India-US Strategic News and Discussion

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 15 Jun 2012 02:13

Certainly, he will get a "Bill" for that affair.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Jun 2012 06:10

Was the U.S.-India relationship oversold? Part 1

Were U.S.- India relations oversold? Part II

Nuclear Suppliers Group: Don't Rush New Membership

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 Jun 2012 07:28

X posted from the “Indian Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011” thread.

Toshiba Corporation’s US subsidiary Westinghouse Electric Company LLC press release announcing the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to negotiate an Early Works Agreement (EWA) supporting future construction of AP1000® nuclear power plants at the Mithivirdi site in Gujarat:

Westinghouse And Nuclear Power Company Of India Limited Sign Memorandum Of Understanding For Early Works Agreement

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 17 Jun 2012 03:34

Indian officials had in background talks conveyed to the US that they were concerned about the potential for greater militarisation of the neighbourhood, with the US indicating it was in the process of deploying nearly 60 per cent of its naval assets in waters around India and in busy sea lanes of communication in Asia. Much of the concern has stemmed from the standoff between China and five Asian countries over the South China Sea.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 17 Jun 2012 03:49

World View: India-US strategic dialogue more hype than substance? | CNN IBN Video

The video contains External Affairs Minister S M Krishna's interview.

jiteshn · Post by **jiteshn** » 19 Jun 2012 21:15

*deleted*

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jun 2012 21:30

jiteshn, That should be in "Understanding the US" thread and not this one.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 19 Jun 2012 22:14

Ramana, shouldn't it be here?

"Understanding the US" thread, as I see it, aims to conduct a deep purva-paksha analysis of why the US behaves the way it does, considering the evolution of their worldview and normative structure.

We don't need to "understand" why the US is conducting psyops about India being the worst country in the world for women, at that level. Why dignify the issue by ascribing it to some noble motive of genuine concern for women's rights on their part? It's an out-and-out psyops attack, with distinct implications for the strategic aspects of India-US relations: and hence should be discussed on this thread itself. I am actually grateful that the knives are back out in the open... for some time it looked as if the US was becoming conciliatory, almost friendly towards India. Appearances can be deceiving.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 19 Jun 2012 22:29

Cross posting from Mumbai Terrorist Attack Thread:

ramana wrote:Pranab Mukherjee is not an ungenerous man

Strange heading for Rediff but what goes my father!

Finally, when veteran Kashmir leader Karan Singh demanded the same, Mukherjee erupted: "Do you understand what you are all saying? If we do that (attack Pakistan), foreign forces will enter Kashmir the next day. We have kept them out of Kashmir all these years. And now you want us to invite them in?"

So some thing else was preventing them from a response...

V_Raman wrote:

The af-pak endgame is becoming clear. 26/11 is the start, trigger a indo-pak war, move the coalition troops into kashmir in the guise of peacekeeping. kill multiple birds in 1 stone.

there was a report in BR pre-26/11 that a secretive group met in london about the last chance to sever kashmir from india. 26/11 was that chance. india did not oblige and the end-game is now languishing with no end in-sight...

Some might ask for "hard evidence" before considering the above theory (which is, admittedly, conjecture.)

I'd say the nearest thing we have to "hard evidence" is that India hasn't been given unfettered access to David Coleman Headley... our agents were only permitted to ask him questions vetted in advance by his jailers/protectors. We received answers that would implicate Pakistan, but never the US itself.

If the US were dealing in good faith, why would they hesitate? I mean, we could understand that a former DEA agent slipped under the radar and worked for the LeT, surveying Mumbai for the 26/11 attack. That much would have been an unfortunate but ultimately an honest mistake by the US. We would have accepted the apology, and appreciated that the US was trying to set matters right by handing over Headley to us.

If on the other hand, 26/11 was supposed to happen... India was expected to attack TSP in retaliation... and a causus belli for the occupation of J&K by "coalition forces" was expected to result. Which is definitely what Pranab Mukherjee's outburst implies! Then what could David Headley have told us about that? Would it have satisfied the criteria for "hard evidence"?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jun 2012 22:41

Rudradev, don't you think it could also imply that the Chinese forces in PoK, and Tibet may try to open a second front in Kashmir?

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 19 Jun 2012 23:23

It could also mean that Pranab was just giving a convenient excuse to MMS and the statement had no significance beyond that.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Jun 2012 23:43

I think what Pranab is saying is that it paves the way for entry of US/West into the conflict under guise of UN - which they have been trying for a while. PRC is always a factor too but I dont think he is referring to PRC as foreign forces here.

