Conceptual Thread-1

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 May 2009 00:54

I decided to take advantage of the GDF invisibility to lurkers to start this thread.

I think we have spent a lot of years in data gathering, analysis and general whining about TSP. Thanks to all the book reviews and E-Books links, we are now familiar with how the great powers conceptualize strategy and create an implementation plan.

We have had enough data gathering and research. Its time to articulate a strategy and preferably with minimum fuss.

I would like to discuss here away from lurker gaze the immediate threats to India and how to counter them.

I would like to ennumerate both internal and external threats in all spheres. Something like all points of view/all aspects of India.

Only request is to add a Identifier whether its Internal or External and Political, Culutral, Social and Defence for easier collation

Thanks for the cooperation.

ramana

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 30 May 2009 01:08

Ramanaji

Relegion would qualify under many headings eg External, political, social or for that matter even cultural, can it be discussed as long as the threats discussed are real and with proper arguments rather than just some loose CTs.
For example the nexus between EJs and the Naxals

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 May 2009 01:14

External
Defence

The primary and immediate threat to India in terms of internal security(terrorist attacks) and external security (nukes) is TSP. All other external players act through this entity. The destruction and dissolution of this entity should be the primary goal for India and Indians. This will enable India to reach her full potential as it removes the cats paw for the others to foil India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 May 2009 01:17

GuruPrabhu wrote:Ramanaji

Relegion would qualify under many headings eg External, political, social or for that matter even cultural, can it be discussed as long as the threats discussed are real and with proper arguments rather than just some loose CTs.
For example the nexus between EJs and the Naxals

Lets swallow the small frogs first and go after the toads later. Lets tackle the easy to categorise items first. Bringing religion will just muddy the issues and make this a free for all whine thread. So please bear with me. By trying to solve all problems at once we wont solve any.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 May 2009 02:15

Here is an example of a one page strategy and five page implementation plan by the US and GB in WWII.

Samay wrote:AMERICAN - BRITISH GRAND STRATEGY

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 May 2009 02:29

I propose that the first objective should be to help dissolve it. There are numerous entities trying to scare India about the consequences of such a step and are even suggesting and forcing India to keep it afloat even thoguh its not in her interests. I submit a stable TSP is more harm then a broken up TSP.

There are non-military steps and military steps needed to realize this objective.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 30 May 2009 03:28

We are being constantly fed by the MSM that a stable TSP is in India's interests, this logic can be seen resonating in all TV shows where even ministers in the GOI come up with the same opinion. This lie is repeated so often that most people who hear it would tend to believe it , how do we get it across to the voting public of India that TSP isnt a nation but is an amalgamation of warring tribes who can never be stable. For starters we can begin by writing cogent ripostes to all the newspaper reports selling us lies about how TSP's stability is good for us in the long term.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 30 May 2009 03:36

ramana wrote:I decided to take advantage of the GDF invisibility to lurkers to start this thread.

I think we have spent a lot of years in data gathering, analysis and general whining about TSP. Thanks to all the book reviews and E-Books links, we are now familiar with how the great powers conceptualize strategy and create an implementation plan.

We have had enough data gathering and research. Its time to articulate a strategy and preferably with minimum fuss.

I would like to discuss here away from lurker gaze the immediate threats to India and how to counter them.

I would like to ennumerate both internal and external threats in all spheres. Something like all points of view/all aspects of India.

Only request is to add a Identifier whether its Internal or External and Political, Culutral, Social and Defence for easier collation

Thanks for the cooperation.

ramana

ramana garu,

Does GD going to be only for members and no lurkers? Is it intentionally that way? I thought this is a new forum and hence not configured yet. This thread is a good idea.

Should we discuss all the threats to India or just concentrate on the potential ones from TSP?

--------------------------
Added later
I got my answer after going through Nukkad thread. Thanks.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 May 2009 03:48

its only for those logged in.The original intient was to keep the private discussions from prying eyes, but I see some advantages like this thread. One way to check is log off and see if the forum is visible.

I would like to first develop a strategy to deal with TSP in all aspects and then let us think about others. However others can guide/pilot similar strategies for various threats.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 May 2009 04:08

okay, got it!

External
defence

(1) Isolate one country at a time who is backing TSP. Try and gather the others together in a formation that ties up PRC. PRC is the greatest threat against India in supporting TSP. Even proxy support to TSP by UK+USA through PRC should be made extremely difiicult and painful.
(2) Threaten USA with a Iran+Russia+India axis, if USA does not ditch TSP. Entice Russia with a corridor to Arabian sea, and fleet presence at Gwadar.
(3) Main concentration on closing off supply routes to TSP.
(4) Prepare for diversionary and pretensive movements in the far NE of India. Nose in into Myanmar, and SE Asia, to draw PRC attention nearer home. All the while preparing to go NW across northern Pak to cut off the entrance to the Valley.
(5) Send signals to the Talebs that they will be helped to move across to NW Muslim China to form their new base area of operations if the US drives them too hard into near liquidation.
(6) A very quick march in the NW sector. Many excuses can be created to do this.

Lots of smaller supporting moves needed. Can be fleshed out.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 30 May 2009 05:44

Applying the Mandala Theory of Foreign Policy - India should strengthen friendlier relations with Iran and Afghanistan. Iran and Afghanistan will become "Friendly States" of India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Jun 2009 21:28

An idea of what the constraints are under which India is operating:

satya wrote:Had talk with Dilli Billi and discussion came on our fav. TSP & options GoI has or it thinks it has . Here's a summary of what i understood from his talk :

GoI under MMS did sort of a review with Defence Chiefs and as usual they put up their demands for x no. of Ruski tanks & Y no. of French jets & so on . Our MMS asked will this x & y number be sufficient to finish off the unfinished business in west & at same time counter our peaceful neighbour in East , str8 answer came yes sir without any hesitation . Then MMS asked what if Unkil also gave a certain no. of tanks & jets to TSP then some heads scratched and answer came ( after some calculations ) , we need x++++ ruski tanks & y ++++ french jets and immediately numbers went high. After such deliberations , MMS asked can we counter any new brilliant strategic move from TSPA + PLA with current level of induction ( 10-15 yr time frame to induct new weapon platform ) answer came yes but we will lost so many more soldiers & so on . In end after usual + & - its decided losing x+y soldiers will be cheaper than going in so called " arms race'' against US + PRC combine . So current GoI thinking is US + PRC determined not to allow India to have that decisive edge in conventional weaponry . So what did MMS did well we all saw what it did & will continue on same path next 5 years . MMS & co. assumptions are India need unhintered path towards economic growth till 2020 to be at a certain level where it can start to have " arms race'' against PRC+ US combine . Does it mean complete absence of new weaponry for armed forces if offensive yes , defensive no . One surprising thing , ISID is on GoI radar for some time and will be for time to come . In end , GoI's assessment from day 1 of ABV continuing MMS till now & future is its US + PRC + UK combine we are facing .So MMS feels develop economically first then often . MMS & co. also have a deep interest in intel agencies and way they look at it is refreshing . And yes TSP will be here till 2020 again MMS & co. assumption.

