Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

very possible signs of war...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    very possible signs of war...

    I have always believed that India and Pakistan wont be stupid enough to fight. But confirmed sources with family in armed forces even in very high posts are telling me that there are very likely that a war is going to break out between India and Pakistan after what happened in Kashmir.

    What do you guys say?


    #2
    admin, plz merge with other thread.

    Comment


      #3
      hmmmmmmm! why dont you post your article over here! As I posted this first yaar AliZadeh!

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by: Alizadeh2000


        After the well timed terrorist attack in Jammu coinciding with Rocca's visit, India is preparing its population for a war with Pakistan.

        Pakistan may be attacked before September 2002 according to some Indian sources.

        What are Pakistan's defense options, and how must they be exercised?

        ********************************************
        article:

        By Karl Vick and Kamran Khan
        Washington Post Foreign Service
        Friday, May 17, 2002; Page A20


        KARACHI, Pakistan, May 16 -- Pakistan put its military forces in the northern part of the country on highest alert today, preparing for a possible strike by India in Kashmir in response to an attack by Islamic militants that India has linked to Pakistan.

        Meanwhile, Indian officials suggested that they had decided how to retaliate for Tuesday's attack, which killed 34 people, mostly women and children. The specific action is scheduled to be announced Friday in Parliament, and speculation focused on a possible offensive in Kashmir, the divided mountainous region that each of the nuclear rivals claims as its own.

        "I don't want to go into the specifics, but the time for action has come," India's army chief, Gen. S. Padmanabhan, told reporters in the Nepalese capital, Katmandu. The general added, however, that the process of deciding on a specific action must include "the entire nation."

        In New Delhi, where Indian defense officials briefed senior ministers, the Home Ministry issued a statement indicating that India would take new measures to halt the infiltration of Islamic militants from Pakistan, which like Kashmir is mostly Muslim.

        Senior Pakistani officers privately said they anticipated an attack by India across Kashmir's Line of Control, the heavily fortified front line that has divided the zones occupied by the two countries for more than half a century. An officer pointed out that because Kashmir is disputed territory, an attack there would not be taken as a breach of an international boundary and therefore would fall short of an all-out war.

        The distinction might help avoid the kind of conflict that could spiral into a nuclear exchange, which former U.S. officials said Pakistan appeared to be edging precariously toward in 1999, when Indian forces reversed a guerrilla offensive backed by Pakistan across the Line of Control.

        The State Department is planning to send Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage to South Asia within two weeks in an effort to break the standoff, but his itinerary has not been finalized, a department official said.

        The official said Armitage's trip had been under consideration even before the latest violence in Kashmir and is part of an effort to keep "senior level" diplomats engaged in trying to ease the border tensions. Christina B. Rocca, assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, visited India and Pakistan this week.

        Armitage, known for his tough talk and close personal relationship with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, has taken a particular interest in South Asia since he assumed his post at the start of the Bush administration. "Armitage is an effective communicator with foreign leaders," the official said.

        Pakistan, which denied involvement in Tuesday's attack, arrested the leader of one of the militant Islamic groups India blamed for the killings.

        Hafiz Saeed, founder of Lashkar-i-Taiba, was taken into custody Wednesday without official explanation. Saeed also was arrested in January after Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, under international pressure to rein in Muslim militants, banned the group. Saeed was released six weeks ago.

        Musharraf banned Lashkar and another Islamic militia, Jaish-i-Muhammad, after an attack on India's Parliament in December by gunmen allegedly linked to Pakistan. That attack, which left 14 people dead including the assailants, prompted India to mass troops on Pakistan's border, where they remain, facing most of Pakistan's army.

        Until today, when activity at Pakistan's armed forces headquarters reached war footing, the country had appeared to be taking the latest crisis in stride. But newspaper editorials are taking solace in the involvement of the United States, which has made clear its appreciation to Musharraf for supporting the U.S.-led war in neighboring Afghanistan.

        "Both India and Pakistan have lived to provoke each other for so long, I don't think there will be any major conflict," said Muhammad Akram Zaki, a former Pakistani foreign secretary and legislator. "Our impression is this is an evil we're going to have to live with."