26/11 was a war to save the US and TSP at the same time and it was good that we didnt take the bait.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 19 Jun 2012 23:51

RajeshA wrote:Rudradev, don't you think it could also imply that the Chinese forces in PoK, and Tibet may try to open a second front in Kashmir?

That could be possible.

But here is why I think not.

Mukherjee erupted: "Do you understand what you are all saying? If we do that (attack Pakistan), foreign forces will enter Kashmir the next day. We have kept them out of Kashmir all these years. And now you want us to invite them in?"

Whom have we "kept out of Kashmir all these years?" Who has consistently attempted to mediate and offered their "good offices", and even tried to appoint special emissaries like Holbrooke to "fix" the problem? Who runs 24x7 psyops about "Cashmere is the world's most dangerous nuclear flashpoint and should be resolved according to wishes of the Cashmeery people?"

The Chinese OTOH have made some cheeky offers to mediate in J&K but they haven't been backed up with any international pressure or diplomatic clout (they don't have any in comparison to the West.) Keeping China out of a diplomatic "solution" to Kashmir has hardly been a great effort of many years, such as Mukherjee seems to be alluding to. Meanwhile in a physical sense the Chinese already occupy parts of J&K so no question of "keeping them out" in that interpretation. So either way, PRC doesn't seem to fit.

Nandu wrote:It could also mean that Pranab was just giving a convenient excuse to MMS and the statement had no significance beyond that.

Again quite possible. But as the article reports, the quote from Pranab was a furious outburst on facing repeated demands from parliamentarians to retaliate for 26/11. I would expect that a convenient excuse would have been delivered as a glib, collected prepared speech. If Pranab "erupted" to say this, it is quite possible he said things that weren't actually supposed to be spoken aloud in public.

In any case, it remains conjecture. However, I think the combination of data points warrants consideration without instant dismissal.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 20 Jun 2012 00:10

Few more data points.

July 2010: NIA investigators are granted access to Headley in US custody, presumably with restrictions on the questions they are able to ask. They get many answers that implicate ISI (Sajid Mir, Maj. Iqbal etc.) but of course, none that implicates any US gaming of the post 26/11 scenario vis-a-vis Kashmir.

July 2011: Ghulam Nabi Fai is arrested in the US and publicly disgraced as an ISI agent.

Could Fai have been thrown under the bus by the US as part of a deal with India... consider the Headley case closed, don't press for more access, don't ask too many questions about "plans for J&K if India retaliated"... and we will reciprocate by nailing Ghulam Nabi Fai as a gesture of good faith on Kashmir?

April 2012: US announces bounty on Hafiz Saeed. Obviously a purely symbolic gesture for India's benefit. Maybe another move to placate India so that we don't keep asking for direct access to Headley?

BUT, apparently, both the Fai arrest and the Hafiz-Suar bounty weren't enough to stop us persistently asking for access to Headley, even publicly demanding it. See this report on the Clinton-Krishna press conference at last month's summit.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 526781.ece

However the cracks in the positive perspective began to emerge when it came to one core dimension of security cooperation, coordination and information sharing in the fight against violent extremism.

The contrast between the responses of Mr. Krishna and Ms. Clinton in this regard were stark. Responding to a question on India’s access to the terror suspects in U.S. custody the Secretary said, “It is our policy and practice to share information, and we do that. But I’m not going to go into details because we think that our cooperation on intelligence sharing, on homeland security issues, on counterterrorism, has gotten to a new level.”

Yet taking a question from The Hindu at a post-Dialogue briefing Mr. Krishna noted that the U.S. had not briefed India on any progress in the case of Hafiz Saeed, the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attacks of 2008, on whose head the Obama administration recently placed a $10 million bounty.

He also implied that no further promises had been made by the U.S. regarding India’s years-old plea for further direct access to Headley. While the U.S. defused growing anger and suspicion in the Indian corner by granting India’s National Investigation Agency access to Headley for ten days in June 2010, additional opportunities to question him have not materialised.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jun 2012 00:11

Rudradev wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Rudradev, don't you think it could also imply that the Chinese forces in PoK, and Tibet may try to open a second front in Kashmir?
That could be possible.

