The first option, 'Ceasefire' is unlikely this time.
The Second option is unthinkable.
So let's hope there will be no war.
I personally don't see a way out of all this.
The one thing that has changed in India iteslf is the 'Non-North Indian' factor.SOuth and West Indians tend to be hardliners.
From their persepctive, they have nothing in common with Pakistanis. No empathy there.
Pakistan had sanctions for a very long time, and we were able to make do very well without any US help.
And your second comment shows the common indian mentality of thinking of themselves ot have the kind of edge over Pakitsan as does Israel over Palestine or US over Aghanistan. Its hilarious to say the least.
Zaavia,
I am aware of the capabilities of your Army, and the pride you have in your Army.
But to my ears, the pounding of the war drums has been a little too loud. If you wanted to win an assualt, you would do it quickly and with complete suprise. Vajpayee is being very loud and very public, and that to me sounds like sabre rattling rather than real war. The use of Navy boats is simply part of the pressure.
However, when he goes on record as committing to a "decisive" battle, then he has committed to some type of adventure. If he announces that his goals are limited, then he has essentially taken the nuclear option off the table. I think that he must carry off sometype of punitive operation that is designed to stop cross border assasinations. That would seem a reasonable goal, and his people are demanding that.
Any force that has the suprise of when and where will have a temporary but substantial advantage. Undoubtedly the Indians also have some excellent units, and the less well equipped and trained will merely be a diversion. Pakistans forces will not immediately be able to stop a quality spearhead, but may be able to push it back within a few days. If so it could be structured as a win for India, as fulfilling it's goals, and a win for Pakistan as pushing back the aggressor.
Perhaps that is wishful thinking, but it does sort of present the best possible outcome if hostilities really escalate.
[This message has been edited by Ohioguy (edited May 22, 2002).]
Basically the position Vajpayee, has taken the region into, there desnt seem to be any way out. Therefore, the Pakistanis should be ready for that. Because, the Indians have been creating war hysteria in their country for the past three years, on the other hand our media is busy preaching "peace". What will happen, when the Indians actually attack, unlike 1965, at the moment there is not that much emotional feelings, since the Pakistani people are kept un aware of what is happeing around them. While in Kargil crisis, too the Pakistanis were kept in the shadows, where as the stage was set for a nuclear conflict.
[quote]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
**Zaavia,
I am aware of the capabilities of your Army, and the pride you have in your Army.
But to my ears, the pounding of the war drums has been a little too loud. If you wanted to win an assualt, you would do it quickly and with complete suprise. Vajpayee is being very loud and very public, and that to me sounds like sabre rattling rather than real war. The use of Navy boats is simply part of the pressure.
However, when he goes on record as committing to a "decisive" battle, then he has committed to some type of adventure. If he announces that his goals are limited, then he has essentially taken the nuclear option off the table. I think that he must carry off sometype of punitive operation that is designed to stop cross border assasinations. That would seem a reasonable goal, and his people are demanding that.
Any force that has the suprise of when and where will have a temporary but substantial advantage. Undoubtedly the Indians also have some excellent units, and the less well equipped and trained will merely be a diversion. Pakistans forces will not be able to immediately be able to stop a quality spearhead, but may be able to push it back within a few days. If so it could be structured as a win for India, as fulfilling it's goals, and a win for Pakistan as pshing back the aggressor.
Perhaps that is wishful thinking, but it does sort of present the best possible outcome if hostilities really escallate.
**
[/quote]
OG... I dont think that there is much difference in the Pakistani and Indian fighting abilities apart from the number of weapons and people. Secondly, its not that easy to fight in the mountains of Kashmir. Because here the Indians wont find, any NA, like the US found in the Afghan conflict.
[This message has been edited by zaavia (edited May 22, 2002).]
OH,
Element of surprise is missing very crucial for initial gains. trust me we have few hundred thousand watching with pilots already in the cockpits and finger on the trigger. Why do you thing they are screaming crying BSing for almost 6 months at the border.