        On the Indian side, however, pressure remained on Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to act. Vajpayee's Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, accused of encouraging religious violence in the western state of Gujarat, has recently suffered a series of electoral losses.

        Meanwhile, in Agra, southeast of New Delhi, 180 U.S. Special Forces troops joined 150 Indian troops in joint maneuvers. The operation, planned months before the current crisis began,

        underscored the extent of U.S. cooperation with India at a time when international attention to Pakistan's support for the war on terrorism had irked its larger rival.

        Staff writer Alan Sipress in Washington contributed to this report.

        2002 The Washington Post Company

        [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited May 17, 2002).]

        Comment


          #5
          Orginally Posted by: Jahanzaib

          well its the matter of time.so US can sell weapons to both fool Govt.its their best interest to let 2 countries fight, and its history of US whenever there is a war in the world America makes most out of it.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by: Adnan Ahmed

            I dont know, but if India is going to attack, then it has to attack big or not at all... It will be fun to watch the western countries scrammble around when the first shot is fired..

            Comment


              #7
              If India is going to attack, let them attack. What are they waiting for? That will give us a chance to free all the opressed nations of India, from India oprssion.
              All people are equal, but some are more equal than others. We call these "corporations."

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Shamraz Khan:
                If India is going to attack, let them attack. What are they waiting for? That will give us a chance to free all the opressed nations of India, from India oprssion.
                Yeah, if Pakistan can get some leverage, it could certainly liberate more of occupied Kashmir.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Indian government surely cannot be foolish enough to attack Pakistan despite all the internal problems the BJP/RSS/VHP Hinduvta nexus is facing? It maybe easy for the Indians to kill the innocent Muslims in Gujarat and rape Kashmiri women, but it would be a disaster for them if they attacked Pakistan. Believe me, India has a lot to lose, even in a conventional war. India cannot afford to be put back 20 years, especially in this day and age.

                  There will be continued rhetoric and diplomatic moves by India to try and isolate Pakistan. Anything more would be suicidal. India knows this. If they could, they would have attacked Pakistan by now with the million soldiers they have amassed on Pakistani border. Only time will tell how foolish the Indian leadership really is?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    War would be very destructive were it to start this time around, even without a nuclear exchange.

                    The reality is that there can be no limited war because India is not stupid enough to start one.

                    This is not because India is unwilling to take a Pakistani onslaught on its international border, but because India knows it does not have a level playing field in Kashmir.

                    A limited conflict in Kashimr, were it to drag on Kargil style, might end up in a Bangladesh-type scenario where India would have to relinquish control to the entire state. A limited war in Kashmir would almost certainly give the upper hand to Pakistan.

                    A "limited strike option" as being entertained by the Indian media, is in reality no option at all.

                    India will attack Pakistan along the IB. The conflict would escalate rapidly and the end seems to be very ugly for both countries.

                    But if India is actually dumb enough to limited operations to Kashmir, then it would cause a welcome change in status quo.



                    [This message has been edited by alizadeh2000 (edited May 17, 2002).]

                    Comment


                      #11
                      A limited war in Kashmir would almost certainly give the upper hand to Pakistan.

                      Would you elaborate as to why you think so?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        my reasons are as follows:

                        1) Human buffer on the LOC:
                        Mujahideen warriors waiting in droves in Azad Kashmir would effectively eliminate any chances of Indian infantry advance into Azad Kashmir, providing a frontline defense even BEFORE Pakistani Army engages the Indian infantry advance. It would be virtually impossible for Indian troops to step inside Azad Kashmir. Note that armor cannot be used along most of the northern LOC. The southern LOC hosts superior Pakistnai armor waiting to engage an Indian advance.

                        2) Bad Terrain:
                        India's preferred and most probably only effective weapon in a Kashmir conflict: massive airstrikes, though potent in firepower, would not be able to effectively target and prevent Mujahideen and Pakistani commandoes from crossing the LOC in full blown war due to the nature of the terrain. In such an "open season" situation, infiltration into Indian occupied Kashmri would increase manifold, not only by Mujahideen but by Pakistani soldiers as well. The main valley would hence see massive inside sabotage and behind the lines interdiction operations.

