Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 08 Feb 2010 19:00

^^ USSR was not militarily defeated in Afghanistan. If at all they had better and more complete control of Afghanistan, than the US/ NATO has today. They left for almost the same reason the left Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Tajikstan and the Baltic republics. Economic collapse. This is a myth that the CIA and Paki's militarily defeated the Soviets.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 08 Feb 2010 19:02

CRamS wrote:The good this, the bad that, is getting so confusing; Maacho Stanely boy & co who are preparing for a major bash in Helmad. This will be against the 'bad Taliban' I assume? What is the relationship between those bad Talibunnies and TSP? Is TSP willingly sacrifcing them, or they have no choice but to go along?

To add to SSridhar's pointers: For TSP "bad jihadis" are ones that are least valuable to it. Given a choice TSPA/ISI will not want to sacrifice even the lowest rung of their assets but they are basically forced to give up something for US baksheesh.

This is why they first started going after Pakistani Pashtun jihadis who used to be deniable cannon fodder when the likes of Mullah Omar were running Afghanistan. In 2004, Musharraf started with fake operations in the FATA but was forced to kill some people to keep the show going and keep the funds flowing.

But the problem is that even stray dogs have survival instincts and the moment the likes of Baitullah Mehsud figured out that they are used as pawns, they started tapping their fellow "Talibs" in Punjab (JeM, LeJ etc.) and attacking TSPA interests as a means of raising the cost for TSPA's support to US as well as a deterrent mechanism.

Soon, we started seeing peace treaties and other means whereby ISI tried to mollify its esrtwhile assets while also trying to please the Americans. When the pressure went beyond tolerance for TSPA, we saw 26/11. However India's non-response forced TSPA to do something and they cooked up the artificial Swat crisis in the hopes that the pressure would be releived and they would be able to avoid acting in the Waziristans, where some of the core assets were hidden. But Swat led to South Waziristan and with it came the bombing spree in retalitaion by the scorned assets.

Now Unkil is forcing TSPA to act against the holiest of holy assets in North Waziristan, i.e. the Haqqanis. TSPA can hem and haw for a few months but Unkil is not going to relent because Haqqanis cause more casualties to NATO forces than any other Taliban faction and without their base in TSP destroyed, Unkil's surge would be a damp squib. We will surely see drone attacks in N.Waziristan multiply in scale and numbers and also possibly see some covert US ground action there if TSPA plays coy.

Another reason for Unkil's focus on Haqqani is that they are the ones who are closest to Al Qaeda. Where was Osama set up before 9/11? He did not choose bases in Kandahar but in Khost, Tora Bora, Paktia and Paktika - all of which are Haqqani territory. This is the conundrum for TSP.

1. Their most effective asset in Afghanistan is not Mullah Omar, but the Haqqanis.

2. But the Haqqanis are the one group who are closest to Al Qaeda

3. TSPA/ISI has to deliver the Haqqanis without Al Qaeda

It is like delivering a legendary male ***** star while promising to cut off his you know what. It will not happen.

TSPA will either have to cut Haqqani loose and lose influence over Eastern Afghanistan or they will have to face the wrath of Americans who will not agree to any Taliban "moderates" if Haqqanis are not eliminated. Meanwhile, the more drone attacks the Haqqanis face, they will unleash hell on TSPA to raise the cost of its support to Americans.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 08 Feb 2010 19:07

USSR was not fighting Mujahideen, they were fighting USA and KSA and the entire west. If what they went through is not defeat then I am Napoleon.

Re. PRC replacing Unkil in that region, they have to contend with low degree of respect for each other at people level. Actually TSP-PRC relationship is entirely at state to state level, most godless Chinese are disgusted by these bearded fanatics.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 08 Feb 2010 19:16

Problem for TSP is they cannot tell the 'bad jehadis' to grin and bear it - after all Unkil is not cutting rum rations but asking them to meet their 72s. Even if leadership could be persuaded with safety and $$$, the rank and file are not going to like it one bit. The more TSPA is seen as even not aiding the jehadis, let alone aiding unkil, the more these rank and file would holler and target TSP itself. This is what can explain the current wave of vacuums.

