Pak Occupied Kashmir News and Discussion

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Sep 2010 21:27

^^^^ While it may be difficult to capture POK if one is to cross the LOC. But in the senario where the TSP has collapsed it is some thing IA must do in order to bring stability to northern areas.

Secondly once Lawhore and pissware are captured IA can execute a right hook to hit POK from the West. So it may be difficult but not impossible to acheave.

Moreover it is Indian teroritory as far as I am concerned. So letting it remain under Paki control or Independent is unacceptable.

JMT

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 Sep 2010 21:30

If Lahore and Peshawar can be occupied it then denies PRC the access to Gulf via the western parts of IOC region via Tibet. Now when will that happen ?

But what about minerals of POK region ? Why would India want to forfeit that ? There is plenty of Uranium in the Himalayas that we will need for the near term, till some genius from India discovers more economical ways to harness all the Solar energy.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Sep 2010 21:31

peshawar and lahore were key places in the Sikh empire. mashallah we shall have them under our boots too. peshawar (pushpapura) was a key buddhist center and probably kanishkha's capital. taxila was a major university.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 21:39

When we speak emotionally about "Indian territory" why are we so emotional about Indian territory carved out by Nehru's India and get stuck mentally on Hari Singh's legacy? Getting Lahore and Peshawar is a far better idea - even if OT for this thread. OK it may seem tougher - but if we are going to regain territory we are far better off getting Lahore and Peshawar than Gilgit and Skardu.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Sep 2010 21:42

^ Gurudev,

With that logic the whole subcontinent brings lot of memories back. This is a nice diversion to the topic at hand.

The current issue came to the front as there are news items indicationg TSP transferring POK into Chinese control.

While the enlightened members question the very option of war w.r.t how can they dream about pissawar, if I may ask.

As I made lot of assumptions on the benefits of recapturing POK, others are exaggerating the cost of war IMHO.

Why this philosophical eversion to reclaim what is rightfully ours? Would we think the same if our families were at stake?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 10 Sep 2010 21:43

At times i dont know which side Dr gaaru bats for.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 21:44

Bade wrote: But what about minerals of POK region ? Why would India want to forfeit that ? There is plenty of Uranium in the Himalayas that we will need for the near term, till some genius from India discovers more economical ways to harness all the Solar energy.

Bade, you know, we on the forum are quick to condemn our on leaders as being "reactive". But this whole business of "Uranium in PoK" is a bogey that has been raised literally days ago when the Cheenis were reported to be in PoK. The last 12-13 years on BR there was not a whimper about that. If that is not reactive, what is? I believe that if we are going to prepare for a war of occupation we are better off getting Lahore and Peshawar than PoK.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 Sep 2010 21:45

Ore minerals and the Himalayan Orogeny

Brant and I are both economic geologists, so we thought it would be fun to include an ore section in our discussion of the Himalayan Orogeny. Different tectonic settings created by the collision of the Indian plate and the Asian plate also produced zones of potential mineralization. Overall, the Himalaya are not exceedingly mineralized. However, tectonic settings compared with similar locations in other areas of the world indicate that metals in economic abundances could be present in this huge mountain range. One reason for the lack of significant mineralization is the young age of the mountain system and occurence of significant erosion. As a mid-Teriary mounatin belt, the Himalayas have lacked time to develop convective hydrothermal systems that work to concentrate metals in the crust. (Mitchell 1983).

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Sep 2010 21:46

There is no such thing such as we can't occupy PoK. All it is needed is preparation. Kargil happened & we suffered becoz we never expected that and never prepared for that. Whether we prepare to capture lahore/peshawar or not we must not leave PoK water resources in the hand of China. Once its sees interest in there then China will claim the whole Kashmir in name of preserving their interest. Are we prepared to forfeit Indus water resources? There are many predictions that future wars are going to be based on water.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 21:47

RamaY wrote:
As I made lot of assumptions on the benefits of recapturing POK, others are exaggerating the cost of war IMHO.