                        3) Unfriendly Population:
                        Kashmiri population in Indian occupied Kashmir may rise up in an open rebellion, making life hell for Indian troops. Even if kids throw stones at you (everyday occurence with Indian troops in Kashmir) while you fight the enemy from the other side, you have to concede the possible effect on morale. India most probably knows this. It also knows it will be more than just stones from within.

                        Originally posted by dhir:
                        A limited war in Kashmir would almost certainly give the upper hand to Pakistan.

                        Would you elaborate as to why you think so?


                        [This message has been edited by alizadeh2000 (edited May 17, 2002).]

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Kashmiri population in India may rise up in an open rebellion, making life hell for Indian troops. India most probably knows this

                          If you know your history, Pak has committed this mistake before and was surprised to see the opposite reaction.

                          Why do you think India will attack rather than just getting back from Indus Valley Treaty (many earlier treaties were broken by Pak before and India's water situation has changed, which gives us a logical reason to at least modify the treaty in our favour). It is as good or bad as attacking Pakistan.

                          Comment


                            #14

                            There has been no war after 1989 when the rebellion heated up in Kashmir. (I wouldn't count Kargil as an actual war, much though the Indians may want to portray it as such)

                            .We have yet to see the reaction of the Kashmiri population in an all out war in the current context. A war even if limited, will definitely throw up and bring to light the ground realities whatever they may be. It is more probable than not that the local populace will prove to be more than a thorn in the side for the Indian army.

                            abrogating Indus water treaty...well that SEEMS to be a lethal weaopn in the hands of India. Lets see if they can actually manage it.

                            Right now Indian COAS is making lots of threatening noises. If India lives up to her previous self nothing concrete will come out of it.

                            Otherwise the situation will be very volatile.

                            Originally posted by dhir:
                            Kashmiri population in India may rise up in an open rebellion, making life hell for Indian troops. India most probably knows this

                            If you know your history, Pak has committed this mistake before and was surprised to see the opposite reaction.

                            Why do you think India will attack rather than just getting back from Indus Valley Treaty (many earlier treaties were broken by Pak before and India's water situation has changed, which gives us a logical reason to at least modify the treaty in our favour). It is as good or bad as attacking Pakistan.


                            [This message has been edited by alizadeh2000 (edited May 17, 2002).]

                            Comment


                              #15
                              alizadeh2000, Practical point of view!!
                              However, all points you mentioned,
                              Human Buffer, bad weather, hostile population
                              are known problems Indain Army deals with on a Daily basis.

                              >>>>
                              We have yet to see the reaction of the Kashmiri population in an all out war in the current context.
                              <<<<<<<<<<<<&l t;

                              This indeed is the unknown. Ex-Indian Army officials swear that Kashmiris will come over or keep more or less quiet if they sense India is determined.
                              The grapevine says that Kashmiris are 'Soft' i.e, easier to deal with as opposed to dealing with say, a bunch of Pathans or Punjabis!!

                              However the whole strategy would be to...

                              1.Open different fronts. Along Rajastahn for one. Naval blockade of Karachi. Pakistan is particularly vulnrable on Naval Front.
                              The way World Opinion is now, Pakistan won't have a single friend except China.

                              2.Cross Indan LOC and gun for POK i.e. you fight in POK terrain not India's!!!

                              These are known strategies.
                              That leaves the nuke card. I am sure there are enough loonies in Pak Army who would go for it!!

                              SO what is India to do?
                              I think it will take a leaf from Israel and attack Pakistan's nuke installations first and concentrate on wiping out Paki Air FOrce.

                              I think the outcome of the war is going to hinge on that!!

                              Such a step will never be taken without consulting US (Indirectly Israel) and Russia.
                              China is the unknown!!!

                              All this is kinda sad, because neither country likes Foregin involvement!!!

                              Pakistan agrees to Foregin intervention but I think it is more out of compulsion!!


                              All this comes back to, (though my Paki friends won't like to admit it) the "Jehadis" Pakistan Army supported all along.
                              If a war starts at all, it will be because of them starting another "Operation" and India saying "Enough Is Enough"!!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X