They are extremly desprate for a face saver and that will be real tough to get. Any one who believes that the freedom struggle will die down just because India is foaming is living in fools paradise. It might even back fire and get from bad to worse.
[quote]
Originally posted by Satavahana:
The first option, 'Ceasefire' is unlikely this time.
The Second option is unthinkable.
So let's hope there will be no war.
I personally don't see a way out of all this.
The one thing that has changed in India iteslf is the 'Non-North Indian' factor.SOuth and West Indians tend to be hardliners.
From their persepctive, they have nothing in common with Pakistanis. No empathy there.
[/quote]
I agree that hopefully there will be no war, but I think the biggest problem is (1) lack of rights given to Kashmiri's
(2)Vegi-Pie and his RSS buddies!
May be we don't have the 'Edge' Akif.
But the rest of the World definitely does.
Remember the key word is ONCE HOSTILITIES START!!!
The WOrld is not going to leave a Nuclear powered nation in a mess, a Civil War situation.
That infact is why they are interfering. After all who cares how many Indians and Pakistanis kill each other?
Another big IF is India should WIN the war CONVINCINGLY.
That again is a big if.
Indians could well feel they gotta oblige the 'Gora' and pull back.
I somehow don't think so.
The average Indian wants a solution to the Kashmir problem without giving up Kashmir.
And if a war with Pakistan is what it takes, he is willing to go for it.
From today’s Times:
=============================================
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2-303716,00.html
According to senior Whitehall sources, one plausible doomsday scenario presented to ministers envisaged the two sides fighting a bloody war that would lead to the first use of atomic weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In response to a terrorist attack, Indian troops would retalitate against Pakistan. The Pakistanis, who are considered better troops, would beat off the initial offensive. But the Indians would then use their superiority in conventional forces to overwhelm the Pakistanis. In turn Islamabad would use its weapon of last resort: a nuclear device. India would survive the strike and hit back with its own atomic weapons.
=============================================
If India thinks it is a calculated gamble to carry out a limited attack on Pakistan and hope that things don’t escalate to the point of a nuclear threat then not only is it stupid thinking, it is also proof of the fact that this is more a cosmetic excercise than anything else.
Somehow I don’t think that this is going to be amusing to those in Islamabad under current world situation. Sabre rattling is ok and that is what the Indians are traditionally good at. It would be a big mistake to take it a step further than that in both short and long term. It will be a massive boost to the fundamentalists in Pakistan and we will have to assume that this is what the Hindutva government secretly wants.
Zaavia,
With all appologies, Vajpayee is elected, and even though his Legislature has been attacked, he has basically done nothing. Rattling sabres hurts no one, and building up troops simply forces Pakistan to do the same and costs lot's of money which India is spending anyway on it's military.
But at some point if the cross border excursions do not stop the pressure within his country will force him out of office. Any leader in a Democracy that cannot protect his people will not last long in office.
Frankly, the situation in Kashmir is so muddled that it is almost impossible to solve. It is a 50 year conflict that has become a cause for Islamic extremeists who have no vested interest in peace. I have no personal opinion on the conflict, but it is an open ulcer that keeps getting reinfected, and now threatens a much larger body.
No matter what diplomacy is put in place, I fear it is too little and too late. No one has enough leverage to really sway either side, and frankly, Ya'll just love to fight each other!
Good Luck, whatever happens, I hope it is short and leads to peace.
They have numbers and as one general said quantity has its own quality.
[quote]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
**Zaavia,
With all appologies, Vajpayee is elected, and even though his Legislature has been attacked, he has basically done nothing. Rattling sabres hurts no one, and building up troops simply forces Pakistan to do the same and costs lot's of money which India is spending anyway on it's military.
But at some point if the cross border excursions do not stop the pressure within his country will force him out of office. Any leader in a Democracy that cannot protect his people will not last long in office.
