comes to, when one takes a cursory glance at the map. But any analysis of the terrains involved puts a rest to the notion that offensive movement is possible across those mountains and passes. Siachen Google Earth Map
Investing the Shaksgam valley via Siachen/Saltoro is impossible, the Chinese have far easier access to the area.
Going across the Saltoro ridge into Baltistan, once again is impossible, the Pakistanis have far easier access to the lower lying areas.
The land link between China and Pakistan cant be threatened from Siachen and a new road link between the two countries via Siachen is impossible.
The area itself is devoid of any 'centers of Gravity', the last populated regions are well to the South of NJ9842.
In fact, the worst case outcome that detractors of a - 'draw a line there, LoC extension, IB whatever, and get out' - plan can come up with is, the Pakistanis will then occupy the Saltoro ridge. But what will be the advantage that they gain by occupying this ridge? This is an answer that is not forthcoming. What is forthcoming is an unrelenting shower of abuse, perhaps betraying the vacuous nature of the argument.
On the Eastern borders, the argument is put forth that DBO and our defense line along the LoAC will be threatened. But DBO and all of our defence posts are well to the west of the Chinese claim line. Aksai Chin is well with in the control of China, and a recovery is militarily close to impossible. In any case, if war breaks out, we will have a tough time sustaining offensive operations in that region because of a lack of roads and terrain that does not permit roads. On the Chinese side, the terrain is flatter and has big roadheads. At best, we can sit on the Eastern ridge along the Siachen and the passes and hold off the Chinese there.
To me, the Siachen battlefield appears as a mirror image, though at a much much smaller scale, of the WW I trench warfare. Neither side has the technological wherewithall to make a breakthrough and subsequent offensive movement in that region possible, troops are sitting there in inhuman conditions and lives are being lost and the treasury being emptied without any outcome possible. The generals know this, and have even invented so called 'gentlemans agreements' - we wont shoot down each others choppers.. Have you heard of any war where the enemies supply/evac links are out of bounds for attack? This shows, that we are not serious about going beyond the points where we already are..
Regardless of any outcome, the generals insist on following the same script, attack after attack, year after year. The only reason this is going on is that being a large country, with lots of centers of waste, we dont notice the drip-drip loss of life and treasury in the Saltoro war.
We have lost sight of the political and strategic goals of the Saltoro occupation and either adopt brittle stances, such as 'All Indian territory is sacred land', 'sui ki noke ke barabar dharti' (will not give up land as small as a needle tip) or get lost into tactical positions that are subunit or barely a unit. Incidentally, these brittle stances box in the military and political leadership into corners that are not easy to get out of and constitute a recipe for political defeat. Independent of the Pakistani perfidy and Islamist notions that the country is riven with, these attitudes on our side will make peace, even with a reconstituted Pakistan, impossible - let alone a disengagement in one sector.
Lastly, the site and the forum being focussed on the armed forces, somehow Raksha of Bharat has come to be defined very narrowly. What does Raksha of mother India mean? Is it solely a territorial defense? How will mother India be served, while her sons die in never ending conflicts on desolate peaks and crags? Will any mother be happy if her son dies defending a square inch of the family estate? When we ask a young man to go and die (and kill) for his country, we are asking from him everything he has, and everything he might ever have. As long as the Generals and politicians can keep up the charade that this is a useful conflict, he will go and do it. But one day, he will turn back and ask - Why? We better have a good answer then.