TSPs only hope was and perhaps still IS, is that Unkil can be persuaded to leave ALL jehadis alone in exchange of abandoning the goal of bringing purity to the West and f..k India at the same time. But the genie is out of the bottle and not willing to go back inside..just some fake attacks like the recent airline scare is enough...one more 'incident' will seal TSP's fate forever against that prospect.

sunnyP · Post by **sunnyP** » 08 Feb 2010 19:18

Ex-Pakistani minister shot, wounded - aide
A former Pakistani government minister was shot and wounded on Monday as he campaigned for a by-election in the city of Rawalpindi, an aide to the politician said.
Monday, 08 February 2010 15:46

A former Pakistani government minister was shot and wounded on Monday as he campaigned for a by-election in the city of Rawalpindi, an aide to the politician said.

The identity and motive of the gunman, who opened fire at Sheikh Rashid Ahmed's election office, was not clear.

Reuters

http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=53804

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 08 Feb 2010 19:26

as they say "amrika ki dosti and dushmani dono barbadi hai " !! pukes should remember this.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 08 Feb 2010 19:28

anirban_aim-> Evidence in this case can be best circumstantial, nobody is going to want to openly declare this, We are not going to get assets people have in binami accounts, swiss banks etc.. So if we are looking for proof in a court of law, the answer is big no. But if one looks at the entities NDTV has a tie up with. Like if I am right one of the Ruport Murdoch companies has bought a stake in NDTV Good times and the other NDTV channel which showed Rakhi Sawant Ka Syamvur etc.. the trail is there. Further, see the family ties, Think tanks etc which the Media Baron's are part off and you will see the links.

The only question is why is there soo much money and effort spent on it, when India is reltively poor country and is nowehere near a CHina or Russia in terms of Global power

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 08 Feb 2010 19:31

USSR was not fighting Mujahideen, they were fighting USA and KSA and the entire west. If what they went through is not defeat then I am Napoleon.

Yes they were fighting. But they left Afghanistan more because it was an economic quagmire. Fact is they installed a Pro Soviet Govt under Najibullah and left. It still took pro Jihadi forces 6 years post that (Soviets leaving) to control Afghanistan. Moreover they left the Ukraine, CA Republics for the same reason. So certainly by no means it was a purely military defeat for the USSR.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 08 Feb 2010 19:41

harbans wrote:It still took pro Jihadi forces 6 years post that (Soviets leaving) to control Afghanistan.

yes you are right on that.. was it 3 or 6 yrs? Anyway stand corrected..

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 08 Feb 2010 20:14

"India, which talked about breaking their relationship with us, which talked about turning their back on us, two days ago has approached us and said that we want to sit and talk to you, we want to resume our relationship with you. Pakistan did not kneel. Pakistan held its ground. And I will also say this, God willing, we will talk to them and present our case because our case is strong, it is not weak. Whether it be Kashmir or water or any other issue," said Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

Sure, after practically begging everyday for a whole year "allah ke naam per ek talk de de baba..."

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 08 Feb 2010 20:20

harbans wrote:USSR was not fighting Mujahideen, they were fighting USA and KSA and the entire west. If what they went through is not defeat then I am Napoleon.

Yes they were fighting. But they left Afghanistan more because it was an economic quagmire. Fact is they installed a Pro Soviet Govt under Najibullah and left. It still took pro Jihadi forces 6 years post that (Soviets leaving) to control Afghanistan. Moreover they left the Ukraine, CA Republics for the same reason. So certainly by no means it was a purely military defeat for the USSR.

3 years. The Soviets left by May 89', Najibullah govt. fell to Mujahids in March 1992.

It happened because after dissolution of USSR in 1991 the Najibullah govt. stopped getting any financial support. Until then the Afghan govt. army was able to hold its own against the Mujahids and did inflict some serious losses to them particularly in Jalalabad.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 08 Feb 2010 20:40

sunnyP wrote:
Ex-Pakistani minister shot, wounded - aide

It appears he has sustained bullet injuries. Let's hope kashmiris get lucky.

arun · Post by **arun** » 08 Feb 2010 20:41

sunnyP wrote:

Ex-Pakistani minister shot, wounded - aide ......................

Monday, 08 February 2010 15:46

A former Pakistani government minister was shot and wounded on Monday as he campaigned for a by-election in the city of Rawalpindi, an aide to the politician said.

The identity and motive of the gunman, who opened fire at Sheikh Rashid Ahmed's election office, was not clear.

Reuters
http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=53804

No sympathy need be wasted on Sheikh Rashid Ahmed.