My take is despite the deep interest of the Anglo-Saxon & Han comapct to keep TSP propped up against India, the TSP is going down faster due to Wahabised Islam. If Afghanistan stabilizes it will be faster.

So India wont have the time it wants till 2020. Need to create new assets "defensive" in nature but offensive in use.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Jun 2009 00:19

The North and North West will go out of hand, at least for some time. Painful, but a possible trajectiory for internal cleanup, and recovery. Defensive strategy will be static and useless. Talebjabi with UK+PRC backing is not going for fixed positional warfare. In this mibile campaign, all advantages are with the party that takes initiative, for it can shoose the spot, and circumstances of the conflict.

It has to be offensive. If not, forget the N and NW for some time. A great lesson for all those who have helped the Congress to win, though, and maybe a lesson needed to start the long and painful process of self-correction.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2009 00:13

RajeshA wrote:
SSridhar wrote:We have to have ABM shield, we have to have anti-satellite weapon, we have to network-centre all our forces, the ATVs/Akulas should be in place, our economy should have been growing at a GDP rate of 10%+ for ten consecutive years, we should have Agni 3+ in production, hypersonic Brahmos should be available, six AWACS, 20 air-to-air refuellers, . . . the list is endless. The enemy will not be keeping quiet in the meanwhile. Remember the three-and-a-half friends of the enemy are helping him generously all the time. This is a very defensive thinking. Of course, we cannot madly rush in but we have silently borne assault after terrible assault for two decades now, nothing less, two decades. We don't have a plan yet and a place and time of our choice has not come yet ?
An end game for next door problem which does require fully prepared armed forces can take several forms:
a) India breaks up Pakistan into manageable units
b) India wages Talibanic terror and converts the 200 million Pakistanis to a more tolerable form of Islam
c) India nukes Pakistan into oblivion

India should be sufficiently prepared to either fight a full war with the 3½ Friends of Pakistan, or to be able to scare them off.

The intermediate retaliation against Pakistan for its terrorism can take several forms with different aims
a) we cripple the economy by systematically diverting the Indus Waters to feed our own rivers. We need the canalization in place;
b) we take out the 'militant' organizations in Pakistan through covert attacks and assassinations;
c) we take out the terrorist infrastructure through overt attacks using missiles and IAF;
d) we punish the military and ISI by destroying their headquarters and offices, including the assassination of terrorist handlers;
e) we destroy military infrastructure like airfields and navy ships;
f) we attack and reclaim some more areas in PoK for every terrorist attack in India;

Intermediate steps are important, so that India does not invite further attacks on the premise that India is weak or cowardly. Secondly once we decide to administer intermediate medicine to Pakistan, it should become part of policy that every terrorist attack on India will invite a retaliation at a time of our choosing. However we must also ensure that these intermediate retaliation do not invite a nuclear response.

Intermediate retaliations however have undesired consequences also, which can run counter to our long-term goals.
a) It can consolidate the Islamic forces in Pakistan, instead of fighting each other as of now. We could without really wishing it, turn off the burner under the pan in which Pakistan is stewing in its own juices;
b) We could also make Pakistan even more paranoid, and it becomes even more attached to the chaddi of 3½ Friends of Pakistan, who too wish ill of India, and does absolutely everything they demand of Pakistan;
c) It gives the pretext and background for Wahhabi Salafi Takfeeri forces to accelerate the consolidation of their hold over the Pakistanis;
d) Pakistan lowers its red lines for a nuclear retaliation even further, or goes ahead with such a retaliation;
e) Pakistan starts arming itself conventionally big time, with the 3½ Friends of Pakistan subsidizing all the new procurements;
f) Terrorism against India increases instead of decreases, as some groups come to the view that Indian retaliation is good for business and consolidates their political and religio-political gains in Pakistan.
g) Morality bosses of the world like US and UK come out of the woodwork to impress on India to look for a 'permanent solution'.

So we need to do some rethinking, as we already are doing, as to whether it is not better to simply wait it out - become strong enough to stave off the threat from the 3½ Friends of Pakistan, break up Pakistan, and impose an India-friendly system there, in case Pakistan has not collapsed by then through shooting on the own foot repeatedly.

Till then we can always work to further deepen our strategic influence in the neighborhood, in Afghanistan, amongst the Baluchis, in Iran, amongst the CARs, as well as infiltrate the American polity.

and

RajeshA wrote:I would favor the policy of restarting peace process between India and Pakistan, bringing back the good old Mushy heydays, with a lot more candy and love.

... with the following additions.

a) putting up an organization in Pakistan (possibly Mohajir, Pushtun), which is able to take down any and every Pakjabi terrorist leader and ISI/TSPA 'official' who shows signs of working against India or supports terrorism in India, through assassinations;
b) all this with plausible deniabilitiy, but enough background noise to put the terrorists on notice;
c) opening up channels of communication and even cooperation with the enemies of 3½ Friends of Pakistan, possibly offering help in exchange of intelligence leading to the detection of Pakistani agents in India and staving off terrorist attacks in India (do a UK, USA on the same); promise them the sands of Arabia, Sinkiang, some training space in Pushtunistan, a few good nukes and transit, haven and logistical services;
d) strengthening the Baluchi separatist groups through Afghan proxies;
e) letting more weapons and fake Pakistani currency become more abundant in the tribal areas;
f) supporting the media and human rights organizations to acquire more material (video, human intel) about the human-rights abuses of TSPA in Pushtun areas;
g) arming the Mohajirs in Karachi to the teeth;
h) coming together with Russia, Iran, CARs to stabilize Northern and Western Afghanistan.
i) increasing cooperation and coordination with Iran.
j) steady economic and military build-up
j) more smiles, Bollywood films, cricket and peace process for the Pakistanis!

and

Rahul Shukla wrote:GOI seems to have concluded that India may be in bad shape but Pakistan's position is worse. Thought process seems to follow along the lines of: We had 10 blasts in 1 year and they have had 40; we had 26/11 and they had the Marriott; we have Kashmir problem and they have NWFP problem; we have NE insurgencies and they have Baluchistan issues; rogue elements in ISI are hurting India but they are hurting Pakistan even more so how can GOP stop all terrorism... blah, blah.

