India-US Strategic News and Discussion

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Jun 2012 00:22

>> India did not violate any international law it signed by testing nukes and so global support for sanction was not strong.

The global support for sanctions was not strong? Really? What are you talking about?

>> But the moment it was highlighted as a nuclear flash point, the scenareo was going to be different.

I don't understand how you guys come up with this fancy theory. Why should other countries care if South Asia is a nuclear flash point? Recently Russians threatened to use their nuclear weapons against NATO missile defense system. Does that imply that central Europe is a nuclear flash point? Why aren't Russians and Americans worried that their *own troops* are in a region which is a nuclear flash point?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Jun 2012 00:41

abhischekcc wrote:

1965 war was conducted to get the Arab countries off the India Rupee. This was important because when the 1973 Arab Israeli war happened, Arabs quadrupled oil prices, which created an artificial demand for USD. If the Arab countries had been conducting their international trade and forex reserves in INR, then all of that benefit would have accrued to India. 1965 destabilized the Indian economy and currency, and showed Arabs that they needed to jump on to a stronger currency. That the Soviets were in on the plan and were co-collaborators is shown by the fact that they murdered Shastriji, who was unwilling to give even an inch to Paki demands for an 'honourable' surrender. After all, the Soviets were the largest exporters of oil.

IC 814 was designed to demoralize the Indian/Hindu population, who had just elected a (nominally) Hindu nationalist government.

26/11 was not directed against any India policy (or lack of policy). It was designed to curb the manouvering space for the then President-elect Obama. It was conducted by Bush policy loyalists who wanted US to stay engaged in Afghanistan. Obama had pledged to get the US troops home, for which he needed to cut a deal with Pakis, for which he needed to give them something they really wanted (Kashmir, or some semblance of 'progress' on Kashmir). For which he had to sell the idea to Indian population (not to GOI, because it was headed by the American loyalist Manmohan Singh). 26/11 destroyed any hope of selling this idea to the Indian public.

PS:

Obama is still getting out of Afghanistan. But the difference now is that he has realized the nature of the Pakistani beast (army), so India is not being pressurized into giving in to Paki demands.

Very good. Try to get supporting links and books which corroborate these facts in the international market.
The start of the Middle east engagement by US and UK actually started after 1965 war.

All the arab nations rallied against India including Indonasia to create a Muslim block. The real obhective was to protect the middle east from Soviet and communist revolution

India was effectively cut off from the long historical trading links with the Arab and Iranian links after 1965

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 21 Jun 2012 00:46

shyamd wrote:No one is asking US to defend our interests, they are asking India to defend their interests by crook.
How many forces will they keep? Just SpecOps, so nothing frontline - hardly any troops on the streets. Casualty levels will be low as numbers on the ground will be a lot less.

If Americans are asking us to defend their interests then we can also claim our pound of flesh, I think this is the only logical relationship we can have with America, you scratch my back I scratch your's, you hurt me I hurt you, plain and simple. We might never come to know the actual numbers of American troops to be present till 2024 but my guess is it will be substantial enough to deter munna to plan any kind of misadventure, plus afghan forces are getting trained and taking up their security responsibilities hence the troop reduction in a phased manner.

shyamd wrote:Yes covert strikes are the best option given the scenario. But escalation in Afghanistan is an equally good option - which is what they are doing, as it takes the war away from our border and keeps J&K safe, our economy growing and keeps TSPA focus in the north. Their defence will become precarious in the event and it will be harder for them in the future as they'll have to pay for new a/c, tanks, men for the northern border. They tried to raise the FC to look after the northern border but that turned out to be a big failure. So that border is sitting largely unprotected - by their own admission.

I didn't get you exactly here who is escalating war in Afghanistan ??? USA ???

shyamd wrote:Problem with bombing campaign was that there is no point spending a few hundred thousand bucks to hit a few tents with jihadi's in.

This statement of your's actually shows our national commitment to India's security, it's not surprising that pakistan gets away each and every time since this mentality runs deep in Indian psyche.

shyamd wrote:Yes but are you willing to stake a bet on it backed up by indian lives? And keep in mind they were making us out as the agressor - as we would have invaded/launched strikes. They were waiting for us

Indian lives have been at stake since that incestuous terrorist breeding god forsaken piece of shit country came into existence so please no need to give this debate an emotional twist, till that nation survives Indian lives will be at stake and that's a fact, live with it. Let them call us an aggressor who cares, I have said before no country has the balls to enter into a one on one fight with India all they can do is scheme behind our backs, whine in international fora and throw abuses. We need to show _|_ and keep fulfilling our interests, 3.5 friends will fall in line.

shyamd wrote:What do you think would have happened? TSP were making out that if India launched attacks, they would have responded - which would have made india the aggressor firing the first shot and would have claimed 26/11 was done by Indians/no evidence yada yada.

What do nations do when faced with such attack ? Usually say IA killed innocent civilians or hit TSPA , so TSPA is defending itself - again making themself out as the victim, some would have agreed - lets face it we Indians don't really have "all weather allies". Even today US wants a relationship with TSP despite the number of US soldiers that have died

As if anyone buys anything that munna says. India must not care about what US wants with their munna we need have to start defending our interests with zeal and then see whose line unkil chooses to toe.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 21 Jun 2012 01:23

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> India did not violate any international law it signed by testing nukes and so global support for sanction was not strong.

The global support for sanctions was not strong? Really? What are you talking about?

What happened. Other than non-proli ayattollahs, other countries did not care much. Even French were backing India. BTW, they were US sanction and not UN sanctions.

>> But the moment it was highlighted as a nuclear flash point, the scenareo was going to be different.

I don't understand how you guys come up with this fancy theory. Why should other countries care if South Asia is a nuclear flash point? Recently Russians threatened to use their nuclear weapons against NATO missile defense system. Does that imply that central Europe is a nuclear flash point? Why aren't Russians and Americans worried that their *own troops* are in a region which is a nuclear flash point?

Just talking doesn't make any difference, but see the reaction if Russians are really about to nuke them. When there is a war going on between two recent nuclear powers, the scenario is different. It is not that the war was nuclear, but there always is an excuse that the losing country may use nuke.