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed ran a training camp for terrorists targeting India:

Ex-generals, politicians confirm Sheikh Rashid ran militant camp

Added later:

Sheikh Rashid trained Kashmiri fighters: Yasin

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 08 Feb 2010 20:57

Aditya_V wrote:anirban_aim-> Evidence in this case can be best circumstantial, nobody is going to want to openly declare this, We are not going to get assets people have in binami accounts, swiss banks etc.. So if we are looking for proof in a court of law, the answer is big no. But if one looks at the entities NDTV has a tie up with. Like if I am right one of the Ruport Murdoch companies has bought a stake in NDTV Good times and the other NDTV channel which showed Rakhi Sawant Ka Syamvur etc.. the trail is there. Further, see the family ties, Think tanks etc which the Media Baron's are part off and you will see the links.

The only question is why is there soo much money and effort spent on it, when India is reltively poor country and is nowehere near a CHina or Russia in terms of Global power

Yes I fully understand that at best evidence will be circumstantial. And thanks a lot for the few pointers.

And yes I'm already looking into the family ties and who buys stake where angle.

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 08 Feb 2010 21:01

RamaP wrote: Another factor that must be weighed in is the rise of China and its strategic needs. If the Americans leave the Afghan-Pak theater, then it will be a matter of time before China steps into this vacuum and eventually bring the entire Central Asian region in its sphere of influence.

They are going to dream and have wet dreams about it but it will never happen insha allah

Suppiah wrote: Re. PRC replacing Unkil in that region, they have to contend with low degree of respect for each other at people level. Actually TSP-PRC relationship is entirely at state to state level, most godless Chinese are disgusted by these bearded fanatics.

I agree

arun · Post by **arun** » 08 Feb 2010 21:18

arun wrote:The Shia of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the receiving end of a one two strike today:

Karachi Terrorists Bomb the Wounded at a Hospital

The Two Bombs Targeted Shiites in Karachi, Killing at Least 20

By NICK SCHIFRIN
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Feb. 5, 2010

Two bomb attacks -- the first on a group of Shiite mourners and the second outside the hospital where the injured mourners were taken -- have killed about 20 people and injured at least 75 in the Pakistani city of Karachi, according to initial reports. ..............................

The first bomb exploded next to a bus full of Shiite mourners driving toward a procession in downtown Karachi. Shortly after, a second bomb targeted the injured, ripping through a group of emergency workers, journalists, and the wounded outside the hospital closest to the first explosion. ..............................

ABC News

The widely prevalent logic in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that since Islam is the Religion of Peace and Pakistan as an Ideological Muslim State and Islamic Republic is filled with pious and pure Muslims inexorably leads to only one conclusion to the killing of Shia Muslims in Karachi namely that it was by a foreign hand

:

Foreign hand not ruled out in Karachi attacks: Malik

Updated at: 2035 PST, Monday, February 08, 2010

ISLAMABAD: Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik on Monday said that involvement of foreign hand behind Karachi bombings could not be ruled out on the basis of some evidence ………………….

The News

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 08 Feb 2010 21:45

Hari Seldon wrote:Pratap Chatterjee, Destabilizing Pakistan

It will be a dream come true if what Mr. Chaterjee predicts, actuallys transpires. Insha Allah

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 08 Feb 2010 21:52

Dipanker wrote:Pakistan did not kneel. Pakistan held its ground.

History will only remember that India asked for talks, not that the half breeds in pukistan begged and pleaded for India to return to the talks. Here's TOI take on it (note the title):
It is India which blinked on talks: Pak

Didn't realize that it was a game of chicken. With the pakis, its a "damed if you do, and damned if you don't".

archan · Post by **archan** » 08 Feb 2010 21:54

One-upmanship to stroke egos may feel good to some but what is important is to protect ones' interests and I hope the Indian babus are well prepared for that.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Feb 2010 21:59

anupmisra wrote:
Dipanker wrote:Pakistan did not kneel. Pakistan held its ground.
History will only remember that India asked for talks, not that the half breeds in pukistan begged and pleaded for India to return to the talks. Here's TOI take on it (note the title):
It is India which blinked on talks: Pak

Didn't realize that it was a game of chicken. With the pakis, its a "damed if you do, and damned if you don't".