There is a mental paralysis in GOI circles that prevents overt, and to a verly large extent, even covert action despite overwhelming evidence that highest ranks of Pakistani governmnet and military are responsible for planning and execution of terrorism and associated attacks in India. GOI hesitates to take action because the objectives of any military strike are not clear, success is not assured, subsequent developments in Pakistan are not predictable and diplomatic falllout may be severe.

GOI is afraid of how other countries will react because it is not capable of shaping events and international perception to conform to Indian point of view. What Indians need and what the world needs to see is a visible, undeniable and undenied retaliatory Indian strike using military or covert means in response to Pakistani provocation.

Pakistan should have lost some Coastguard ships in the Indian ocean (I know it is an act of war) and a few border posts in an air-strike during 26/11 cleanup. At least one A2G missile should have struck a Brigade HQ deep in POK due to a malfunction in guidance software. Pakistan can still loose assets in the sea based on 'reliable' Indian intel of Mumbai-2 even today.

In response to recent events, MMS needs to sign an execution order for Hafiz Saeed, the Pakistani High Court judge who released Saeed, and a certain top ranking ISI official. And when that is done, India needs to offer absolutely no explanations to anyone in any capital of any country in the world.

They will get the point.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2009 00:14

Samay wrote:I think the american presence in afghanistan has a meaning beyond taliban and porks. Whatever benefits may be involved but they have already wasted trillions till date.

Those reasons whatever they are ,but they are against Indian interests. But in the end it will be India that will be in benefit.
Russians still have to play their trump card,same goes for chinese,iranians and Indians as well. I guess while americans are busy tormenting their economy to another recession 2012,due to war burden, each player will play its own card on time.
Meanwhile pakistani state actors and non state actors are getting stronger due to their specific affairs with americans , and will cause american money to sink in a black hole.
Indian strategy of inviting pakistan for peace talks may look odd , but it goes against american efforts to disrupt it. In totality american influence in the region is now limited to drone strikes only as their role as a unbiased player in not certain to produce results , neither it did in middle east ,north-south korea, nor it will will work if america is a mediator inIndo-pak peace/formal talks. Therefore current events show that american soft/diplomatic power/prestige is on a rapid downfall globally.
As we can see that all chessboard pieces are in their place and the new world order has started its great game against american presence everywhere ,and will bear fruits as new players will jump in between against america.
obama administration has a last chance of saving american prestige , if it gives priority to sanctity over world known american greed.
Indian moves of talks and silent observation since 26/11 are smarter moves than would have been if tougher actions of an aggressor were taken,.

*Just a note: FBI was given all proofs and details related to terror masterminds ,investigated n its own,acknowledged the problem , but mr.hole-broke is acting like a lawhori addict even on hafiz's release.
Enough to prove the intentions of america and what they are going to pay in long term .

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2009 03:38

From this author's POV, US started courting PRC in 1970 and that changed its behavior towards India. So there was a change from before the 1971 war. Also read how PRC coordinated with TSP in all its conflicts except in 1947 as they were busy with their own civil war.

Please read this pdf:

The Fragile Pakistani State: Ally of US and China

An interesting insight into the US fear that Mrs G would take over West Pak and install a pro-India regime that would negate their gains.

See page 10 of the pdf

I think it is still there and the reluctance to back an India friendly leader in TSP.

So one early goal is to ensure an India friendly leader comes to the top in TSP.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Jun 2009 04:07

No chance now. The theologians have had long decades to wipe out all traces of such sentiments. Such sentiments would have still been remnant in some small minority of the generation who had seen India before the partition. But 62 years of generational replacement will have left none even remotely leaning psychologically towards closet Indophilia - not to be confused of course with the weakeness for Indian nubile beauties on bollywood servings.

No, they will pretend love, but simply to extract more concessions, while at the same time they will provision the Talebs to start moving east and south.. India should get ready for an increasing dose of Jihad.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2009 04:14

OK so that gets nixed!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 04 Jun 2009 08:40

Pakistan is essential necessity for western geostrategic aims. Likewise, it is the same for PRC. The existence of Pakistan ensures that India has to maintain a large military wherein money that could have been used to power and surge the Indian economy and social sectors and make India powerful player in the regional and global arena is not available.

A pragmatic analysis indicates that except for 1971, going to war with Pakistan has not given any worthwhile dividends. The window available to conduct the war is merely 21 days, stretchable to a month. This is because the powers that be in the international field will prevail, as they have always done before, and the war will be terminated. It is also because, given the economy, India cannot sustain a war for the time window required to trash Pakistan. In this wee time window of 21 days to a month, very little can be achieved given the terrain and effort necessary. Areas captured beyond the IB has to be returned and only the territory captured in J&K can be retained. Given the terrain in J&K, ranging from mountains to High Altitude and lack of communications (roads), the area that can be captured is marginal.

Hence, the military option has to be carefully decided before it is launched. The political aim must be clear and from that the military aim will evolve. A loose limbed political aim will just not do.

Ideally, it is in India’s interest that the Taleban destabilises Pakistan and occupy a large tract of Pakistan and enforce the Sharia with all vigour. It will keep the Pakistan Government and the Army totally at sixes and sevens. It will cause worry to the US as also China since both are sensitive to the resurgence of Islam; more so China, owing to the affinity of Uighur Moslems with the Islamic identity and the proximity of Xingjian. Turbulence in Xingjian will have its effect in Tibet too! Since there will be a constant struggle between the Taleban and the Pakistani governance, it will have less options to meddle in Kashmir. In this murky environment, India should encourage the subnationalist elements in Balochistan, Sind, the Mohajirs and the Northern Area.

In the interim, Pakistan will be burning and in the long term, Pakistan, as a nation, would self destruct and smaller nations would come into being and since they would be landlocked, they would automatically have to have trade routes through Afghanistan or India or through Sind.