The point is that Vajpayee's decision to not cross LOC was an important strategic decision.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 21 Jun 2012 01:27

shyamd, It is no one's case that we should go off half-cocked into a war but it really grates to hear the "obedient school kid"-like refrain that at all costs, And under all imaginable circumstances, India should strive to avoid being labeled "aggressor." If we are supposed to be a mature nation, then the maturity includes awareness that there are ocassions when the only possible response to an intolerable enemy is a towering, all-consuming rage, striking terror into adversaries' heart, with full awareness of the costs and consequences and acceptance of the same.

I am afraid any nation that consistently abjures the option of ferocity is only fooling itself by imagining that its choices are somehow "responsible." Constructing a false dichotomy with the strawman of warmongering won't do either. Every observer can see the reality of an elite that have hypnotized themselves to trot out the bromides of appeasement indiscriminately.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Jun 2012 01:29

>> When there is a war going on between two recent nuclear powers, the scenario is different.

What would happen? All countries would impose sanctions and our economy would be "crippled" like the Iranian economy? That is what you are implying?

Sorry...that is quite unlikely.

1. There will always be disagreements between countries. I don't buy the fact that the world can come together against India if we take action against Pakistan. World opinion is not a monolith.

2. Even if some important countries impose sanctions against us, I think we can survive it. The war will not go on forever. We can handle sanctions for a few months.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 21 Jun 2012 01:34

When the sanctions come from UN in the form of trade/financial sanctions for not de-nuking and/or allowing UN peace keeping force in the flash point, the sanctions will have to be obeyed by all countries. We have to make sure that such scenario doesn't happen and Vajpayee did a good job at that.

If Pakistan that is about to lose agrees to UN peace forces in Kashmir, India will look like the country who didn't want peace. The UN sactions will look appropriate in the eyes of countries who don't care about Kashmir.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Jun 2012 01:41

paramu wrote:When the sanctions come from UN in the form of trade/financial sanctions for not de-nuking and/or allowing UN peace keeping force in the flash point, the sanctions will have to be obeyed by all countries. We have to make sure that such scenario doesn't happen and Vajpayee did a good job at that.

If Pakistan that is about to lose agrees to UN peace forces in Kashmir, India will look like the country who didn't want peace. The UN sactions will look appropriate in the eyes of countries who don't care about Kashmir.

UN peace keeping forces?

Which countries contribute soldiers for it? India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. UN peacekeeping cannot continue without the help of south Asian countries.

If you think that we would have faced sanctions for crossing LoC during Kargil war, then you are living on a different planet. You are overestimating the power of "international community" and underestimating the resilience of India. Relax.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 21 Jun 2012 01:46

UN forces doesn't mean only India/Pak etc. When the place is strategically important, NATO itself will come in the garb of UN peace keeping.

There was a leader who thought exactly like you do. His name was Saddam. The Pakistan that time was Kuwait. We know how it ended. People who don't learn will learn it in a hard way. Fortunately India has leaders who are more wise than macho. So I'm fully relaxed.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Jun 2012 01:52

paramu wrote:UN forces doesn't mean only India/Pak etc. When the place is strategically important, NATO itself will come in the garb of UN peace keeping.

There was a leader who thought exactly like you do. His name was Saddam. The Pakistan that time was Kuwait. We know how it ended.

Unfortunately you are suffering from selective amnesia. NATO forces retreated quickly after defeating Saddam in 1990-91. And we know how easily they have been handling the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11. Why do they want to leave Afghanistan as soon as possible?

And India is different (i.e., bigger and stronger) from Iraq and Afghanistan. For not understanding this difference, you deserve a Lahori Logic prize.

There are many places which are "strategically important" (e.g. Strait of Hormuz, Suez Canal). Maybe you should ask NATO to capture them? You know countries like Iran and Egypt are weaker than India.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 21 Jun 2012 02:00

I have seen you posting regularly from Foriegn Policy, but have shown that you can't judge things in a broader context. So please keep the Lahori Logic Prize with you. Some of the wars you think as wars are not actually wars. But just small battles. Some events are planned to be executed over a period of >30 years.

They have been talking about leaving Afghanistan for a long, but never left more than 3 years after Obama came to power. You don't seem to remember Suez canal war and peace returned after Egypt became the lacky of uncle.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 21 Jun 2012 02:07

Sagar G wrote:
We might never come to know the actual numbers of American troops to be present till 2024 but my guess is it will be substantial enough to deter munna to plan any kind of misadventure, plus afghan forces are getting trained and taking up their security responsibilities hence the troop reduction in a phased manner.

Mainly SpecOps thats the official announcement - but enough to deter TSP. TSPA will go for the coup and they have shown their hand already and are drilling. Coup intervention force is needed - but thats another topic for another day.

The whole pull out thing was playing out before 26/11 and the gap of war would have given US enough time to pull out - perhaps leave behind their gear for their allies. We know today no matter how many US soldiers that die, TSP is still an ally.

I didn't get you exactly here who is escalating war in Afghanistan ??? USA ???

India - 25,000 ANA,ANP, intel officers will be in India getting trained all over the country. We are escalating in Afghanistan. We were also preparing for deployment in Afghanistan, but unfortunately at the time plans fell through due to Iran, Russia and US. India today is escalating the cold war. The key for us is to get what we want without a bullet fired and at minimal cost to us. That is what we are doing now.
We are escalating in Afghanistan so that jihadi's stay up north and J&K remains safe.

This statement of your's actually shows our national commitment to India's security, it's not surprising that pakistan gets away each and every time since this mentality runs deep in Indian psyche.

Yes, but what would you hit and what effect would it have? Would it destroy terrorism? No - covert option of assassinating those involved would have been the best and in fact the easiest to achieve. We tried to escalate in Afghanistan at the time - plan didnt go through. Today we are escalating in Afghanistan.

Indian lives have been at stake since that incestuous terrorist breeding god forsaken piece of shit country came into existence so please no need to give this debate an emotional twist, till that nation survives Indian lives will be at stake and that's a fact, live with it. Let them call us an aggressor who cares, I have said before no country has the balls to enter into a one on one fight with India all they can do is scheme behind our backs, whine in international fora and throw abuses. We need to show _|_ and keep fulfilling our interests, 3.5 friends will fall in line.