Why this philosophical eversion to reclaim what is rightfully ours? Would we think the same if our families were at stake?

Correct. So why take Pok? Especially when all we need is a war whose cost is being overestimated and is actually relatively cheap. Why not go for something bigger with more tangible, proven benefits? Why restrict our aims to something limited when we really should have bigger ambitions?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Sep 2010 21:51

RamaY wrote:
Rohitvats garu

I never claimed knowledge on military affairs. What I always pointed though was that Indian military strategists cannot hide behind the excuse of geography as it didn't change for a million+ years

.

No one, least of all, Indian military strategist hide behind the excuse of geography related challenges. If anything, they know the issues and have always clearly articulated the same. The fact is that it will take a prolonged period of conflict for India to take POK with ability to absorb assault by PA in other areas and be ready for riposte.

Another thing is that India needs vertical envelopment capability - Air Assault (heliborne assault) and Parachute Troops. Which we don't have at present and will acquire in another 6-8 years. In case you had paid attention to the news items about planned Mountain Strike Corps, they talk clearly about integral vertical envelopment capability. So, things are being addressed. And this Mountain Strike Corps concept was formulated by IA in mid 80s. If the MOD/GOI wake up in 2009-10, please don't blame the IA and Military Strategists.

Thanks for the Kargil example. First of all, it nullifies Shiv-ji's claim that the offensive power has to have 3:1 force ratio. Secondly in Kargil IA's hands were tied with LOC logic. Request you to provide some insight into an alternative Kargil scenario if GOI decided to cross the LOC. Thirdly I do not know if NLI is better suited/equipped than TSPA. Finally we should have learned a lot from Kargil experience, if we didn't that is our military leadership issue.

I don't know what conclusion you have drawn from my Kargil example. If anything, they reinforce what Shiv has said. The 1:4 example was for TSPA:IA in the Kargil Sector. And as I explained, this was for the overall sector. Actual assault ratios were 1:10 - again, 1 TSPA and 10 Indians. These are the constrained imposed by the terrain of operations. Nothing less, nothing more.

In Kargil we were not allowed to go around the posts and attack the supply depots and bases. And hence, we had to attack uphill in frontal assaults. But at the same time, neither could PA support these troops or reinforce them to the required extent as would be the case during IA assault in POK. We'd be up against the full might of PA in the said sector. So, things will more or less be on the same scale. The overwhelming ratio will have to be build up.

Another thing - no one here has gamed a scenario that PA can and will open another sector if it finds itself under pressure in POK/NA. Bringing in 3:1 ratio against PA in NA is not out of IA reach. It can do that. But what about the fact that PA will escalate the matter? And it will not be about POK any more?

Add one more factor to above - IA will need to put pressure on the PA in all other sectors to prevent re-location of assets to NA to nullify Indian superior force ratio. Has any one gamed what will be world's reaction to this situation? That we will need to mobilize across the whole Indo-Pak frontier to put such pressure on TSPA?

Last time IA did that in Operation Brasstack, we know what happened. So, please, let us not delude ourselves into linear thinking and go gung-ho.

As for NLI and TSPA - NLI is a Regiment of PA. Something like the Rajput Regiment or the Dogra Regiment. They constitute the PA and there is no difference here. Fighting NLI is fighting the TSPA.

Now coming to lessons from Kargil - What lessons are you talking about?

Right now, TSPA is stuck with two disasters at hand one self-made and one god-sent. TSPA may be able to move out from its western operations but cannot come out of the god-sent crisis.

It is exactly this linear thinking that has put the Jernails from TSPA into trouble in past.

Not withstanding the disasters, PA has enough forces to take on IA in Northern Areas - unless, we mobilize across the board and put pressure on TSPA on all fronts and prevent relocation of forces to NA. And mind you, TSPA is fighting America's war in Swat and NWFP. It will be more than glad to with draw from these areas on pretext of Indian aggression. And that will bring the 1000 pound Gorilla into the conflict.