Let be clear, on this count Paki's won. They have consistently out maneuvered us during negotiations, we lose on the table what our Jawans bleed to win for us. (barring perhaps the post Parakram climb down by Pakistan)

We should not shy away from the reality -- Pakis have indeed won by forcing GoI to negotiating table without offering even a modicum of action towards addressing our Mumbai V action items (let alone older ones) -- this is a complete U turn by GoI. S e S -- II at the very least.

And they are so confident that they can even gloat about it -- knowing that they have indeed won a huge uptick for Nazariya E Pakistan.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 08 Feb 2010 22:08

Talk to Pakistan, but not just now

In fact, no sooner did the announcement come there was an anti-India rally in Lahore. On the same day, anti-India forces called for a war against us in Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. What is most significant is that the ‘Yakjaiti-e-Kashmir’ (Kashmir solidarity conference) was attended there by players who are said to be masterminds of the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai in 2008.

The timing of the talks offer was wrong particularly when the scars of various strikes by these outfits are yet to heal in India.

The situation in Pakistan is such that even its own government does not appear to have control over certain events. On top of that, their Army Chief, General Ashfaq Kiyani, has been quoted by the media as saying that the Pakistani Army was India-centric.

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 08 Feb 2010 22:27

Looks like Pakis are desperately trying not to have talks. Qureshi's rant (shown by TimesNow) needs to be seen in this context. The clown is trying his best to make sure that India backs out.
Why? Is it just stupid Paki gloating or something more sinister.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 08 Feb 2010 22:32

Asghar Khan: India An Imagined Pak Enemy

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 08 Feb 2010 22:40

Manhood of pakistan on full display. Qureshi suffering verbal diarrhoea

http://www.timesnow.tv/videoshow/4338040.cms

krithivas · Post by **krithivas** » 08 Feb 2010 22:43

Chidambaram's visit to Pak likely to be delayed
5 Feb 2010, 1913 hrs IST, AGENCIES
The high-profile visit of Home Minister P Chidambaram to Pakistan for SAARC conference may not take place on February 26 as the meet is expected to be postponed to the middle of next month.

The two-day meeting of SAARC Home Ministers is likely to be postponed as Nepal, one of the participant countries, has
requested host Pakistan, to delay the event till the middle of March, sources said today.

The Home Minister was to go to Pakistan for the conference and expected to meet his Pakistani counterpart Rehman Malik
and other leaders on the sidelines.

sunnyP · Post by **sunnyP** » 08 Feb 2010 22:59

AdityaM wrote:http://www.timesnow.tv/videoshow/4338040.cms

Nice stuff from Times Now.

Uday B · Post by **Uday B** » 08 Feb 2010 23:26

Watched Times now debate on Puki FMs verbal diarrohea, in the end Arnab Goswami made fun of Qureshi saying he hopes Qureshi does not become the next Bhutto

by hoping to move up the ladder by anti-india rhetoric

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Feb 2010 23:31

So who wanted India and Pakistan to restart talks?

Who initiated this process? What is GOI's stance on this? Do MMS and SSM want to talk to Pak even if it doesn't want to?

Funny guys indeed!

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 09 Feb 2010 00:02

In the absence of one side scoring an obvious victory over the other, there will always be this one upmanship; equal equal onlee. But objectively looking at it, TSP wins hands down. First, it is obvious India's hype and bluster post 26/11 were cocked a snook by TSP (can't get any more humilaiting than that), then to cement their equal equal, TSP upped the ante accusing India of terrorism, resulting in the SeS surrender by MMS/SSM, then the effusive love making statements post IPL auctions, and then the turnaround to talks just a week after Nirupama blowing hot. And as if to fool everyone and couch surrender as some kind of chanakyan subterfuge, this crap about talks focsing on terror alone; yeah right, TSP is going to tremble on its feet and is going to be impressed at the evidence PC is about to present. TSP, not to be outdone, are basically saying, what bloody terror are you talking about, you came down huffing & puffung, now don't make a fool of yourself. Lets talk about how you can hand over Kashmir.

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 09 Feb 2010 00:05

RamaY wrote:So who wanted India and Pakistan to restart talks?

Who initiated this process? What is GOI's stance on this? Do MMS and SSM want to talk to Pak even if it doesn't want to?

Funny guys indeed!

I think we need to seriously deliberate on why Pakis now don't want to engage in talks. The Hafiz pig's meeting, Clown Qureshi's pompous boast, and anteing up of anti-India rhetoric seem coordinated.
It looks like Pakis don't want the talks, are probably planning a major strike and want to start a war.