What would you have done given the situation? Hit a few TSPA command centres? GHQ? Lead to a war on LoC.... then maybe we captured a few mountains - they launch a few tactical nukes, we fire back in kind.... a few thousand dead.... promise of dynamic economy down the drain.... while we exchange nukes, a nuclear sub of a nation launches a nuke (you can't identify the nation of Nuclear SLBM).... who will you fire back at PRC, US, UK, Fra, TSP....?

As if anyone buys anything that munna says. India must not care about what US wants with their munna we need have to start defending our interests with zeal and then see whose line unkil chooses to toe.

Yes, today their credibility has taken a big hit, but not at that time. Not really during 2008. US has only grown frustrated in a deeper fashion post 26/11 as the US is facing the full brunt of the TSPA jihadis.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Jun 2012 02:16

paramu wrote:So please keep the Lahori Logic Prize with you.

Actually you deserve it for citing the Iraq example.

Some of the wars you think as wars are not actually wars. But just small battles. Some events are planned to be executed over a period of >30 years.

Yes, and only you can see the events at that granularity. People who live on earth are myopic.

They have been talking about leaving Afghanistan for a long, but never left more than 3 years after Obama came to power.

Read more. Actually they starting talking about it recently. A few years ago, they were talking about COIN and nation building. If you read David Sanger's new book you will see that they are quite serious (because they know they can't win).

You should learn to get your facts straight.

You don't seem to remember Suez canal war and peace returned after Egypt became the lacky of uncle.

It is not a good enough lackey. For example, there are tunnels which are used to smuggle weapons against Israel. Why didn't Mubarak close those tunnels? Control of Egypt could solve that problem. Given the policies of their new government, can we expect that Egypt will be captured by NATO *now*?

What about Strait of Hormuz? Is it not included in the "30 year plans"?

Saudi Arabia did not cooperate against jihadis for a long time. Why wasn't it occupied?

Did Venezuela not make the "30 year plan" list? You know they have great reserves of energy.

Are these places less strategic than J&K?

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 21 Jun 2012 02:16

paramu wrote:They have been talking about leaving Afghanistan for a long, but never left more than 3 years after Obama came to power.

This important observation is simple yet many people cannot make it.

The US doesn't exactly leave those places in enters. It still has bases in vietnam. It still has bases in korea. In japan. In Iraq. And it'll have bases in afghanistan too when it "leaves".

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 21 Jun 2012 02:17

KLNMurthy wrote:shyamd, It is no one's case that we should go off half-cocked into a war but it really grates to hear the "obedient school kid"-like refrain that at all costs, And under all imaginable circumstances, India should strive to avoid being labeled "aggressor." If we are supposed to be a mature nation, then the maturity includes awareness that there are ocassions when the only possible response to an intolerable enemy is a towering, all-consuming rage, striking terror into adversaries' heart, with full awareness of the costs and consequences and acceptance of the same.

Covert action - best option imo. War won't work in this case.

I am afraid any nation that consistently abjures the option of ferocity is only fooling itself by imagining that its choices are somehow "responsible." Constructing a false dichotomy with the strawman of warmongering won't do either. Every observer can see the reality of an elite that have hypnotized themselves to trot out the bromides of appeasement indiscriminately.

Ferocity is one of many options available - the best option must be picked that gets us what we want with minimal costs and sometimes you are faced with a list of bad options and you have to pick the one thats least bad. This is the reality of politics that leaders all over the world face (and common people don't understand as they dont usually have the full info at hand).

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 21 Jun 2012 02:19

the argument is ridiculous. sanctions on India b/c India crossed LoC.....the idea is so laughable it's not worth repeating. and then comparing India to Iraq and Saddam?!?! this is even more preposterous. it shows more of the mindset of people who think such things, than it does about reality.

seriously, if the argument for not crossing LoC has degenerated to such ridiculousness, the supporters of that standpoint are really loosing their touch. LoC is one of those edifices that is required for the Nehru regime to survive. if the bluff is called and LoC vaporizes into nothing, it's not just the idea of Pakistan that collapses, but also the idea of India as it was formulated by the Brit+Nehru regime. LoC is a lifeline for both. its disappearance is considered a life threat to both.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Jun 2012 02:22

It is the Gunga-din mentality. We must get the green signal from the UNSC before we lift our finger. How can we survive without the blessings of those TFTA masters who determine our destiny?

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 21 Jun 2012 02:25

Loc was retained after 65 and even after 71 wars. India could have easily crossed LOC in 71 after Pakistan's surrender. Why didn't India do it. BTW, IG was not Nehru.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jun 2012 02:38

Before 1971 it was called CFL or cease fire line set up in 1948 by UN. Mrs G said UN presence was redundant as the Shimla pact was the operative one for the LOC and sent the UNIMOGIP (UN Military Observer Group-India Pakistan) packing. TSP however retained them on their side.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 21 Jun 2012 02:46

The question is, why didn't powerful macho India cross LoC and take over PoK when it has already defeated Pakistan. Since we were powerful, already defeated Pak, we didn't have to listen to anyone. As some people in thread claim, UN/uncle etc. didn't matter.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Jun 2012 02:47

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missi ... acts.shtml

Wow, didnt realize that UN even today spends $21 million on this.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Jun 2012 03:10

shyamd wrote: India - 25,000 ANA,ANP, intel officers will be in India getting trained all over the country. We are escalating in Afghanistan. We were also preparing for deployment in Afghanistan, but unfortunately at the time plans fell through due to Iran, Russia and US. India today is escalating the cold war. The key for us is to get what we want without a bullet fired and at minimal cost to us. That is what we are doing now.
We are escalating in Afghanistan so that jihadi's stay up north and J&K remains safe.

We are doing nothing of the sort. You are undermining India's legitimate rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan with this argument and giving credence to pakistan's wild claims of 100000000 Indian consulates in Afghanistan stirring up trouble.