If dependent on India, then India would automatically have a handle on such nation states.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2009 20:19

X-post...

harbans wrote:This is indeed disgusting. What do we talk about? You talk about Mumbai and they'll rake Kashmir. The Paki mindset is inamenable to rational conversation and thinking. I think it's time we start a new thread on "Is a stable Pakistan in India's interests" or "Should Pakistan be split up". The idea is to give a larger latitude to this thinking, specially for the following reasons:

1. All terror activities against India launched/ hatched from Pakistan end up in a nuclear blackmail scenario, leaving India and it's citizens frustrated and unable to fend off or defend itself against the Pakistani state/ estblishment.

2. Come what may, Pakistan as a state will always be hostile to India as long as the concept of Jihad remains in the Koran. The ideals of Ghazwa e Hind can never be removed from the Paki psyche. Not by talks, not by WKKs, not by rational kufr means.

3. Even if Pakistan becomes a 'stable' economic power, it will continually develop WMD and massively arm itself, making the consts for future conflict with India enormously high, thus leaving future generations in India to suffer enormous costs.

4. If Pakistan's population has more than tripled in 60 years, once can imagine what will happen in another 60! This Pakistan will not prevent it's population from exploding and the clamor for Kashmir specially due to it being the source for river water will keep increasing. By splitting Pakistan we have within communities that will free float to other regions because of ethnic connections. Like Pashtuns can spill over to parts of Afghanistan. Balochi's to Iran. It will be also easier to bring/ force in population control measures in a split Pakistan better than a stable single entity.

5. China and Pakistan do face land problems. Pakistan: 150 million or more people stay in an area lesser than the size of UP. (Look at the relief in Pakistan). China: 1.3 Billion people stay in an area lesser than the size of Indian plains. (Look at the relief features, had posted the population breakups of most of Chinese provinces in earlier thread).

6. BRF may not have enough latitude getting someone to act, but it can provide a platform where cliched thinking like "a stable Pakistan is in India's interests' can be challenged.

By doing this we do indeed give rationale to the fact that this cliche about 'stable Pakistan..' being good is actually nothing but disaster and specifically so for India.

The idea by putting up a thread is to initiate a line of reasoning why a split Pakistan is better for all of us. We analyze, how India can control and develop smaller states emerging from a split Pakistan by managing water disputes between say Sindh and Pakistan. How India can get corridors to CA and Afghanistan by giving incentives to particular states. How we can encourage competition and develop corridors not through one but more states. Why the Kashmir problem would be redundant in case Pakistan is split. Why Nukes will be redundant if Pakistan is split. Why the Pakistani Muslim will be better off economically, socially and politically by belonging to a smaller entity thats closer to it's neighbours, e'g Sindh to India, Balochis to India, Iran, Pashtuns to Afghanistan and CA, etc.

It is important to realize the Ghazwa mentality will recede once there is a split in Pakistan. Also it may change the thinking of many who lurk but are unfamiliar or still live by the cliche..a Stable Pakistan is good for everyone.

Give peace a Chance and break Pakistan!

and

harbans wrote:Whoops...bumped into something interesting:

http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/11/14/ ... an-part-2/

Confirms to what i said in the previous post. We must focus a thread on what a split Pakistan entails. How security is enhanced. How Nuclear issues/ the Islamic bomb becomes irrelevent, how the Kashmir problem becomes redundant, how India will get it's pipelines from not one but multiple entry points to the CAR and Afghanistan. Why splitting Pakistan will help the entire region including the CAR, as India develops links by road and pipes to this region. Pakistan as a stable entity has successfully kept the entire region from developing by disallowing India access to CAR, Afghanistan. This will stop once we do away with the bogey of 'A stable Pakistan is in India's interests'.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2009 20:33

RajeshA wrote:shaardula ji,

Political Islam is a problem. The bigger problem in my opinion is the division of the kufr in tackling the smaller problem.

This division in the kufr will remain as long as Islam can play one against the other. At the moment Islam has been extremely successful.

- They have played on to the human rights, religious liberties, liberal immigration policies, colonial sins of the West to get a firm foothold in the day-to-day politics of the West. With that they also have got a certain influence on the foreign policy of the West. George W. Bush and Tony Blair were the last crusaders. Aprés les, la deluge!

- In Pakistan, they have the bow-tie brigade (borrowing Philip's terminology) fooling the powers-that-be in Washington, and pump greenbacks and military hardware from them.

- ISI has learned to play the double game. Increase the danger to the west through terrorist infrastructure, and then ask for hafta by helping them out with some little information on the dangerous.

- Obama is moving away from American support to Israel to licking the shoes of the Saudis, Iranians, Hamas and everybody else.

Everybody is being forced to look out for himself. Every major player, except may be China and Russia, have become somehow compromised in their security to the Islamists. Now the only way to break this duality is to bring out these conflict of interests and behavior into the open. At the moment, where it is right now, that is all hush-hush, all duplicity, it is harming India a great deal. Those who may want want to be India's friends, and whose strategic interests may even coincide with ours are not being allowed to do that out of real-politik, out of concern from terrorism against their own citizens, against concern for their own soldiers being held hostage in far away Afghanistan.

This Chakravyu needs to be broken. The only way to break this Chakravyu is to crush ISI over the heads of its customers and financiers, the Americans, the British, the Europeans, and others. In my view, it doesn't matter if for that one needs to take the help of the larger devil.

The Lahore bombings are pointers for us, as to who can be of help.

For the time being American and Indian interests are diametrically opposite. Only when Pakistan crumbles and America and rest of the West realizes that there is no more ISI and TSPA to hang on to, will there be any real progress in the 'Global War on Terror'.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 04 Jun 2009 20:35

RayC wrote: Areas captured beyond the IB has to be returned and only the territory captured in J&K can be retained.

RayC saab, will there be a change in policy (as India gets more economically stronger) not to hand over territory captured beyond J&K?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2009 21:42

Stan_Savljevic wrote:
RayC wrote: Areas captured beyond the IB has to be returned and only the territory captured in J&K can be retained.
RayC saab, will there be a change in policy (as India gets more economically stronger) not to hand over territory captured beyond J&K?

The UN Charter that India signed on to outlaws territorial conquests. So thats ruled out. Again one has to conceptualize within the rules until you can change the rules.

My take is that a TSPA defeat will lead to centripetal forces in TSP. And India can go around the UN charter by providing protectorate status to those news entities. But all that is after the event. We haven't reached how to get to that event.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 04 Jun 2009 21:54

Stan_Savljevic wrote:
RayC wrote: Areas captured beyond the IB has to be returned and only the territory captured in J&K can be retained.
RayC saab, will there be a change in policy (as India gets more economically stronger) not to hand over territory captured beyond J&K?