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Feb 2010 00:26

^ NO ! First it needs to be established as to what do bleeding hearts in south block WANT ? Likes of 'Chooha' Qureshi get to maalish their egos due to stupidity on our part , I am afraid but MMS has taken his personal love for the other side too far .

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 09 Feb 2010 00:36

The strange upping of rhetoric from TSP choohas makes me wonder if they got the signal from Kayani to up the ante in preparation for another attack.

krithivas · Post by **krithivas** » 09 Feb 2010 00:41

TSP may have realized that the American ATM will switch-off if Uncle Sam perceives the tension smoke-screen that Pakiland created will be cleared by this Indian offer?

The tension smoke screen that Paki land created was required to not act against Taliban and as well milk the Eagle. Now that might go away?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 Feb 2010 00:54

krithivas wrote:TSP may have realized that the American ATM will switch-off if Uncle Sam perceives the tension smoke-screen that Pakiland created will be cleared by this Indian offer?

The tension smoke screen that Paki land created was required to not act against Taliban and as well milk the Eagle. Now that might go away?

No they are merely telling their cohorts that the plan is working, dont worry about the talks, or about the surge from Afg. Do your thing and we are managing well and winning.

This is a clarion call for the faithful to remain so.

lakshmikanth · Post by **lakshmikanth** » 09 Feb 2010 01:14

^^^^ I guess you are right

I think TSP is testing India like a bitch who tests to see if the nice guy in the bar would buy her drinks. Once the drink is obtained, the bitch just ignores the guy and moves on with her life. The nice guy ends up looking like a stupid airhead.

Indian leaders have the nice guy mentality. They believe that there is a higher power (Unkil??) who rewards good behavior and offer unkil's wh0re talks to prove the same. The wh0re figures out that she has won the test and India does not have the guts to do anything serious or act serious. So everything back to pre-26/11 times.

Good self goal by Indian leaders.

Jai Ho!

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 09 Feb 2010 01:25

^Perfectly apt analogy..about the nice guy and the bar bitch

While there is considerable bewilderment in political circles on how and why India [ Images ] has gone the extra mile to begin the dialogue process when nothing substantial has changed in terms of Pakistan's deliverance on the perpetrators of the Mumbai [ Images ] 26/11 terror attack, the answer has interestingly enough come from Pakistan itself with its foreign minister Qureshi asserting almost gloatingly, "We did not kneel before India but India had to come to the negotiating table under international pressure."

International pressure is being read in political circles as mounting pressure from the United States to begin dialogue with Pakistan with Dr Manmohan Singh [ Images ] faced with a deadline of April 10, when he again travels to Washington to meet the US President Barrack Obama [ Images ], said a critic of the UPA government's policy on Pakistan.

Talks with Pakistan: Congress is in a bind

However, if you see it's starting being linked up to the Obama-Bush meeting..something is up. I don't see India incapable of deflecting US pressure, unless something is being offered to India. That's why i referred to the NPT thing. Obama is also under pressure to be seen doing something for India. Considering China is acting like a bully with US too (Copenhagen, undervalued currency, Dalai Lama etc), Obama also must be at a loss how to deal with China. Supporting INdia makes a lot of strategic sense for the US at this moment.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Feb 2010 01:48

So INC is acting as its own opposition to the UPA? Cant have it bothways!

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 09 Feb 2010 01:52

ramana wrote:So INC is acting as its own opposition to the UPA? Cant have it bothways!

Nobody can put a spin on this retarded move.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 09 Feb 2010 01:57

A challenging doctrine

On Dec 13, 2001, five gunmen attacked the Indian parliament building. An hour later, 12 people including the gunmen were dead. In the days that followed, India blamed the militant groups based in Pakistan for the attack.

On Dec 18, 2001, the Indian government ordered the commencement of Operation Parakaram (Operation Victory), the largest mobilisation of Indian forces since 1971. It appeared that war was inevitable. Yet, after a 10-month standoff, Operation Parakaram was terminated. India had lost face.

The main reason why this happened was the time taken by the three strike corps to reach their wartime locations from central India. It took them three weeks during which time Pakistan was not only able to deploy its forces but also to internationalise the crisis.