After running out of chankian explanations for GOI's ridiculous stance on Pakistan, people are now peddling harebrained conspiracy theories about global plots against India as a reason why India should keep smoking the peace pipe against Pakistan and not show even an iota of aggression. Or we will be labeled "aggressors" onlee, OMG.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jun 2012 03:14

ShyamD, Also suggest not using the word escalation. Its not like India is wanting to make Afghanistan a proxy battleified. its the Tps that see it as such.

India is being peaceful onlee. Some one has to train the ANA. US did not or could not.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 21 Jun 2012 03:42

India has a legitimate interest in the future of Afghanistan, that is true. But we also don't want Taliban back and we know who control the Taliban. Hence whether we like it or not we are at war with them in Afghanistan. The 25000 troops that will be trained across the 25 regimental centres will help keep J&K safer.

But of course, At the same time I understand the need to make this as a moral case and highlight the fact that we are peaceful onlee but I think on BR we should remind people of what our strategy is in Afghanistan so people realise. But at the same time I am happy to not discuss it and let people be in the dark

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 21 Jun 2012 04:06

paramu wrote:When the sanctions come from UN in the form of trade/financial sanctions for not de-nuking and/or allowing UN peace keeping force in the flash point, the sanctions will have to be obeyed by all countries. We have to make sure that such scenario doesn't happen and Vajpayee did a good job at that.

If Pakistan that is about to lose agrees to UN peace forces in Kashmir, India will look like the country who didn't want peace. The UN sactions will look appropriate in the eyes of countries who don't care about Kashmir.

Can they send UN forces if India doesn't agree? How will anyone do that?

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 21 Jun 2012 04:39

That is when UN sanctions come into picture. Best thing is to avoid such a scenario.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 21 Jun 2012 06:11

paramu wrote:The question is, why didn't powerful macho India cross LoC and take over PoK when it has already defeated Pakistan. Since we were powerful, already defeated Pak, we didn't have to listen to anyone. As some people in thread claim, UN/uncle etc. didn't matter.

I actually have to turn off several million neurons in my brain to understand this logic. If you see my post, I was talking about LoC in its entire history. not just Kargil, or any specific incident. the entire edifice of LoC, or CFL as it was called before, is an excrement of the Brit variety, and both Pak and Dynasty's India need this edifice to survive in perpetuity. if LoC dissolves, both Pak and Dynasty are gone. finished. Dynasty will not survive the aftermath. this is why even the mighty, fearless, and Durga-like IG made sure that TSPA would survive. there were many tricks she could have pulled to obliterate the 90,000 who surrendered. this would have ended Pak a long time ago. but she didn't. she made sure that TSPA would survive, so that Indians wouldn't get any grand ideas about returning to the age-old boundaries of Bharat. Nehru cast the die when he didn't push back the TSPA out of Kashmir. since then, every dynastic has been committed to preserving this status-quo.

as long as dynasty is relevant in India, they will do their utmost for status-quo.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 21 Jun 2012 06:19

UN forces in Kashmir? Seriously? Just because Pranabda said something to gloss over the post-26/11 inaction, doesn't make it true. Especially when all evidence points the other way.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 21 Jun 2012 06:58

devesh wrote:as long as dynasty is relevant in India, they will do their utmost for status-quo.

Good. Now you can blame why Vajpayee did so also to dynasty.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2012 14:38

paramu wrote:
devesh wrote:as long as dynasty is relevant in India, they will do their utmost for status-quo.
Good. Now you can blame why Vajpayee did so also to dynasty.

Did ABV lead India to a win with 91,000 PoW.

Why are you making these hopelessly invalid and misplaced comparisons?

In any case I do not agree with Devesh that our leverage over 91,000 PoWs would have allowed sufficient leverage with Pakistan to solve the LoC question -- but on very different grounds, that is a issue of

1) Sufficient military + other strength to feed 91,000 freeloaders (India of 71 was not India of today, letting them die off would be unthinkable for most then, our understanding of Pakroaches was/is still evolving)

2) West Pakistan was not East Pakistan -- an unqualified military success would be far more difficult to come in the west, and Pakis would have resisted, hard.

We won, but we were not in the position to push further, our powers had limits (actually the real mistake of 71 was not so much PoK but more letting go of BD out of our orbit post 71)

Nothing to do with "bhago bhago UN aa raha hai" (run run UN is coming) type of payajama shivering.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 21 Jun 2012 15:11

shyamd wrote:Mainly SpecOps thats the official announcement - but enough to deter TSP. TSPA will go for the coup and they have shown their hand already and are drilling. Coup intervention force is needed - but thats another topic for another day.

The whole pull out thing was playing out before 26/11 and the gap of war would have given US enough time to pull out - perhaps leave behind their gear for their allies. We know today no matter how many US soldiers that die, TSP is still an ally.

Never take what unkil says at its face value for we all know the only country unkil cares about is itself so all these ally,friend,linchpin is maya only. Unkil carries out drone strikes, counter terror ops as and when it wishes without the support of munna so there is the story of your "ally". Afghanistan falling again into the hands of pukis is out of question now unkil isn't going anywhere, India has become deeply involved as well and the international fora stands strongly behind Afghanistan, pukis can try all their dirty tactics taliban isn't going to rule afghanistan again.

shyamd wrote:India - 25,000 ANA,ANP, intel officers will be in India getting trained all over the country. We are escalating in Afghanistan. We were also preparing for deployment in Afghanistan, but unfortunately at the time plans fell through due to Iran, Russia and US. India today is escalating the cold war. The key for us is to get what we want without a bullet fired and at minimal cost to us. That is what we are doing now.
We are escalating in Afghanistan so that jihadi's stay up north and J&K remains safe.

We have involved in Afghanistan so that pukis don't get any "strategic depth" they love to talk about. India is turning that thought into dust piece by piece, it's not that we want to turn that country into a battlefield. What we are doing will help that country to stand up on it's feet and keep pukis in check.

shyamd wrote:Yes, but what would you hit and what effect would it have? Would it destroy terrorism? No - covert option of assassinating those involved would have been the best and in fact the easiest to achieve.

