SSridhar wrote:RajeshA et al, land or LACM comes next. At what point will we feel that we need to retaliate, is the question. Will the next attack raise the bar once again, as the Pakistanis are wont to do ? Or, will they keep it at sub-26/11 level hoping that such an attack will not invite retribution ? Has India decided that one more attack, irrespective of the class or intensity of it, will provoke her to launch a counter attack ? Is the current ruling dispensation capable of withstanding the pressure from the US, especially the simple travel advisories ?
IMHO, Pakistan is prone to read a retaliation for a "massive" terror attack of the type Mumbai 26/11, as a potentially serious retaliation. India too would be forced to retaliate suitably, and thereby would need to appropriate sufficient resources to such an endeavor.
Should the response of India to a repeat of Mumbai 26/11 be taking over a handful of check-posts on the border, then we would really become a laughing stock. Nay, it would have to be proportional.
So I would suggest, we keep a very low bar on when to attack Pakistan. For a smaller attack, Pakistan would not be expecting an all-out war with India, and we should also not give one to them. A lower bar, a "smaller" terrorist attack by Pakistan followed by a swift Indian action on the border, with a consequent cooling off initiated by the Americans, would lead to our establishing the principle of "Land for Terror" in practice. That would be a shot across Pakistan's bow. If they are intelligent, they would heed to it, and it may become another issue like say Sir Creek - an issue, but not one of life and death.
This land appropriation by India would cause some takleef
to the H&D of TSPA. They may or may not make it a big issue. If they keep it under wraps, or declare it as a minor skirmish, the H&D loss would be internal. If they make it into a big issue, they will only hurt their own popularity amongst the Pakistanis. It would give the TSPA pause for thought before they sign on another bigger attack. So we get to avoid a bigger terrorist attack on Indian soil.
The whole point is to establish a known dynamic - just like we have when we go and buy potatoes. You buy potatoes, you pay money. One does not think in terms of, when you take a potato from the vendor, he will get up and rob you of all your possessions. The transaction has to be made business-like. You make terror, we take land!
By establishing a low bar, GoI would only be saving us much in terms of nuclear holocaust, as well as terrorism. Besides it would be much easier for GoI to come out of inertia, if the land to be taken from the Pakistanis is not that much, but sufficient to set a precedent.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "LACM"