India respects international laws and convention and hence I see no change.

Only Israel is beyond these niceties!

Someone had commented that military men including us retired ones are pessimistic since we do not display the slash furiously and draw blood jingoistic fervour.

It is just that we are pragmatic about what we can do and what we cannot.

Those who are not aware of the realities are those who wish to 'bifurcate Pakistan' and end its miserable existence and all that.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2009 22:04

Touche, RayC! This thread is for realists approach and not idealist ones based on illusions.

I am glad you found this thread and contributed to it. Thanks for the military realities.

BTW, International law does not apply to disputed territories. So its not that Israel is beyond the pale of law, but that is the perception.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 04 Jun 2009 22:15

Ramana,

Did you hear and see Obama's speech in Cairo to the Moslem world?

That man is some speaker!!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2009 22:37

Yaeh but what about the content and the connotations that speech gives? Instead of reassuring the Muslim world or in is views the Arab world it will confirm sterotypes of dhimmitude. Anyway lets discuss this in the US and World thread!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 Jun 2009 23:51

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Jun 2009 00:13

RayC wrote: The window available to conduct the war is merely 21 days, stretchable to a month. This is because the powers that be in the international field will prevail, as they have always done before, and the war will be terminated. It is also because, given the economy, India cannot sustain a war for the time window required to trash Pakistan. In this wee time window of 21 days to a month, very little can be achieved given the terrain and effort necessary. Areas captured beyond the IB has to be returned and only the territory captured in J&K can be retained. Given the terrain in J&K, ranging from mountains to High Altitude and lack of communications (roads), the area that can be captured is marginal.

Hence, the military option has to be carefully decided before it is launched. The political aim must be clear and from that the military aim will evolve. A loose limbed political aim will just not do.

It is one to thing to say, we need x of this, y of that to achieve the objective, and it is a different thing to say India cannot fight a war beyond 20 days and cannot support occupation of this difficult terrain. For god’s sake India conquered Siachin in 1984 and has been protecting it since then. And this grateful nation supported all necessary material and financial costs in this initiative.

There is nothing new with India's geography. It is millennia old. India’s Northern, North-Eastern, and Eastern borders are filled with difficult terrain and extreme climatic conditions. India is surrounded by existential enemies in its North Western and North Eastern borders.

Does Indian military leadership have any strategies and preparedness to fight a sustained war (>21-30 days) in these fronts, if such a scenario is forced by its enemies? Or Indian military is putting all its hopes on the difficult terrain and extreme climate to protect its borders? What if the international community doesn’t come to India’s help in such a scenario?

We need to remember that this extreme geography is there to stay and India’s success depends upon undermining its enemies across these frontiers. If Indian Military leadership complains on topography even after 60 years of independence and in this technologically advanced generation, then India cannot aspire to be a regional power.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Jun 2009 00:17

RamaY, are you going to describe the map or let us guess?

BTW they do have plans but the problem is the politicals cant stand the pressure and MEA will be screaming for ceasation of hostilities.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Jun 2009 02:55

Ramana-garu,

You are right about the political leadership, and that is my point. Indian leadership has different objectives, priorities, and strategies at different levels – political, military, economic, bureaucratic, and social. If I understand it correctly, the objective of this discussion is to align Indian leadership so that all these moving parts will work together to implement one strategy (at different planes) in the interests of this nation.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Jun 2009 03:06

Subnationalism in TSP is the golden fantasmagoria goose that never lays its golden eggs. I was beginning to think that we were getting realistic after fiercely deriding fantasizing or more accurately the individuals who appeared to be fantasizing by our individual criteria. Is it too much reality and practice that blinds us to looking beyond that practical experiential horizon?

It is actually a severe ideological limitation of "idealism and dreaming" that pins all its hopes on subnationalism and the implosion of TSP. This idealism again comes from a persistent refusal to consider the role of ideology in driving or motivating societies, and the particular role of Islam in the area of TSP. Those who think this way, perhaps do not realize that it is also another blind ideological and idealistic commitment not to see the problem in the ideology of Islam, and its implementation in Islamic theologians. This has been the approach of the Congress loyalists and Marxist ideologues. But this approach consistently fails to predict and analyze "actual" TSP behaviour in "reality".

Winning a limited objective war in Kashmir only, is not going to encourage subnational conflicts and breakdown of TSP. It will provide the grand excuse for Islamic consolidation and Islamic "nationalism".

Yes, the grand visionary Congress statesmen like JLN have severely tied up the legal strings to bind any GOI forever into the future, as regards any "disputed" territory. However, it does seem that not only Israel, but other members of UN can also bypass these thoughtful considerations of charter commitments. There are many ways of bypassing - and nothing in the charter prevents formation of new nations or merger of nations. For example two recognized separate nations of the two Germany's became "one", and Russia could ensure "breakaway republics" in CAR.

Why rule out the possibility of "mergers" with India in the future helped along by military action? It is either India looks forward and merges the rest of TSP with itself, to eliminate one of its two persistent neighbourly threats, or TSP gradually Islamizes and Jihadizes the North of India, subverting and expanding slowly east and south. Maybe some are too commited to seeing "good" in Islamic theology and everything evil and despised in pre-Islamic culture of India, and much too deeply identifying themselves with the regime essentially in control of India since being blessed with the transfer of power by the British, who cannot think otherwise. But others who have no obvious reason to be solely ideologically committed to the post-Independence Congress, can think of and prepare for alternative possibilities for the future of India.

I do not think the current GOI is so stupid that it believes in its own propaganda. It knows that it is practically losing the political battle over Kashmir. Only tactic left will be to gradually get the public used to the idea of conceding more to the demands of Islamization, and greater access to TSP influence in the valley through "normalization and engagement". It is also not impossible that alternatives have already been placed before the GOI that considers giving up claims/controls over Kashmir in a phased and innocuous manner. The political costs however could not be calculated beforehand, which points to origin iof these ideas outside of India. If we see increasing media campaigns in highlighting the costs of the defence of LOC, of the need for "altruistic concessions", the need to bolster TSP civilian gov, the inherent "goodness" of Islam, the need to "leave the past behind", etc., that will be a confirmation of GOI secret commitments.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Jun 2009 03:36

ramanaji,
there are apparently still issues with what "to do with TSP". That will be a first crucial question which will shape all subsequent strategy.

