Dilbu wrote:I wonder whether babus have a standard fill in the blanks format for these dossiers. Can be very helpful given the frequency of dossier submittals we do.
It is grossly unfair to say we only submit dossiers. We send faxes also.
You know what's truly pathetic?
Our Dossier-Deterrence is actually working.
See: After the Parliament Attack in December 2001, we deployed our forces in a massive mobilization along the IB. It didn't stop Paki terrorism. Kaluchak followed, then Akshardham. Of course, after Parakram ended in a lame pullback of forces, the number of jihadi terrorist attacks only increased.
Compare this to what happened after the 26th November Mumbai attacks. Despite all our Netas' brave words, we didn't deploy any forces. We simply complained to Unkil, compiling evidence and accumulating dossiers and delivering them to Washington.And there hasn't been one major jihadi terrorist attack outside of J&K in nearly a year!
WTF can this mean?
It implies that whatever we say about the TSPA/ISI taking clueless America for a ride in Afghanistan, or conning the poor naive Washington policymakers into giving them aid on one hand while supporting the Taliban on the other... whatever we say about the US being "helpless" and "having no choice but to aid Pakistan"... the truth is actually quite different.
It suggests that the US may have enough leverage over the TSPA and ISI to prevent terrorist attacks against India if it wants.
That is, a Pakistani hand may be turning on and off the terror tap that pumps Jihadis into India... but it seems that an American hand has a firm grip on that Pakistani hand.
As long as India toes the American line... as long as we do what Washington wants, refrain from military buildups along the Pak border, refrain from threatening war against Pakistan, refrain from interfering with Washington's "Af-Pak" policy... it seems that America can and will ensure
that Pakistan's ISI doesn't launch terrorist attacks against India.
The other side of the coin is, what if India decides not to go along with Washington's line? American demands can and will change, after all, as Obama's "Af-Pak" policy continues to "evolve" (for lack of a better word). At some point it is very possible that Holbrooke and co. might decide to lean on Delhi for Kashmir this and Kashmir that.
So let's say India does something to displease Unkil and shortly afterwards a major jihadi terrorist attack DOES occur against India. There is 400% plausible deniability for Unkil, of course. Who in their right mind is going to publicly blame the US? They would be a laughing stock! Any message inherent in the terrorist attack would be for our Dilli Billis to perceive and interpret as they see fit... that's all.
Should we look at Sharm-el-Sheikh in a new light now?