Based on my limited knowledge, a POK type operation requires multiple layers of offensive/defensive strategy
- A long range missile shield to neutralize/suppress enemy air-defenses (Can Brahmos do this in offensive role and Akash in defensive role?)
- Air-liftable long range MBRL to suppress enemy divisions (Can our MBRLs and Pinaka do the job?)
- Air-borne mechanized divisions to move from one Vally/ridge to another. (This is where we need high capacity high-altitude helis)
- Acclimatized armed mountain divisions to hold the territory (You are saying we have this capability)
- A well-oiled logistics system (Can we bring public-private partnership into this?)

(a) Might not even be required in said sector. TSPA has historically invested very less in defensive AD Assets. The focus has been jets and offensive paraphernalia.
(b) Not required. Can be moved by road. But IMO, we lack the numbers to saturate the enemy defences and will need to denude formations in plains to build strong inventory in the sector. Keep that in mind.
(c) There is no air-mobile or Air-Borne Mechanized Division in world. What we need is Air Assault - something like 101st Airborne Divison of US Army and more Parachute Brigades. Air Assault requires loads of helicopters and it takes time to build inventory - btw, they are super expensive. A single Air Assault Bde will cost close to billion dollars. Parachute Brigade is dependent on Airlift Capacity - which will be built in next 6-8 years.
(d)&(e) is not an issue, per se.

You are putting 5-8 year time frame to this preparedness. I am saying the sooner the better for the past 2 years. If our political/military leadership envisioned this scenario on time (I am sure they have info to see at least 1-2 yrs ahead of us) we would have all these capabilities by 2011-12. That is my point

Finally, you've hit the nail on the head. If the Political Leadership wakes up and says that we need POK in another 4-6 years time frame and give IA/Services what they want, you can have result.

But to jump to conclusions and to say do this or that - which is contrary to capabiltiy (military/political) is pure speculation and day dreaming.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2010 21:58

Maybe ISRO should aim to go to Mars rather than the Moon.

Kanson well said.

So Bade that info was availiable since atleast 1983 to geologists and other specialists. Wow no wonder all those moves to support the JKLF and later the Hurrirats!

All I can say is "just because we dont know, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 Sep 2010 21:59

Foreland Basins
Uranium, vanadium, and copper are thought to be stratabound in this southern Himalayan zone. Uranium in the form of uraninite has been found in Siwalik region sandstones and greywackes. Mineralization is epigenetic, occuring after rock formation, and it is thought that the uranium source could be uranium-rich carbonatites of the Indian plate (Mitchell 1983). Ground water circulation controlled the transport of metals and its depostion. Placer gold can be found in Himalayan streams with its origin in the Higher Himalayas

Radon, helium and uranium survey in some thermal springs located in NW Himalayas, India: mobilization by tectonic features or by geochemical barriers?

Another link GOI study, take a look at slide 3

and say you want to let go of POK. Chinese are not stupid. It is two birds with one stone, oil + fissile ore.
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/ ... _India.pdf

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Sep 2010 22:00

shiv wrote:
RamaY wrote:
As I made lot of assumptions on the benefits of recapturing POK, others are exaggerating the cost of war IMHO.

Why this philosophical eversion to reclaim what is rightfully ours? Would we think the same if our families were at stake?
Correct. So why take Pok? Especially when all we need is a war whose cost is being overestimated and is actually relatively cheap. Why not go for something bigger with more tangible, proven benefits? Why restrict our aims to something limited when we really should have bigger ambitions?

Because we have a legitimate opportunity to go to ear over POK now. We don't have a reason to go for pissover yet.

Secondly TSP, on it's own reduced it's claim over POK by inviting PRC. La-whore and Piss-over are not there yet. That would be "war mongering" at this point.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 10 Sep 2010 22:01

POK is important for more reasons than simply its own resource productivity.

Firstly, even if you do not get resources/strategic value yourself, you deny them to TSP & PRC. Certainly TSP+PRC (and UK) find this area of vital importance, for this reason alone we must have it.