Given Obama's open indication of USA trying out its "appeasement" strategy for Islam, this means more pressure on India and Israel to concede territory. India needs to activate the Russia-Iran axis as quickly as possible. UK+USA+PRC has a headstart. But this would be the ideal time. All three are facing severe internal crises (Chinese super-bail of finance has not shown the corresponding reflection in the domestic economy and finance markets). UK's crisis is already affecting its political setup. And soon Obama admin will begin to face its own set of problems. This is a possible reason for Obama to up the antics of "Islamophilia".

But the Russia+Iran+India triangle can be a good bargaining point with the UK+USA+PRC triangle. In fact this can partly tie-up PRC because of its involvement both with Russia and USA. Geo-strategically the triangle surrounds TSP, and proper incentives given to Russia and Iran can go a long way. I would rather also see negotiating lines being opened with the Talebs to bargain over helping them if they move to Uighur territory, or help them establish their own principality against formal TSP gov in the NWFP.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Jun 2009 05:17

My thoughts that accompany above map...

Assumptions:
• TSP is an artificial construct carved out of United India to serve colonial interests.
• Today’s TSP is controlled by 3-leash holders. (1) US/UK (2) PRC (3) KSA/Islam
• US/UK >> TSP’s purpose is bog-down India militarily and economically disconnecting it from resource rich CAR and ME regions.
• PRC >> TSP’s purpose is to contain India, so it doesn’t gain enough strength to challenge PRC in Asian continent and beyond.
• KSA/Islam >> TSP’s purpose is to entangle PRC + US/UK as the terrorism hum so these nations do not harm Islam/KSA’s long term interests.

Problem Statement
• TSP acts as the terrorism hub with a loose control on AQ/LET terror infrastructure so it can be directed against India (primarily) and West (if needed).
• Use TSP to contain and cap Indian nuclear program by creating an artificial nuclear-flashpoint in sub-continent. Use TSP to hurt India with nuclear war.

Impact Analysis (for the past 20 years)
1. Military Costs
o Siachin = $1B per annum ------------------------------------------> $20B
o J&K terrorism = $2B per annum ------------------------------------> $20B

2. Human Costs
o Security Personal = ~200 lives per year average --------------------> 4000 security personal
o Civilian = ~2000 per year-------------------------------------------> 40,000 civilians

3. Economic Costs
o Impact on economic growth = 1% of GDP? (equals to $10B) ----------> $100B
o Stock Market losses when terrorist strikes happen.

4. Strategic Costs
o Limited to sub-continent
o UNSC seat
o Access to CAR/ME energy resources
o Tibet
o PRC

5. Civilizational Costs
o Manipulated leadership
o Taliban control over Indus valley civilization.

Objectives:
1. Recapture POK thus bringing an end to J&K issue, Article 370
2. Separate PRC+TSP physical connection. Cut one of the leash holders.
3. Put TSP’s destruction on fast track.

Gaming (Based on Vivek-Ahuja, Shankar, Brihaspathi’s scenarios)
1. Try to divert PRC attention by supporting an armed struggle in Tibet
2. Engage Nepal-PRC engagement using Nepal internal political instability
3. Start a fresh and sustained democratic struggle in Myanmar
4. Control UK’s freedom of movement using MQM and other assets, similar to TSP’s strategy

External Thrust points:
A. Seek Russia’s help to establish a full fledged IAF base in Tajiksthan.
B. Seek Iranian help to engage US/NATO forces within Afghanistan
C. Start independence movements in Sindh and Balochistan. Create a (Fake?) thrust into these areas so TSPA is moved away from JK/POK sectors.

Internal preparations/game-plan:

Economy:
A. Prepare necessary FX-hedging strategies and buy the options accordingly (purpose is to finance the war)
B. Prepare necessary commodity-hedging strategies (especially energy futures) and buy the options accordingly. (purpose is to finance the war)
C. Acquire sufficient FX reserves so we can buy 100% of Imports for 6 months without any exports. $100B should be sufficient.
D. Kick start an infrastructure development plan to create employment opportunities to commensurate economic impact from war.

Military:
A. Divide Indian military assets so that we can have 10-15 bubbles (as shown in the map) that can sustain PRC/PAF attacks. Each bubble should able maintain independent operations and control in that bubble even after 2-3 large scale engagements (similar to Vivek & Shankar’s scenarios with 20-25% losses). What is needed to achieve this?
B. IA should acquire the capability to liquidate all of Pakistani key military installations within the first 1 hour of open hostilities. These missile attacks must be extremely highly accurate and should achieve 100% surprise component.
C. Impost no-fly zones in POK area, Strait of Malacca, and Myanmar/BD/India border region.

Acceptible cost-of-war
Financial = $140-$150 B
Human <= 5000 military + <=30000 civilian

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 05 Jun 2009 11:29

On the issue of Siachen being conquered and defended ever since 1984 and on the issue of 'If Indian Military leadership complains on topography even after 60 years of independence and in this technologically advanced generation, then India cannot aspire to be a regional power'.

Siachen was not conquered. It was occupied. It was vacant land and the Indian Army occupied it before the Pakistanis could fathom the enormity of the gambit!

Therefore, it maybe that the difference between the meanings of ‘conquer’ and ‘occupy’ is what is causing the disconnect in fathoming the realities of the situation.

Had Siachen been occupied, then it would have been a Herculean task. To understand it further, one could take a leaf from events in the Kargil operations and compare. One could also note that in Kargil, there was a well established military infrastructure geared to wage and sustain a war. Siachen was a virgin land without such facilities. Thus, a comparison between Siachen occupation and recapture in Kargil will allow one to understand the difference and the cost between conquering and occupying!

Let me explain the relationship of terrain with the desire of capturing POK in a surgical strike (to use a popular phraseology that is bandied in the media and elsewhere). I will use the Siachen example given.

I will try to do it in simple language without military terminology so as to not complicate the matter, even though it could have summed up the situation in lesser words.