Whom have we "kept out of Kashmir all these years?" Who has consistently attempted to mediate and offered their "good offices", and even tried to appoint special emissaries like Holbrooke to "fix" the problem? Who runs 24x7 psyops about "Cashmere is the world's most dangerous nuclear flashpoint and should be resolved according to wishes of the Cashmeery people?"

It is possible and there have been plans by the PLA. Two thrusts from PLA forces and one from PA can put pressure on the Nubra valley.

They are the only troops which are acclamatized for mountain warfare. There are no other troops in sufficient numbers from any other country in the world who are trained for this.

Indian forces will be under tremendous pressure and will need all the firepower to pound the masses of troops. PLA troops will be decimated in this kind of short war. Their supply lines are long and can be cut off.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 20 Jun 2012 00:18

Acharya wrote: It is possible and there have been plans by the PLA. Two thrusts from PLA forces and one from PA can put pressure on the Nubra valley.

They are the only troops which are acclamatized for mountain warfare. There are no other troops in sufficient numbers from any other country in the world who are trained for this.

Indian forces will be under tremendous pressure and will need all the firepower to pound the masses of troops. PLA troops will be decimated in this kind of short war. Their supply lines are long and can be cut off.

The US would not have needed troops acclimatized for mountain warfare (any more than the ones already in Af Pak) to occupy J&K as a "coalition peacekeeping force" if India attacked TSP in response to 26/11.

101 Airborne could have simply dropped right into the valley. Backed up by lots of airpower and threat of SEAD and much more. What would we (already fighting a hot war with Pakistan, plus one eye on China) have done about it?

I do not doubt the existence of plans by the PLA and TSPA to mount a two-front offensive in Kashmir, but I doubt this is what Pranab was alluding to when he said "foreign forces will be in Kashmir the next day; we have kept them out for years, now you want to invite them in."

TSPA/PLA double-thrust is more likely to be planned as a surprise attack. It does not fit the scenario where a terrorist attack first provokes India into attacking TSPA and then foreign forces enter the valley in response. Wouldn't TSP prefer a scenario where TSPA and PLA had the whole initiative, rather than a scenario where TSPA has to take a beating from us first?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 20 Jun 2012 00:24

I hope Pranab da knows that a sensible but effective response to 26/11 style terror attacks should also be via proxy, covert warfare. First in TSP, then in other areas that will have more direct repurcussions for Anglospheric interests. Other groups suppressed by the same power centers could be networked. E.g., certain Slavic elements would no doubt join hands with us in such endeavors.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 20 Jun 2012 00:52

One thing for sure it shows the Indian leadership (true colors to all the world) at the helm of a great nation. of course declining into free for all corrupt equal equal nation.
I now feel JLN was a jingo to send troops into Tibet with out even planning.
Are we not a nuclear fusion power as I am told.

If uncle Sam cant punish TSP for its badmashi (going full scale dismantle of terror outfits), our leadership thinks they will just land troops right into our J&K.
Don't want to leave the comfort zone and the gaddi.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 20 Jun 2012 01:29

shyamd wrote:I think what Pranab is saying is that it paves the way for entry of US/West into the conflict under guise of UN - which they have been trying for a while. PRC is always a factor too but I dont think he is referring to PRC as foreign forces here.

26/11 was a war to save the US and TSP at the same time and it was good that we didnt take the bait.

Wow, now we are defending governments inaction by devising chankian theories out of thin air

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 01:47

^ +1. They can't control the territories they have already occupied (like Afghanistan). They did not send ground troops in Libya. Why would they want to put their troops in J&K?

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 20 Jun 2012 02:10

indo-pak war would have focused all jihadi energy on india. they can then leave AFG and be in the relative peace of J&K as their base.

the coalition troops could be in POK. that is a possibility. but it is still indian territory.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 02:14

>> indo-pak war would have focused all jihadi energy on india. they can then leave AFG

It is still a short-term solution. The Indo-Pak war has to end some day. What happens then? Taliban/Haqqanis would continue their operations in Afghanistan (and plan for events like 9/11.)

Leaving Af-Pak in peace is not possible just by igniting an Indo-Pak war. They are retarded if they indeed had such a plan.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 20 Jun 2012 02:23

V_Raman wrote:indo-pak war would have focused all jihadi energy on india. they can then leave AFG and be in the relative peace of J&K as their base.

Kargil happened didn't see any such "focused jihadi energy" back then so what are the ground facts that makes you think that this would have definitely happened had India reacted militarily.