It would have destroyed not only terrorist camps but also shown our will to fight against terrorism come what may and that would have had a huge psychological effect on our enemy. Covert ops is a 24*7 thing we need to do but sometimes aggression needs to be shown to protect India.

shyamd wrote:What would you have done given the situation? Hit a few TSPA command centres? GHQ? Lead to a war on LoC.... then maybe we captured a few mountains - they launch a few tactical nukes, we fire back in kind.... a few thousand dead.... promise of dynamic economy down the drain.... while we exchange nukes, a nuclear sub of a nation launches a nuke (you can't identify the nation of Nuclear SLBM).... who will you fire back at PRC, US, UK, Fra, TSP....?

I will reply to the bold part as the rest of your post is unnecessary dhoti shivering based on plain imagination. If I had the power to do things targeted assassinations would have started that very day when pukis started to use terrorism as their state policy, I wouldn't have waited for 26/11 or any other numerous terrorist attacks that have taken place, and what "tactical nukes" they have ??? And are you sure India wouldn't pre-empt an imminent nuclear strike by Pakistan ??? Any kind of nuclear attack by pakistan will mean obliteration of that country and they know this very well so even after all the hot air passed by them about nuclear strike they won't risk their very existence.

Economy is what you make of it, even without going into any kind of war we have seen that our "leaders" are completely capable of taking it down the drain so I don't accept this theory of economy going down and India becoming poor forever after because we went into war with pukistan. It will definitely go down in the event of a war but wouldn't mean the death knell for India and I'am sure about this.

shyamd wrote:Yes, today their credibility has taken a big hit, but not at that time. Not really during 2008. US has only grown frustrated in a deeper fashion post 26/11 as the US is facing the full brunt of the TSPA jihadis.

They were never capable of winning a war with us, their capability has always been oversold. They always start a war and then run back to their masters so save their asses, that is all to their "capability". And I say again if we keep up with this line of thinking pakistan will always remain what it is, we have to bite the bullet and start taking military actions both overt and covert.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 21 Jun 2012 23:27

Sagar G wrote: Never take what unkil says at its face value for we all know the only country unkil cares about is itself so all these ally,friend,linchpin is maya only. Unkil carries out drone strikes, counter terror ops as and when it wishes without the support of munna so there is the story of your "ally". Afghanistan falling again into the hands of pukis is out of question now unkil isn't going anywhere, India has become deeply involved as well and the international fora stands strongly behind Afghanistan, pukis can try all their dirty tactics taliban isn't going to rule afghanistan again.

You miss the point - There was a chorus of "lets pull out" during that period. Yes SpecOps and drone strikes will stay - but they are by no means going to continue the current mission which are policing vast areas.

As for whether TSP are not going to take over - they will try and you will see soon if just SpecOps/drones can prevent a coup from taking place. Anyhow they are still unsure how many will stay, so lets wait for that before we can decide whether TSP can do it or not. Fighting in AfPak for TSP is about their survival - they are going to fight there as they can't afford to have an inimical regime in place when their backdoor is largely undefended.

We have involved in Afghanistan so that pukis don't get any "strategic depth" they love to talk about. India is turning that thought into dust piece by piece, it's not that we want to turn that country into a battlefield. What we are doing will help that country to stand up on it's feet and keep pukis in check.

Yes there is a moral issue... Yes we wish to have good relations with TSP and Afghanistan. But reality is, we need to keep the jihadi's fighting in the north and not shooting at our troops in J&K, our goal is to take the war there and keep us safer - unless you wish for AfPak to become safe and Jihadi's to head south to J&K? We have to be realistic and defend our interests.

I will reply to the bold part as the rest of your post is unnecessary dhoti shivering based on plain imagination. If I had the power to do things targeted assassinations would have started that very day when pukis started to use terrorism as their state policy, I wouldn't have waited for 26/11 or any other numerous terrorist attacks that have taken place, and what "tactical nukes" they have ??? And are you sure India wouldn't pre-empt an imminent nuclear strike by Pakistan ??? Any kind of nuclear attack by pakistan will mean obliteration of that country and they know this very well so even after all the hot air passed by them about nuclear strike they won't risk their very existence.

Unnecessary dhoti shivering for you but a reality that our military planners have to face and just to remind you it was Washington that approved the plan for TSP to mate their weapons with the expectation that India would cross LoC in Kargil and they would be used. Even today they drill using tactical nukes (read the definition of tactical nukes, because you are mistaking it for strategic nukes weapons).

easy for you to say it will never happen, but truth is how will you identify the nation that launches a nuclear strike from a sub? You can't... For our enemies, they would have removed a competitor. Are you happy to put a billion peoples lives at stake?

Economy is what you make of it, even without going into any kind of war we have seen that our "leaders" are completely capable of taking it down the drain so I don't accept this theory of economy going down and India becoming poor forever after because we went into war with pukistan. It will definitely go down in the event of a war but wouldn't mean the death knell for India and I'am sure about this.

6.5% during a global recession = economy down the drain?

Boss, a war involves a lot of money and a lot of resources diverted away from spending in the economy toward war/purchases. Then you can keep saying but we had a war as to why poverty rates are still high and be a paki and keep blaming pakistan for our problems. Yes then you can migrate to US/US/West and say yeah that India - no opportunities there you knoww.....

They were never capable of winning a war with us, their capability has always been oversold. They always start a war and then run back to their masters so save their asses, that is all to their "capability". And I say again if we keep up with this line of thinking pakistan will always remain what it is, we have to bite the bullet and start taking military actions both overt and covert.

Aside from the rhetoric. If only we were dealing with a ragtag militia it would be easy to say - we need to take overt action. The worlds global power today is sitting in Afghanistan and can't defeat the taliban! Did you know that from Alay to Osh today is under taliban control to the point that NATO rear logistical base is under threat?
Overt war with TSP is not the answer. Covert is one option or raise the costs for every operation or win in Afghanistan and have a force of around 200k sitting on the other side of the Durand staring at the otherside and a rear base for operations against TSP. TSP will be tied and will not want war. Their options will be to reach peace with Afghan govt and/or reduce terror as a strategy - they will have to divert a lot of troops to the north and basically their defence will be weak and will have to make peace with us..