Indeed Siachen is being defended from 1984. But, is it a static affair? There are many examples where windows of opportunities have been seized, one being the Bana post. Ideally, the complete area should be captured. Why is it not being done? Is it because there is no will do so? No, there is the will but the realties of the terrain and other military issues. Has Pakistan not tried to capture the Siachen? Of course, they have tried, but were thwarted in their endeavours. They have even tried to occupy unheld heights with men underslung a helicopter but were thwarted. It must be understood that the terrain and the High Altitude does not allow a jog as Bill Clinton did every day (as seen on TV). Movement is laborious and time consuming and reaction to enemy actions slow and deliberate and yet we thwarted them even when they tried with underslung men under helicopters. Therefore, it is not a question of lack of will or bandying excuses of not capturing POK and destroying Pakistan in surgical strikes! The fact that Pakistan has repeatedly failed should also indicate the military realities.

Therefore, from the above, it could be construed as uncharitable the statement that the Indian Army is putting all hopes on the difficult terrain and climate to protect the borders and so is the suggestion that the Indian Army is finding excuses not to do its task.

Yet such misconceived contentions are understandable because unless one understands the ground realities, geopolitics, realpolitik, the compulsions. the national economy, the national social priorities etc, one does indeed gets seized with impotent rage and finds incompetence and lack of will everywhere.

Likewise, one could say that India should be the sole global superpower today. But why is it not so? Lack of will power or incompetence?

In fact, the adage sums up the issue - if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 05 Jun 2009 17:20

brihaspati wrote:Subnationalism in TSP is the golden fantasmagoria goose that never lays its golden eggs. I was beginning to think that we were getting realistic after fiercely deriding fantasizing or more accurately the individuals who appeared to be fantasizing by our individual criteria. Is it too much reality and practice that blinds us to looking beyond that practical experiential horizon?

It is actually a severe ideological limitation of "idealism and dreaming" that pins all its hopes on subnationalism and the implosion of TSP. This idealism again comes from a persistent refusal to consider the role of ideology in driving or motivating societies, and the particular role of Islam in the area of TSP. Those who think this way, perhaps do not realize that it is also another blind ideological and idealistic commitment not to see the problem in the ideology of Islam, and its implementation in Islamic theologians. This has been the approach of the Congress loyalists and Marxist ideologues. But this approach consistently fails to predict and analyze "actual" TSP behaviour in "reality".

Winning a limited objective war in Kashmir only, is not going to encourage subnational conflicts and breakdown of TSP. It will provide the grand excuse for Islamic consolidation and Islamic "nationalism".

Yes, the grand visionary Congress statesmen like JLN have severely tied up the legal strings to bind any GOI forever into the future, as regards any "disputed" territory. However, it does seem that not only Israel, but other members of UN can also bypass these thoughtful considerations of charter commitments. There are many ways of bypassing - and nothing in the charter prevents formation of new nations or merger of nations. For example two recognized separate nations of the two Germany's became "one", and Russia could ensure "breakaway republics" in CAR.

Why rule out the possibility of "mergers" with India in the future helped along by military action? It is either India looks forward and merges the rest of TSP with itself, to eliminate one of its two persistent neighbourly threats, or TSP gradually Islamizes and Jihadizes the North of India, subverting and expanding slowly east and south. Maybe some are too commited to seeing "good" in Islamic theology and everything evil and despised in pre-Islamic culture of India, and much too deeply identifying themselves with the regime essentially in control of India since being blessed with the transfer of power by the British, who cannot think otherwise. But others who have no obvious reason to be solely ideologically committed to the post-Independence Congress, can think of and prepare for alternative possibilities for the future of India.

I do not think the current GOI is so stupid that it believes in its own propaganda. It knows that it is practically losing the political battle over Kashmir. Only tactic left will be to gradually get the public used to the idea of conceding more to the demands of Islamization, and greater access to TSP influence in the valley through "normalization and engagement". It is also not impossible that alternatives have already been placed before the GOI that considers giving up claims/controls over Kashmir in a phased and innocuous manner. The political costs however could not be calculated beforehand, which points to origin iof these ideas outside of India. If we see increasing media campaigns in highlighting the costs of the defence of LOC, of the need for "altruistic concessions", the need to bolster TSP civilian gov, the inherent "goodness" of Islam, the need to "leave the past behind", etc., that will be a confirmation of GOI secret commitments.

It is an interesting commentary that Subnationalism in TSP is the golden fantasmagoria goose that never lays its golden eggs. One wonders if that is a figment of imagination that it becomes unrealistic!

One does not have to be a brilliant analyst to wonder as to why Pakistan complained of ‘large’ number of Indian consulates in Afghanistan and now why Obama is nudging India to tone down Indian interests in Afghanistan. Surely, he does not mean that we tone down the development work there. Or does he? Pakistan accuses India of promoting insurrection. Insurrection surely must have some basis. What is that?

On the issue of theology some are obsessed that Islam is one monolithic entity. It maybe to some extent to the non Moslems. However, it must be understood that the temporal has always been the source of all problems of Islam. If it were not so, why the division of Islam into two major blocks if the teachings and tenets are the same? And then, why so many sects within sects? And why has ummah never been achieved?

I wonder how many have observed how the Mohajirs are treated in Pakistan or for that matter the contempt they describe the Balochis. The Punjabis treat all as trash. Or are these also fantasmorgia? If Islam was such a monolith and a binding factor, why did the Sindhis object to the Kalabagh Dam when it would have benefited Pakistan, even if Punjab more? Why the Balochis were denied royalty from their gas? After all, it was all for Pakistan and Pakistanis are all Islamic followers! It is unfortunate that some Indians are myopic and attribute theology as the soul of Nations without also addressing social and economic issues that divide people of even the same religion. Division of people when ignited because of disparities and injustices flames subnationalism!! And hence, important an input!!

The unfortunate part is that non Moslems feel that Islam is a monolith given their better cohesion than the non Moslem religions. They are also human and they also have human aspirations!! If they did not have so, why are there so many Moslem nations, each charting their own fate? Why have the lost each war against Israel – a tiny and one time a fledging nation? It astounds that one fails to apply one’s mind to the reality and instead feeds fat their imagined fears!

Therefore, it is only those who wish to veer realism into their favourite topic of theology, are the ones who fails to see realism pragmatically. If Islam was one, we would not see the turmoil in Swat and Mingora. The temporal supersedes the spiritual!

Kashmir is not the problem. Pakistan is. Encouraging subnationalism is what the answer is. Daydreamers and armchair strategists may feel POK can be put in the bag or Pakistan bifurcated, but then that is as good as having a dose of hashish as going into euphoria of the grandiose!