Secondly, POK threatens Laddakh. Its high mountains are places to but misssiles etc.

Thirdly, nations need to build buffers and expand; and not allow others to step on and take land that has belonged to us. Giving away land (or not taking it back) is suicidal for a nation. It is a form of H&D, true, but nations crumble when they give up fighting for their legitimate lands. It is suicide to let others take this area.

Fourth, no one knows what kind of minerals and rare metals etc. would come out of this area. Never underestimate this region, or for that matter any others. This region has something more important than Oil, it has water, lots of it. No serious nation can let that go.

Fifth, you get a sqeeze on Zinjiang, Tibet etc. from this place. Priceless.

We have seen where the argument "Not a blade of grass grows" got us.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Sep 2010 22:02

Altair wrote: I am not bothered if it is 20,000 PA troops or 30,000 troops. Only thing which counts is which army fights better on that day. How its command and communications fare and how the strategy and tactics work under overwhelming enemy assault and in the most hostile place on earth.

20,000 PA troops will become a guerrilla force. I am aware of that possibility.Nobody is saying we will come out of the war without a scratch or a bleeding nose or even a broken leg. This will be 100 times tougher than kargil and we must be prepared for it.

Well, I was commenting on your 'sudden' assault on POK.

As for PA in the area, it will not become a Guerilla force. Why should they? They will fight us tooth-for-tooth. And coming to tactics and C2 and other paraphernalia, all comes after India builds over whelming majority in the area and prevents PA from negating the same.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 10 Sep 2010 22:08

They will fight us tooth-for-tooth.

I wish they fight us the way they fought us over Dhaka. Reminds me of what niazi might have faced in the tribunal.
tribunal: kitney aadmi they
niazi: 3000 aadmi they
tribunal: 3000 aadmi suar ke bachey woh 3000 they aur thum 30000 .. phir bhi wapas aa gaya, khaali haath kya samajh kar aaye they sardar khush hoga shabashi dega kyun

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 22:11

Bade wrote:
Another link GOI study, take a look at slide 3 and say you want to let go of POK. Chinese are not stupid. It is two birds with one stone, oil + fissile ore.
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/ ... _India.pdf

Bade PoK in that slide is totally white. Its Aksai chin that has some deposits. Why not capture Aksai Chin for the stated reasons?

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 10 Sep 2010 22:13

If the worth of an area is all the calculus we have, then a peace treaty with PRC wherein we give Laddakh or some such place in return for a full settlement of border dispute might not be a bad idea. After all, what does Laddakh produce for us?

Lahore & Peshawar must also be taken, not a doubt. Lahore is more likely to be taken, and that is one of the biggest fears that PA has. It has more emotional reverberence, historical connections to India, and is a mere stone's throw from Amritsar. It practically the only city worth having in the whole of TSP. TSP will fight to keep Lahore more than anything, even more than POK. Lahore is its heart, rest are just tiny veins.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Sep 2010 22:15

shiv wrote:It is better to recapture Lahore and Peshawar than PoK - the pointless land extent of some Raja in 1947

The good doctor thinks with his stomach - Lahori Channa and Peshawari Naan!

{No offence saar }

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 22:15

ramana wrote:
So Bade that info was availiable since atleast 1983 to geologists and other specialists. Wow no wonder all those moves to support the JKLF and later the Hurrirats!

All I can say is "just because we dont know, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

That is a disingenous statement. If it was known from 1983 and we need it so badly why does it suddenly become urgent to talk about war to reclaim it just because the Chinese are there? Is there some hidden bhaibhai tendency that makes people think that Pakis in control was OK but Chinese are bad?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 Sep 2010 22:18

shiv wrote:Bade PoK in that slide is totally white. Its Aksai chin that has some deposits. Why not capture Aksai Chin for the stated reasons?

I realize that but it is white due to lack of data or access to it, maybe. It does not imply the terrain and geological deposits will not be similar throughout the region.