Until 2004 the Indian army’s strategic thought envisaged the deployment of seven corps in defensive role and three corps in offensive role each built around an armoured division supported by mechanised infantry and artillery. After the defensive corps had blunted Pakistani attacks, the strike corps would undertake counter-offensive operations aimed at the destruction of the Pakistan Army’s two strategic reserves also built around an armoured division.

After Operation Parakaram the Indian army concluded that this doctrine was inflexible because of the huge size of the strike corps — they have long deployment times, are difficult to manoeuvre, while their concentration in the forward areas gives away the general strategic direction they would adopt. And above all, the doctrine inhibited a quick response to challenges posed by acts like the attack on the Indian parliament (and seven years later in Mumbai).

As a consequence, in 2004 the Indian army announced the development of a new limited war doctrine called Cold Start to respond to what it calls proxy wars by Pakistan. It would seek to inflict significant damage on the Pakistan Army before the international community could intervene on Pakistan’s behalf, while at the same time ensuring that the conflict did not escalate to a level where Pakistan was tempted to use nuclear weapons.

The essence of the Cold Start doctrine is reorganising the army’s offensive power that resides in the three strike corps into eight smaller division-sized integrated battle groups (IBGs) consisting of armour and mechanised infantry and artillery, closely supported by helicopter gunships, air force and airborne troops (parachute and heliborne). The IBGs are to be positioned close to the border so that three to five are launched into Pakistan along different axes within 72 to 96 hours from the time mobilisation is ordered.

Cold Start thus envisages rapid thrusts even when the defensive corps’ deployment is yet to be completed, and high-speed operations conducted day and night until the designated objectives are achieved.

In a war limited by time, mobility is the single-most important factor which if used to its full potential will help attain the political aim in the desired time and space framework. But this requires a perfect matching of the physical means of mobility with the mobility of the mind, as the value of a highly mobile force can be reduced to zero by commanders whose minds are characterised by lack of imagination, initiative and flexibility. “Adherence to dogmas has destroyed more armies and lost more battles and lives than any other cause in war. No man of fixed opinions can make a good general.” (J.F.C. Fuller)

In the 1965 war the Indian 1 Corps, spearheaded by the 1st Armoured Division, had penetrated seven miles only into Pakistani territory in Sialkot sector in 21 days, while in the 1971 war, the same corps having about eight tank units did marginally better by penetrating eight miles in 14 days, that too when opposed by light covering troops. In both wars the Indian army was schematic in its operations. Changes in dispositions such as forming a new defensive line, reassigning of objectives, switching forces not in accordance with their original plan, took time. Above all, their commanders at all levels lacked enterprise, imagination and initiative.

Given this, while Cold Start is a sound concept, though not original, the Indian war directors need to question the ability of their commanders at all levels to execute it efficiently and sustain the advantage gained from striking first. The “law of the initial advantage of the aggressor” assumes critical importance, as it is the aggressor who generally sets the pattern which operations will take. The Germans in the Second World War and the Israelis in the 1956 and 1967 wars had translated the concept of blitzkrieg, characterised by surprise, speed and concentration, with devastating results against numerically superior forces because they had a flair for conducting high-speed operations with flexibility, rapidity and less military routine.

The probable objective areas for Cold Start could be (1) Ravi-Chenab corridor from two directions, an IBG along Jammu-Sialkot-Daska axis and another across the Ravi to link up with the first IBG, and (2) in the south against Reti-Rahim Yar Khan-Kashmore complex. To counter Cold Start, the Pakistan Army will have to create more armour-dominated brigade-sized reserves from the existing resources if possible, and a more flexible military system and structure.

For Pakistan the dimensions of time and space assume paramount importance as it lacks territorial depth, is opposed by a larger adversary and lacks the resources to fight a protracted war. The strategy of pre-emption is thus imposed on Pakistan in the same way it was imposed on Israel prior to the 1967 war. The fact that the Pakistani Army can occupy their wartime locations earlier than the Indian army confers on it the ability to pre-empt Cold Start; failure to do so could lead to firing of low-yield tactical warheads at IBGs as they cross the start line or even earlier.

Cold Start would be a portent of escalation, and inevitably a disaster for both. It is a doctrine that challenges both countries.

The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 09 Feb 2010 02:01

Cold Start would be a portent of escalation, and inevitably a disaster for both. It is a doctrine that challenges both countries.

The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army.

No brigadier, what is a portent of escalation is your LeT operations agianst India. Bereft of that, there would be no need for cold start or hot start. No starting is needed.