V_Raman wrote:the coalition troops could be in POK. that is a possibility. but it is still indian territory.

Nope coalition troops will never want to be in P.O.K. because no one wants to have a bad relation with India except pukistan, each and every sane nation knows where India will stand in the near future and you don't want to piss off a nation with that amount of potential.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 02:44

Sagar G wrote: Wow, now we are defending governments inaction by devising chankian theories out of thin air

26/11 was an action to bait us into war to bail the US and Pakistan out. Many officials, even the advisor Late KS ji confirmed this fact just a few days after the event. There is nothing to add to what people have said across the board.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 02:51

Since Pakistan would be involved in an Indo-Pak war, it is difficult to see how it would be "bailed out". It has been pointed out that any benefit to US would be temporary.

And using 'proof by authority' (e.g, Late KS) is not a good idea. It would be better if you could post *why* he said so.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 02:51

abhishek_sharma wrote:^ +1. They can't control the territories they have already occupied (like Afghanistan). They did not send ground troops in Libya. Why would they want to put their troops in J&K?

Lol, do you think they want to enter the region to "control" territories? First of all war would be launched, then - they will make some HR abuses cases against Indian soldiers and every party in UNSC will be pushing for UN settlement and eventually to settle the ceasefire or war, they will invite (put western country name) to sit on the border and observe the peace - who knows next thing you know they could be aiding jihadi's giving TSP intel on what we are doing on our side of the border. We don't trust the foreign parties. We have avoided this sort of situation for a number of reasons.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 20 Jun 2012 02:51

Sagar G wrote:
Kargil happened didn't see any such "focused jihadi energy" back then so what are the ground facts that makes you think that this would have definitely happened had India reacted militarily.

Didn't we?

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries ... alties.htm

The first table shows a definite spike in Jihadi activity in terms of terrorism related deaths in J&K from 1998 (2261 deaths)- 1999 (year of Kargil, 2538 deaths) - 2000 (3288 deaths) - 2001 (4507 deaths.) The number only goes down in 2002 onwards when Parakram deployment browned the Pakistanis' pants.

In terms of high-profile terrorist attacks, no other period had a greater intensity than post-Kargil through 2001: IC814 (1999), Chattisinghpora (2000), Red Fort (2000), J&K Legislative Assembly (2001), Parliament Attack (2001), Kaluchak (2002.)

Looks very much like "focused jihadi energy" to me.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 02:53

shyamd wrote: Lol, do you think they want to enter the region to "control" territories? First of all war would be launched, then - they will make some HR abuses cases against Indian soldiers and every party in UNSC will be pushing for UN settlement and eventually to settle the ceasefire or war, they will invite (put western country name) to sit on the border and observe the peace - who knows next thing you know they could be aiding jihadi's giving TSP intel on what we are doing on our side of the border. We don't trust the foreign parties. We have avoided this sort of situation for a number of reasons.

And you think that India would be obliged to do what UN says. (You know they have been talking about Kashmir for a few years.) LOL LOL LOL

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 03:00

abhishek_sharma wrote:Since Pakistan would be involved in an Indo-Pak war, it is difficult to see how it would be "bailed out". It has been pointed out that any benefit to US would be temporary.

And using 'proof by authority' (e.g, Late KS) is not a good idea. It would be better if you could post *why* he said so.

I've posted his article on the subject before. You can read it on reuters - I think 29th Nov piece. There were a few on the subject after that as well.

Brother this has been explained on BR a hundred times - bailed out in the sense that US is asking them to clean up the Taliban mess, and they were under financial pressure - KSA refusing to give financial aid (it was only after Bahrain problem that they gave Pakistan's demand), TSP were under pressure due to financial crisis.

US wanted to pull out, but jihadi's were still there. So TSP is broke and they got US on their case to get rid of the jihadi's. TSPA thought whats the easiest thing they can do - start a war with India. What happens then? Everyone rushes to pay for TSP, jihadi's promptly leave AfPak and head for LoC (which is not my words btw Taliban made official announcements that if a war is kicked off they will fight alongside TSPA against the yindu's). Obama tells US public - see I promised pull out - Afpak is now safe - we won - lets leave!

US would have thought - when I leave there is no point me paying for all these weapons to go back - why don't i just sell it to TSP (our allies that keep India in check) for cheap as they are fighting a war (I say this, because this is what happened in GW1 in the middle east).