The example of the breakaway federations of the USSR is misplaced. It indicates that one is not aware of the USSR Constitution and the economic state when they broke away. As far as Germany is concerned, the statements expressed are ignorant of the German psyche! It is uber alles!! Therefore, these examples are hardly worth scrutiny!

It is another ridiculous idea of merging Pakistan with India. Whatever for? Add to the problems? Why this imperialist dream?

If the GOI is losing the battle in Kashnir, then that is news. Inside information? The events including the whole village attending the funeral of the slain Kashmiri army man of the SF in Lolab, seems to tell another story! The fact that the Hurriyat’s call for boycott of the election failed is another. The fact that Sajid Lone contested speaks for itself. Therefore, who is riding his favourite hobby horse that Kashmir is a failure?

It must be understood encouraging subnationalism is just one input. Foreign policy of a nation is not as myopic as those who are obsessed with a single point agenda of theology uber alles!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Jun 2009 18:15

^^^
So that nixes recapturing POK and bifurcation of Pakistan???

We cannot have an open discussion if posters blame on hidden-agendas by referring theology in every discussion. It is very important that we separate theology from civilization. One can wake up a person who is asleep, but not the one who is acting.

If encouraging sub-nationalism is panacea for India’s Pakistan problem, then India must become a developed nation first so that this sub-nationalism strategy is not back-fired. Till then all bets are off.

As long as India allows external powers to meddle in Pakistan problem, Indian national interests will remain compromised. Since India is not capable of taking on any of these powers directly, it must start with something that is a disputed area, and something that it can.

We can hope to gain sustained economic prosperity without getting into proactive geopolitical strategies. But we must understand that this very economic growth can be threatened by our enemies unless we secure our real, social, and geo-political borders. Our year-long hardwork can be undermined by few coordinated terror attacks on our economic and scientific centers within few days. So in a way, our economic growth is also not certain and permanent if we leave Pakistan as is. We are being influenced (if not controlled) by these powers thru Pakistan. How do you face the person who is holding a rabid dog against you? By killing the rabid dog.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Jun 2009 19:31

Yes, those who have a single point agenda will always trash and denigrate all other viewpoints. Constitution of USSR/Russia at breakup!!! But isn't Russia a signatory to the UN charter, as a result of recognition of being the legal successor to the USSR (hence the seat in the Security Council)? So there can be special "things" in individual nations, which allows them to bypass UN charter as and when required? German psyche!!! So psyche can over-rule UN charter too! Good one! Constant shifting of goal-posts tactics again!

One point agenda about subnationalism will always highlight the internal dissent and conflict over internal interests, and use that to hide out the possibility of convergence and submergence of internal conflict, when it is a matter of facing an "external enemy". This is part of an attitude in which there is persistent deliberate refusal to see that both Shia and Sunni Sultanates in India treated Hindus equally badly, while at the same time having conflicts between themselves. Subnational conflicts are fantasmagoria because so far it has never yielded the dissolution or implosion of Pakistan, it has never even gone towards it. One point agenda of denying the fundamental unifying role of Islamic theology in moving/acting against the non-Muslim is at best a mischievous and pernicious hoodwinking from the reality of the driving forces that sustains Pakistan, and which has managed over 60 years to survive and extract requisite support from the global order. It is okay to protect a particular theology and not reveal its strategic role if one admires it too much, but then that should be openly acknowledged, at least from anyone who claims a monopoly over courage.

Political control over Kashmir is slipping, because GOI has been forced to allow Sharia seeping in into the state, and to be imposed at least on civil affairs. "Kashmir simmers" for sixth day is the latest evidence of political control. Political control is slipping because, Kashmiri Pundits can still not return to the valley. Political control is slipping because infiltration continues unabated and the subsequent survival of these militant networks would not have been possible if local populace did not provide them with necessary infrastructure.

It is wonderful to know that in the future we would be able to repeat the assessment about the "Hindus" of 7th to 12 century, about the brave warriors and strategists who by their excellent vision and foresight did their best to cover up the actual nature of an ideology that ultimately drove a reconquest of the north of India under Islam. Yes we also do not find any awareness of the essentials of political Islam, and only recognition of sects who fight with each other, and who are tried to be played against each other from time to time, but in the end always retreating overall. These were all brave warriors, who mostly gave their lives, but failed to protect their country, and their Brahmin advisers. They only recognized "Turuskas" or "Arabs/Vanayu" emphasizing the subnationalisms, and relied on that, some trying to use one against the other.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Jun 2009 23:11

being an integrator I asked the scenario kings in MIl Forum:

ramana wrote:Viveks,
Have already considered a joint TSP -PRC move against India? What are potential areas they will move in coordination? With massa making appropriate soothing noises to prevent India from going all out?

Thanks,
ramana

And got the following reply

vivek.sharma wrote:Ramana,

I am not thinking joint TSP -PRC move against India. The reason being by the time this scenario may happen massa will have realized that TSP by itself can not stop terrorism (doesn't matter how many towns TSP's army take). It needs a brand new approach with regional players in lead.

To that end, for my scenario, massa will make sure PRC doesn't move against India, provided

1). We make sure TSP has only enemy to fight i.e. Terrorism not India
2). PRC's territorial integrity is not threatened.

PRC's number will come after we have put TSP where it belongs i.e. garbage can.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 05 Jun 2009 23:25

RamaY wrote:^^^
So that nixes recapturing POK and bifurcation of Pakistan???

We cannot have an open discussion if posters blame on hidden-agendas by referring theology in every discussion. It is very important that we separate theology from civilization. One can wake up a person who is asleep, but not the one who is acting.

If encouraging sub-nationalism is panacea for India’s Pakistan problem, then India must become a developed nation first so that this sub-nationalism strategy is not back-fired. Till then all bets are off.

As long as India allows external powers to meddle in Pakistan problem, Indian national interests will remain compromised. Since India is not capable of taking on any of these powers directly, it must start with something that is a disputed area, and something that it can.

We can hope to gain sustained economic prosperity without getting into proactive geopolitical strategies. But we must understand that this very economic growth can be threatened by our enemies unless we secure our real, social, and geo-political borders. Our year-long hardwork can be undermined by few coordinated terror attacks on our economic and scientific centers within few days. So in a way, our economic growth is also not certain and permanent if we leave Pakistan as is. We are being influenced (if not controlled) by these powers thru Pakistan. How do you face the person who is holding a rabid dog against you? By killing the rabid dog.

Nothinmg nixes nothing.

Become the PM and we will follow!