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 23 Jun 2012 03:13

shyamd wrote:You miss the point - There was a chorus of "lets pull out" during that period. Yes SpecOps and drone strikes will stay - but they are by no means going to continue the current mission which are policing vast areas.

As for whether TSP are not going to take over - they will try and you will see soon if just SpecOps/drones can prevent a coup from taking place. Anyhow they are still unsure how many will stay, so lets wait for that before we can decide whether TSP can do it or not. Fighting in AfPak for TSP is about their survival - they are going to fight there as they can't afford to have an inimical regime in place when their backdoor is largely undefended.

Their is no need for them to police the roads like before since Afghani security forces are taking up that responsibility and even after all the chorus and promises made by american leaders they have said that they will remain in Afghanistan till 2024, which I think has been done to sooth the feeling of the public back at home, unkil knows that staying in Afghanistan has more benefits that leaving. US will want a pro unkil government in afghan which effectively overrides any TSP dream of getting any "strategic depth", TSP can fight as much as it wants it will end up losing eventually.

shyamd wrote:Yes there is a moral issue... Yes we wish to have good relations with TSP and Afghanistan. But reality is, we need to keep the jihadi's fighting in the north and not shooting at our troops in J&K, our goal is to take the war there and keep us safer - unless you wish for AfPak to become safe and Jihadi's to head south to J&K? We have to be realistic and defend our interests.

No, our goal is to eliminate jihadi safe havens and only then we can be assured of our safety. Your idea of safety is creating a huge fence and hoping that the enemy will never be able to cross it come how much it keeps attacking the fence because you think it's undestroyable. No matter how much you wish that fence will be broken one day and you will face a barrage of hostility for which you never prepared cause you always thought that the fence will stay their forever. "Taking our war their" is peculiar cheap western mentality, let them die why shall we care. This brand of thinking has earned west more enemies than friends, I don't want that for India. I want India to fight it's own wars, not to take that on a world trip. So till the entire jihadi setup in TSP is not broken or made so weak that they are unable to get back on their feet taking war here or their will only provide temporary solution. I'am sure we are already working on it but more aggression is required.

shyamd wrote:Unnecessary dhoti shivering for you but a reality that our military planners have to face and just to remind you it was Washington that approved the plan for TSP to mate their weapons with the expectation that India would cross LoC in Kargil and they would be used. Even today they drill using tactical nukes (read the definition of tactical nukes, because you are mistaking it for strategic nukes weapons).

easy for you to say it will never happen, but truth is how will you identify the nation that launches a nuclear strike from a sub? You can't... For our enemies, they would have removed a competitor. Are you happy to put a billion peoples lives at stake?

Don't know where you came to know from that Washington approved TSP nuking India AFAIK it was Washington which warned them against carrying out any such thing and India knew about TSPs plans well before. My questions still stands, what tactical nuclear weapons has pukistan got ???

Pardon me for refusing to dhoti shiver but your theories are so out of logic that I don't have to punch hole in them, in your zeal to push your point down my throat you have done that yourself. You say that any other nuclear states may take advantage of a supposed nuclear showdown between India and puke and hence nuke us to oblivion, you also say that it's a "reality" that our military planners face. So assuming for a sec. that you are right, since our military planners are already in know of this "reality" then they must have also taken steps to ensure that if someone tries this kind of misadventure we have a system in place to track and punish that perpetrator and to add to it must have also made sure that this capability of ours is known to them so that they are effectively deterred to try something like that. And I don't think even Khan has nukes to obliterate 1 billion people in one go, so if anyone tries to do such an misadventure then we will come to know about it sooner than later.
One of the assumptions that you made while coming up with this theory is that every other nuclear state == puke rouge nuclear state. I don't think I have to explain further why your theory is outlandish, if you still don't get it be happy with your theory I won't give it any more audience than I have.

shyamd wrote:6.5% during a global recession = economy down the drain?

Boss, a war involves a lot of money and a lot of resources diverted away from spending in the economy toward war/purchases. Then you can keep saying but we had a war as to why poverty rates are still high and be a paki and keep blaming pakistan for our problems. Yes then you can migrate to US/US/West and say yeah that India - no opportunities there you knoww.....

Not so long ago we were doing 8-9% when the global economy was down. I remember this very GOI chest beating about how India has stood against the tide, we will continue on this growth path, no one can stop us, blah blah blah..... now the GDP has gone down to 6% and their are reports that it may go down further to 5%. The GOI now comes out with it's tail neatly tucked between it's legs and blaming the global meltdown. I admit I'am no economist to comment about the situation but when this SDRE sees economists/corporates on news channels pillorying government for bad economic policies then my SDRE brain automatically translates that into bad economic conditions. Off course when the west is struggling to just register a positive GDP growth then our 6% looks supah dupah growth but seeing the ground condition of what that 6% means then it doesn't remain such hunky dory. IIRC the premise of UPA 1/2 was based upon MMS turning our economy into nothing less than gold (atleast the promises made seemed to suggest that) but seeing the condition the government is I will be very thankful to our stars if we are left with an economy till the term of this government is over.

shyamd wrote:Aside from the rhetoric. If only we were dealing with a ragtag militia it would be easy to say - we need to take overt action. The worlds global power today is sitting in Afghanistan and can't defeat the taliban! Did you know that from Alay to Osh today is under taliban control to the point that NATO rear logistical base is under threat?
Overt war with TSP is not the answer. Covert is one option or raise the costs for every operation or win in Afghanistan and have a force of around 200k sitting on the other side of the Durand staring at the otherside and a rear base for operations against TSP. TSP will be tied and will not want war. Their options will be to reach peace with Afghan govt and/or reduce terror as a strategy - they will have to divert a lot of troops to the north and basically their defence will be weak and will have to make peace with us..