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 03:07

>> Brother this has been explained on BR a hundred times - bailed out in the sense that US is asking them to clean up the Taliban mess,

Brother this is not good enough. Fighting a war with another country (and dying) is not a good alternative to cleaning the Taliban mess. How many Paki soldiers would prefer to die rather than give up the strategic depth? Not many. Even jernails are worried about deaths--just as Musharraf's musharaf was on fire during kargil. Why didn't he want to continue the Kargil war?

>> Obama tells US public - see I promised pull out - Afpak is now safe - we won - lets leave!

False. As I said before, war is temporary. The problems faced by America would return when Indo-Pak war ends. And they know it very well. That is why they would continue to keep special forces in Afghanistan even after their pull out. Is this strategy of "special forces only" good enough. I don't know. Time will tell. In any case, a 3-4 month Indo-Pak war would not solve America's problems. Is it even possible to pull out their troops in 3-4 months due to logistical constraints? (Indo-Pak war cannot continue more than 3-4 months due to many constraints.)

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 20 Jun 2012 03:13

Rudradev wrote:Didn't we?

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries ... alties.htm

The first table shows a definite spike in Jihadi activity in terms of terrorism related deaths in J&K from 1998 (2261 deaths)- 1999 (year of Kargil, 2538 deaths) - 2000 (3288 deaths) - 2001 (4507 deaths.) The number only goes down in 2002 onwards when Parakram deployment browned the Pakistanis' pants.

In terms of high-profile terrorist attacks, no other period had a greater intensity than post-Kargil through 2001: IC814 (1999), Chattisinghpora (2000), Red Fort (2000), J&K Legislative Assembly (2001), Parliament Attack (2001), Kaluchak (2002.)

Looks very much like "focused jihadi energy" to me.

His post talked about jihadis focusing their energy against IA in case an Indo Pak war broke out, you have taken it into a new tangent so I would reply to it accordingly. Jihadi attacks in the valley and in other parts of the country have been going because we haven't struck their safe havens which is my biggest grudge. Whenever this topic comes up someone comes up with some "chankian" theory for not doing so which I simply hate. We should call a spade a spade. A terrorist attack happened on India, we chickened out from punishing the perpetrators and to add to that are engaging the terrorist state in useless rounds of dialogue.

And you can yourself see that focused will of defeating the terrorists brings down the "focused jihadi energy", so instead of this chalta hain attitude towards non action by government and devising "chankian" theories like "foreign forces will land in Kashmir the next day if we attack pukistan", public must pressurize government to take action against terrorists whether they are in India or in foreign land.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 03:22

abhishek_sharma wrote: Brother this is not good enough. Fighting a war with another country (and dying) is not a good alternative to cleaning the Taliban mess. How many Paki soldiers would prefer to die rather than give up the strategic depth? Not many. Even jernails are worried about deaths--just as Musharraf's musharaf was on fire during kargil. Why didn't he want to continue the Kargil war?

Reality is a lot more complicated than that. They think they are saving their country by doing that and going to war was for the greater good of their country! Alternative is what? You saw the amount of deaths that have taken place in their country since November 2008 and the pressure that they have been put under because Jihadi's are still in the north. We are escalating in Afghanistan today to make sure that there is no turning south towards J&K. A lot of painstaking work has gone in to clear J&K and weaken the terror infrastructure in the last 8 years and we know that TSPA/terrorists are frustrated because everyone is busy in afpak.

False. As I said before, war is temporary. The problems faced by America would return when Indo-Pak war ends. And they know it very well. That is why they would continue to keep special forces in Afghanistan even after their pull out. Is this strategy of "special forces only" good enough. I don't know. Time will tell. In any case, a 3-4 month Indo-Pak war would not solve America's problems. Is it even possible to pull out their troops in 3-4 months due to logistical constraints? (Indo-Pak war cannot continue more than 3-4 months due to many constraints.)

US SF would have been there but they won't be doing a lot when most of the jihadi's are in LoC - the whole thing would have made it less costly for the US and it would have been easier to declare victory and leave. War with India would have been seen as more pressing - Taliban said they will fight alongside TSPA anyway. So there isnt much to debate here.

Who says it would be 3-4 months anyway? Saddam said they were going to drag Khomeini by the beard in a few months - that war lasted 8 years! Wars you can start but you dont know how you will end. TSP has enough friends with a lot of money and weapons that have an interest in seeing that TSP continue to exist.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 03:28

shyamd wrote:They think they are saving their country by doing that and going to war was for the greater good of their country!

