We do not know the nature of the bridge. It could be of metal or a couple of logs across a rivulet. Whatever the case, it exists so that our troopers can move from point A to point B quickly. By damaging that, they want to delay our deployment into that area. Apart from being a grave provocation, this is also a message that they could have stayed at the bridgehead, caused more problems for IA/ITBP/GOI but did not.Maria wrote:Isn't damaging a bridge an act of war?
The problem here is that IA actions across the LAC or in areas perceived by CCP to be theirs are generally not "leaked" to press.
But CCP transgressions are leaked to certain journalists via (sympathetic) "sources" maybe with masala.