For you overt action might mean going to war each and every day but I see it in a very different way. For me it means to take direct action when it's necessary. Very nice to see that you mentioned world powers, see one of that world power took action against OBL which I think was overt. India should have taken such overt action post 26/11, alas we didn't and no amount of chankian theories will be able to defend such inaction.
I don't have any problem with your theory of using Afghanistan to bring down TSP on it's knees so that the jihadi infrastructure falls apart, but when you go on the line of "take our war their" so that Afghanistan becomes a battleground for the sake of India then I won't be able to support you. I don't concur with such mentality. I strongly believe India needs to fight it's own wars unlike throwing our burden on others shoulder like west does.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Jun 2012 04:46

Sagar G wrote: Their is no need for them to police the roads like before since Afghani security forces are taking up that responsibility and even after all the chorus and promises made by american leaders they have said that they will remain in Afghanistan till 2024, which I think has been done to sooth the feeling of the public back at home, unkil knows that staying in Afghanistan has more benefits that leaving. US will want a pro unkil government in afghan which effectively overrides any TSP dream of getting any "strategic depth", TSP can fight as much as it wants it will end up losing eventually.

Okay - are the Afghan defence forces ready today? No, only the ANSF are doing a decent job. US has been there for a while - its only because of the number of deaths which has changed public opinion back home as well as the economic situation, they are accelerating their withdrawal. Which means that US is not going to deploy siginifcant forces. Both of us can't answer as to whether US forces will have the capability to defend afghanistan as they haven't announced what exactly the plans are yet.

No, our goal is to eliminate jihadi safe havens and only then we can be assured of our safety. Your idea of safety is creating a huge fence and hoping that the enemy will never be able to cross it come how much it keeps attacking the fence because you think it's undestroyable. No matter how much you wish that fence will be broken one day and you will face a barrage of hostility for which you never prepared cause you always thought that the fence will stay their forever.

Elimination of safe havens is one aspect, but the major aspect is to win in afghanistan and let TSP cease its terror activities at the same time keep our borders free. its hard for you to accept and I understand your moral reasons however, there are no such things as morals in international politics - this is the reality of it.

"Taking our war their" is peculiar cheap western mentality, let them die why shall we care. This brand of thinking has earned west more enemies than friends, I don't want that for India. I want India to fight it's own wars, not to take that on a world trip. So till the entire jihadi setup in TSP is not broken or made so weak that they are unable to get back on their feet taking war here or their will only provide temporary solution. I'am sure we are already working on it but more aggression is required.

Indeed its a temprorary solution BUT what will happen if Afghanistan has a powerful army that is sitting on the undefended TSP border? TSP have only one choice left - cease terror and they will have to build all the infrastructure up and make it well protected and post some serious forces. They wouldn't be able to afford a war with 2 inimical nations on both sides.

shyamd wrote:Unnecessary dhoti shivering for you but a reality that our military planners have to face and just to remind you it was Washington that approved the plan for TSP to mate their weapons with the expectation that India would cross LoC in Kargil and they would be used. Even today they drill using tactical nukes (read the definition of tactical nukes, because you are mistaking it for strategic nukes weapons).

easy for you to say it will never happen, but truth is how will you identify the nation that launches a nuclear strike from a sub? You can't... For our enemies, they would have removed a competitor. Are you happy to put a billion peoples lives at stake?

Don't know where you came to know from that Washington approved TSP nuking India AFAIK it was Washington which warned them against carrying out any such thing and India knew about TSPs plans well before. My questions still stands, what tactical nuclear weapons has pukistan got ???

Its well known here on BR and many members have spoken about it. As for your 2nd question on tactical weapons - have you not been following the news lately and why PM has been meeting NCA?

Pardon me for refusing to dhoti shiver but your theories are so out of logic that I don't have to punch hole in them, in your zeal to push your point down my throat you have done that yourself. You say that any other nuclear states may take advantage of a supposed nuclear showdown between India and puke and hence nuke us to oblivion, you also say that it's a "reality" that our military planners face. So assuming for a sec. that you are right, since our military planners are already in know of this "reality" then they must have also taken steps to ensure that if someone tries this kind of misadventure we have a system in place to track and punish that perpetrator and to add to it must have also made sure that this capability of ours is known to them so that they are effectively deterred to try something like that. And I don't think even Khan has nukes to obliterate 1 billion people in one go, so if anyone tries to do such an misadventure then we will come to know about it sooner than later.

Hahaha... How? No nation possesses the capability yet to identify missiles launched from submarines, and you are talking about me making an illogical argument.... Even land based detection of land launched BMs is pretty tough and needs variety of infrastructure - constellation of satellites and radars.

Not so long ago we were doing 8-9% when the global economy was down. I remember this very GOI chest beating about how India has stood against the tide, we will continue on this growth path, no one can stop us, blah blah blah..... now the GDP has gone down to 6% and their are reports that it may go down further to 5%. The GOI now comes out with it's tail neatly tucked between it's legs and blaming the global meltdown. I admit I'am no economist to comment about the situation but when this SDRE sees economists/corporates on news channels pillorying government for bad economic policies then my SDRE brain automatically translates that into bad economic conditions. Off course when the west is struggling to just register a positive GDP growth then our 6% looks supah dupah growth but seeing the ground condition of what that 6% means then it doesn't remain such hunky dory. IIRC the premise of UPA 1/2 was based upon MMS turning our economy into nothing less than gold (atleast the promises made seemed to suggest that) but seeing the condition the government is I will be very thankful to our stars if we are left with an economy till the term of this government is over.

It is true that their economic policies have been bad but the situation is not dire or as dire as you are making it out to be. 6% in this situation is still decent - back in the day 6% was considered good! Keep in mind that we are growing at a lot higher base as well.

For you overt action might mean going to war each and every day but I see it in a very different way. For me it means to take direct action when it's necessary. Very nice to see that you mentioned world powers, see one of that world power took action against OBL which I think was overt. India should have taken such overt action post 26/11, alas we didn't and no amount of chankian theories will be able to defend such inaction.

Lol... and TSP said they will go to war with us and were ready for the overt action or OBL type assassination of those involved. They were looking for an excuse. Lets face it, US and TSP are a different story altogether.

I don't have any problem with your theory of using Afghanistan to bring down TSP on it's knees so that the jihadi infrastructure falls apart, but when you go on the line of "take our war their" so that Afghanistan becomes a battleground for the sake of India then I won't be able to support you. I don't concur with such mentality. I strongly believe India needs to fight it's own wars unlike throwing our burden on others shoulder like west does.