Then why didn't they continue the Kargil war for the "greater good of their country"? Why did Musharraf ask Nawaz Sharif to go to Washington? Why did they surrender in 1971?

Who says it would be 3-4 months anyway? Saddam said they were going to drag Khomeini by the beard in a few months - that war lasted 8 years! TSP has enough friends with a lot of money and weapons that have an interest in seeing that TSP continue to exist.

So why didn't all previous wars continue beyond a few months?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 20 Jun 2012 03:30

shyamd wrote:
abhishek_sharma wrote:US SF would have been there but they won't be doing a lot when most of the jihadi's are in LoC - the whole thing would have made it less costly for the US and it would have been easier to declare victory and leave.

What claim to victory ?? Till their are safe havens for jihadis US can't claim victory and even if they do is their public so dumb that they will buy it ?? Jihadis on Indo Pak border solves no problem of US, maybe a temporary relief but no claim to victory can be made.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 03:40

Sagar G wrote:
What claim to victory ?? Till their are safe havens for jihadis US can't claim victory and even if they do is their public so dumb that they will buy it ?? Jihadis on Indo Pak border solves no problem of US, maybe a temporary relief but no claim to victory can be made.

Media management - they will quote statistics to say number of attacks down blah blah ... Afghans feel secure etc etc. All of a sudden no major attacks as all focus is in J&K.
Even today they are using the same or at least trying ... Def sec still says we have broken the back of Taliban bla bla just to make out they are winning

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Jun 2012 03:49

Abishek, situation and context is key in each of those. Too difficult to generalise, maybe Kargil is relevant as to why they ended it. Kargil - ABV saw through plan and didn't cross LoC (which damaged one of their main objectives anyway), they began slowly losing territory that they took over. So would have ended one way or another as India wouldnt have crossed LoC. And they thought Kashmir would rise up and create enough internal chaos for them to win Kashmir- quite apparent it failed when there was no uprising. anyway don't you think they sent many paki's to death in this stupid plan?

As for why they only lasted a few months - again not applicable to today's scenario.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 03:51

It is not applicable because it does not support your beliefs.

What about 1965 and 1971 wars?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 20 Jun 2012 03:52

shyamd wrote:Media management - they will quote statistics to say number of attacks down blah blah ... Afghans feel secure etc etc. All of a sudden no major attacks as all focus is in J&K.
Even today they are using the same or at least trying ... Def sec still says we have broken the back of Taliban bla bla just to make out they are winning

No major attacks for how long if the safe havens of jihadis are intact ??? They know this very well that's why we see unkils breakdown in relationship with pukistan not beacause of any love for India but because of this very fact that one day these very jihadis will strike american mainland and the american public will go for their leaders heads. Media management is also done in India as well but have we become brainwashed or blind to what is apparent ?? No, I haven't and I don't see anyone becoming such, same is true for american public as well, you can fool your country to a certain limit only howsoever good is one's media management, can't get them to believe that they have won the af-pak war and hence safe from any terrorist attacks since they are now on indo pak border.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jun 2012 04:02

shyamd wrote:anyway don't you think they sent many paki's to death in this stupid plan?

Yes, but they did not expect it. They had expected that India is full of chankian-theorists who would send dossiers. That is why it caused Musharraf to send Nawaz Sharif to Washington. Unlike Iran-Iraq war, it did not last 8 years. Why not?

Due to Indian Navy's blockade they had oil for a few weeks. Why didn't their friends ensure their "survival" by helping them?

Northern Light Infantry was pretty disheartened after the war. Maybe they should have thought that they are doing it for "the greater good of their country"?

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 20 Jun 2012 04:12

The idea that 26/11 provocation was meant to goad India into a war for the shared benefit of TSP and US makes sense if we keep in mind that pakis are tactically brilliant only and US wars are marked by short-term thinking, which is another name for tactical brilliance.

Lesson of Rubiya Sayeed and IC 814 is that Indian politicos as well as public would not like to sacrifice near and dear ones' lives if at all possible. Lesson of 26/11 is that public will forgive loss of life due to poor preparation and training. Lesson of Parakram is that Indian business people don't like to jeopardize profit and growth.

These lessons have been learned and internalized by GOI as well as TSP and US.