When POK itself is not claimed and taken by GoI, why would it needle PRC on Aksai Chin where the confrontation will be at a higher threshold.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2010 22:23

The ref that Bade posted is US geologists site. My comment was that some pepole in US knew and hence my subsequent statement.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 22:24

The point I am trying to make is that people are asking for war to capture territory. This is a big thing in this day and age. Only the most powerful nations are attempting this and they do for tangible gains with overwhelming force.

Capturing PoK as far as I can tell is no more expensive than capturing Lahore. What makes PoK more valuable than Lahore? What makes PoK more valuable than Aksai chin? We are talking war here - not fixing a no ball in a cricket match. The reasons have to be solid. I have heard no reasons beyond Uranium. Which river originates in PoK that will give us so much extra control over water that we lack now?

If we are talking water why are we fixated on the Indus? If we want to make war over water let us look at what the Chinese are doing to the Brahmaputra?

Why PoK? What's the magic of PoK

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Sep 2010 22:29

shiv ji,

What is the value of Lahore? What is the value of Peshawar?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2010 22:30

POk is ours. Lahore is in TSP. Capturing our own territory does not violate any post WWII norms enshrined in the UN Charter etc. That is the magic of PoK.

----------
Vajpayee showed that in Kargil when he confined India's response to cleaning out the intruders.

War is diplomacy by active means.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 22:33

Punjab rivers origin

Larger image
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _river.svg

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 22:35

RajeshA wrote:shiv ji,

What is the value of Lahore? What is the value of Peshawar?

Taken together

The end of Pakistan as we know it
Access to Afghanistan and CAR
Control of trade routes
Control over downriver water
Control over Chinese access to Gwadar or Karachi

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 10 Sep 2010 22:36

shiv wrote:
Altair wrote: Sometimes we fight not to gain something but to stop the enemy gaining a superior position. POK gone to china will forever make India a secondary power in Asia.
How?

Shiv
PRC is checkmating India in POK. It is just encirclement of India from all the sides

North--GB and NA
North North East--Tibet
North East -- trying to sever NE states...
East--Bangladesh
South East--Myanmar and numerous islands
South- Sri lanka
West--Bunny rabbit

Its clear encirclement.Unless we start reversing it now, our next generation will call us impotent and refer us by other obnoxious adjectives.
This is not about terrain. If it is difficult for us,it must be difficult for them.
This is about who tames who.Plain and simple.
If you are happy to see India completely surrounded by Chinese clients, puppets then there is no point in any discussion.
JMT
Altair

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 Sep 2010 22:38

From googlebooks Page308-309 is a good read at intro level Others can indulge their weekends to understand why even a blade of grass is not to be given away for free.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Sep 2010 22:39

Just wondering if this new development about presence of Chinese troops in Giligit-Baltistan is in anyway related to Unkil's desire to have more TSPA men available for the Af-Pak 'farce', Kiyani might have very well played a Yahya between the Chipanda and Unkil.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 22:40

Altair - I am finding it difficult to swallow this encirclement bogey. The sea based logistic lines that China has in the Indian ocean are all vulnerable to Indian domination. Where is the encirclement?

Besides, assuming we are being encircled, what is the point of a costly debilitating war just to get PoK? Lahore and Peshawar would do even better for checkmating China.

I believe that we have a lot of "encirclement of our minds"

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 10 Sep 2010 22:41

shiv wrote:The point I am trying to make is that people are asking for war to capture territory. This is a big thing in this day and age. Only the most powerful nations are attempting this and they do for tangible gains with overwhelming force.

Capturing PoK as far as I can tell is no more expensive than capturing Lahore. What makes PoK more valuable than Lahore? What makes PoK more valuable than Aksai chin? We are talking war here - not fixing a no ball in a cricket match. The reasons have to be solid. I have heard no reasons beyond Uranium. Which river originates in PoK that will give us so much extra control over water that we lack now?

If we are talking water why are we fixated on the Indus? If we want to make war over water let us look at what the Chinese are doing to the Brahmaputra?