Frankly, the situation in Kashmir is so muddled that it is almost impossible to solve. It is a 50 year conflict that has become a cause for Islamic extremeists who have no vested interest in peace. I have no personal opinion on the conflict, but it is an open ulcer that keeps getting reinfected, and now threatens a much larger body.
No matter what diplomacy is put in place, I fear it is too little and too late. No one has enough leverage to really sway either side, and frankly, Ya'll just love to fight each other!
Good Luck, whatever happens, I hope it is short and leads to peace.**
[/quote]
Unless, the UN or other so called world bodies dont take interests in issues like these the situation around the globe will remain like this. Secondly, this time around Vajpayee has taken India to such a position that they cannot turn back, coz that would mean humiliation for them. If world bodies, like UN take part seriously, why cant they solve the kashmir problem. The real reason is that, the population of Kashmir is muslim, therefore the UN resolutions are being allowed to rust in UN, whereas the problem of East Timor was solved amicably coz it hosted christian population.
One other thought,
Abdali, you are absolutely right about the pilots, and the terrain. If anything was goineg to happen, it would be this month, when the weather favors ground troops. this gives a good window for troop movements. Launching anything later in the summer would have the weather turning against them by fall.
On the other hand, ground forces can advance in violent weather conditions that would ground pilots in the mountains. Keep an eye out for a bad weather period once Vajpayee is back from the region.
And for heavens sake, tell people to keep their fingers off those nuclear triggers, it is is no one's best interest to start that!
How can you confine that weapons of mass destruction will be used in this war or not. When the sovereignity of a country is under threat, do you think that these kinds of weapons will be kept in the show cases?
Its easy to predict, your results, without actually engaging in a war. If that were the case the result of Vietnam war would have been in US's favour, coz they take every move after complete planning.
Zaavia,
You can lead ha horse to water but you cannot make it drink. The UN might be able to help, but it is still up to the leadership of the countries involved to work things out. What is it that you think that the UN would do? sponsor talks? Sure. Post observers? Sure. But if the parties wanted to fight, they would still fight. UN observers would not see "freedom" fighters sneaking through the LOC with bombs. If all those Indian troops can't do it a few observers wouldn't. And we would still end up in the same place.
The murder of a moderate leader means that there are extreme elements who so not want to work things out, but want to fight. Those are not the kinds of conditions where the UN works well.
By the way, I do agree with you. Kashmir is a predominantly Muslim area, and therefore should not be part of India. Tolerance is a whole different issue for another day, but one would think that after 50 years the leaders of two nations, and the leaders of Kashmir would grow tired of the conflic and just work it out. This is a failure of leadership.
OG, was the situation like this for the past 50 years. No, Kashmir was peaceful, but did UN do anything to solve the dispute. NOTHING!
[This message has been edited by zaavia (edited May 22, 2002).]
Seriously, if the UN cant help solve disputes that might be a source of a nuclear war in the region, there's no reason for such an organization to exist.
[quote]
Originally posted by zaavia:
Seriously, if the UN cant help solve disputes that might be a source of a nuclear war in the region, there's no reason for such an organization to exist.
[/quote]
Not quite. The UN does do good but it can't do everything. I used to work at the UN. It is manipulated by powerful memebrs, in particular the US. i've seen it from the inside.
[quote]
Originally posted by RealDeal:
** Not quite. The UN does do good but it can't do everything. I used to work at the UN. It is manipulated by powerful memebrs, in particular the US. i've seen it from the inside.**
[/quote]
Real Deal, you are right that UN is manipulated by the US. Therefore you cant call it a fully neutral body.
[quote]
Originally posted by zaavia:
**
Real Deal, you are right that UN is manipulated by the US. Therefore you cant call it a fully neutral body.**
[/quote]
Depends on the situation. But it's generally about as neutral as you can get. Nothing is perfect.
[This message has been edited by RealDeal (edited May 22, 2002).]