No such thing as morality in international politics I'm afraid but we have a moral right to develop Afghanistan and help their people. Its an uncomfortable truth but we want to deliver a defeat to TSP there and help the Afghan people and their aspirations. By helping the Afghan people we are achieving our goals of keeping the jihadi's engaged in the north and keeping J&K safe.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 23 Jun 2012 06:04

Sanku wrote:Nothing to do with "bhago bhago UN aa raha hai" (run run UN is coming) type of payajama shivering.

It is not that you have to shiver when you hear the name UN. What you need to understand is that UN is a just a front organization for a group of powerful countries, in which India is not a part, that is used to legitimize their actions as a global opinion. That group is the one who decides what UN should do and not India/Pak/BD who send soldiers for peace keeping. Hubris and underestimation of one's enemy has caused downfall of many in history. Fortunately, Indian leaders have made sure that the group did not get enough ammunition in their hand to legitimize their agenda. It is okay to shiver in dhoti, as long it doesn't lose anything, than to show the shlong and get that chopped away.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 23 Jun 2012 11:50

Cross post from TSP

Jhujar wrote:
US considers launching joint US-Afghan raids in Pakistan
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... n-pakistan

US, Pakistan heading towards collision
http://dawn.com/2012/06/23/us-pakistan- ... collision/

Opinion piece on the same lines by Michael Kugelman The darkest days of the US-Pakistan relationship | Yawn

Can the Indian FM do a press conference touching upon these key points (obviously taken from State Department's 65 years of "lecturing India" book)

1. We are closely monitoring the situation and we urge both sides to use restraint.

2. We expect both US and Pakistan to behave as responsible nuclear powers, any escalation of tensions would destabilize the larger Af-Pak region (US South Asian experts will recognize this language).

3. We urge Pakistan to crackdown on safe heavens but we must also recognize that US has not done enough to allay Pakistan's concerns which fuel its support to such groups, about a stable, independent and peaceful Afghanistan - antithesis of a Jihadi, client state of Pakistan (again US cashmere analysts should recognize this language).

4. We hope that neither side would attempt something that would deteriorate the situation further and we urge the Government of the US to work with "independent" Judicial system of Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of these weekly deadly attacks on US soldiers to justice (Again US experts who commented on Mumbai should be comfortable with this language.).

---End of speech's draft---

By the way, the Pakis are killing US soldiers every week by conducting brazen Special Forces attacks in the heart of Kabul and the best US has been able to do are these leaks, EVEN in an election year. So much for being the sole-superpower-of-the-world! Makes me understand more why India hasn't invaded Jihadistan after all these years, especially after Mumbai.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Jun 2012 17:13

paramu wrote:
Sanku wrote:Nothing to do with "bhago bhago UN aa raha hai" (run run UN is coming) type of payajama shivering.
It is okay to shiver in dhoti, as long it doesn't lose anything, than to show the shlong and get that chopped away.

Cowardice by another name is still cowardice.

I am glad that you had the honesty to call out the real reason for your statement.

I unfortunately do not agree that cowardice lets you keep your assets, those that payajama shiver loose their payajamas soon enough.

Appeasement has never made problems go away.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 23 Jun 2012 21:48

^Agree with you, Sanku

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 23 Jun 2012 22:05

consider this scenario

Real time.
{Syria shoots down Turkish Air force Jet in a tense situation with in the region because of Khan, Ivan, Iran, KSA meddling in a stable country for geo political reasons}

Simulation:

Panda donates advanced UAVs to TSP, Indian buys from Israel, things continue to be pseudo normal, as the water flows down the Ganges, while the Indus river shrinks to a trickle. Things are getting hot in TSP, Indians are busy laughing, arguing and trading accusations at scam a day India Today exposures.

Suddenly out of the blue couple of UUAVs (unidentified UAs) fire 4 missiles on J&K Assembly environs, killing few civilians of course no VIP or VVIPs are killed, because they hardly come to Vidhan sabha. A simultaneous attack on Surat destroying a small scale cottage industry loom for manufacture of textiles.

Now NSA is hastily assembled to discuss the situation with the attendant Chai Biscoot etc. A consensus emerges that Indian leadership should give a fitting reply to the perpetrators. Most agree that it is TSP that was behind the attacks as only they have a motive to do so. Thy also get quick intelligence report that a ship (Dhow) based UUAV was launched form close to the Gujarat coast.
NSA members tempers and blood pressure runs high. Most of the NSA members are diabetic, hypertension afflicted octogenarians (of course the salt biscoots and spicy samosas added to the hyper activity tension in the room) who were hand picked by ruling party for loyalty. These members after all toiled hard during their younger years in central government service with devotion to the masters in power.

All of them agreed to retaliatory attack on TSP except one who shouted down others saying, doing so would be open invitation to UN controlled by Khan & co to send troops. There is hushed silence, and then some one meekly says so what do we do? The smart one says nothing , there is hushed silence and then after the pause, the smart one continues lets hand over a strong protest to TSP and send a fax of all the old cases pending reply for TSP. Everybody agrees that this is the least cost option and the best. But one NSA member says what about opposition parties taking to streets? WE can always fire on them with out UN intervention and then some one will be killed and bandhs will be called and the attention is now on opposition causing pain to aam admi. After two weeks we inite the opposition to joint investigation into police firing and then fire some police constables for firing directly into the crowd as ordered.

Is the above scenario any thing to worry at all

Forgive me if this is incorrect or offensive I will remove the post.
Thanks

sum · Post by **sum** » 23 Jun 2012 22:22

All of them agreed to retaliatory attack on TSP except one who shouted down others saying, doing so would be open invitation to UN controlled by Khan & co to send troops. There is hushed silence, and then some one meekly says so what do we do? The smart one says nothing , there is hushed silence and then after the pause, the smart one continues lets hand over a strong protest to TSP and send a fax of all the old cases pending reply for TSP. Everybody agrees that this is the least cost option and the best. But one NSA member says what about opposition parties taking to streets?

Sounds suspiciously similar to what took place after a certain incident happened in Nov 2008 and which will repeat every time such a incident happens with only a few forums finding lots of Chankian-ness in such moves!!