Why PoK? What's the magic of PoK

The argument could hold good for western PoK but Balwaristan surely holds a great deal significance in the strategic arena. A connection through a land route, however inhospitable, to Afghanistan and hence Central Asia could be of a high strategic value.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 10 Sep 2010 22:44

shiv wrote:
Bade wrote:
Another link GOI study, take a look at slide 3 and say you want to let go of POK. Chinese are not stupid. It is two birds with one stone, oil + fissile ore.
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/ ... _India.pdf
Bade PoK in that slide is totally white. Its Aksai chin that has some deposits. Why not capture Aksai Chin for the stated reasons?

"Azad Kashmir" has it...G and B is total white

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 22:47

KrishG wrote: The argument could hold good for western PoK but Balwaristan surely holds a great deal significance in the strategic arena. A connection through a land route, however inhospitable, to Afghanistan and hence Central Asia could be of a high strategic value.

The real problem is that war in this area is not guaranteed to be restricted to this area. It will have to be spread over Pakjab and Sindh borders to weaken the Paki army. If we have to do all that we mus take Lahore. The land route from there is far less tenuous. If we are going to fight a war - fight one that makes some military sense rather than emotional sense.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 22:47

Venkarl wrote:
"Azad Kashmir" has it...G and B is total white

Also Aksai Chin.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 Sep 2010 22:48

The white boundary is a sharp straight line, deposits do not end up with such boundaries. This indicates that access to that area was not obtained by the map makers of barc.

Added: this is true for the Aksai chin sector too, it is an access issue not that geology changes at those fronts ie, LOC

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 22:53

Bade wrote:The white boundary is a sharp straight line, deposits do not end up with such boundaries. This indicates that access to that area was not obtained by the map makers of barc.

Bade - the presence of Uranium has to go along with the cost of getting it.

Here is another resource that does that and fails to confirm what you have shown from the link you posted. It has been updated in July 2010

http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Sep 2010 22:54

All these days India didn't have a "causal" window of opportunity as it would mean voluntarily altering the status-quo. But now TSP offered India a rare window of opportunity by inviting PRC thus diluting their religious as well as administrative claims over POK. If TSP cannot hold on to POK why should (and what for) India negotiate with TSP w.r.t JK?

Since JK is a bi-lateral issue (even PRC proclaimed so all these years) if TSP want to let go of any of these regions, India should have the first right to them. India should even go to war to reclaim POK as it makes TSP islam-nanga in Ummah's eyes once and for all. That will be the greatest gift GOI can give to IMs. (I know some people like this kind of logic)

Piss-over and La-whore are a legitimate civilizational-claim but they are not ripen yet. Their time too will come and capturing of POK would serve as practice exercise for both GOI and IA.

India's punga with PRC is over Aksaichin, AP, Tibet etc is a different issue so India has to wait for the right moment.

rohitvats-ji: All I can say is we may lose the window-of-opportunity if we wait 5-8 years. The planners should blame themselves for not preparing for such opportunities, knowing past 1000yr-history and 60yr-trauma.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 10 Sep 2010 23:04

suryag wrote:
They will fight us tooth-for-tooth.
I wish they fight us the way they fought us over Dhaka. Reminds me of what niazi might have faced in the tribunal.
tribunal: kitney aadmi they
niazi: 3000 aadmi they
tribunal: 3000 aadmi suar ke bachey woh 3000 they aur thum 30000 .. phir bhi wapas aa gaya, khaali haath kya samajh kar aaye they sardar khush hoga shabashi dega kyun

Suryaji please do not try to mix real life with bollywood. Rohit and Shiv saars have been patient in explaining the practical difficulties for IA in capturing and/or occupying POK. The above post like yours is more suited to the deaf and dumb forum and not BRF. We are talking about risking the lives of our soldiers. We should not waste their blood and sacrifice without a clear understanding of our strengths, objectives and a well thought out plan. I hope you agree with me and limit the flights of fantasy.