Siachen Theatre
Mohammad A Shaikh October 18, 2002
#72 Posted by shammi on October 31, 2002 6:52:22 am
ajeet:
``...covert action, should not be an end in itself, but a part of over all stratagy...:
Agreed. I think that Stuka did not describe the overall strategy, which to me is more important than one its elements (ie. covertness). Nothing compares to a defeat on the battlefield when it comes to discrediting failed policies. It is not cheap, but it also has no replacement or substitutes. No amount of propaganda, whitewashing covers a military loss. The sooner we recognize it, the better off we might be.
``...covert action, should not be an end in itself, but a part of over all stratagy...:
Agreed. I think that Stuka did not describe the overall strategy, which to me is more important than one its elements (ie. covertness). Nothing compares to a defeat on the battlefield when it comes to discrediting failed policies. It is not cheap, but it also has no replacement or substitutes. No amount of propaganda, whitewashing covers a military loss. The sooner we recognize it, the better off we might be.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#71 Posted by Ajeet on October 30, 2002 5:24:57 pm
Shammi,
Like I said before, the covert action, should not be an end in itself, but a part of over all stratagy. It is useful in undermining the enemy`s strength, sapping his energy and softening him up before an overt action takes place. The best results are achieved when the local dissatisfied elements are encouraged and supported to create mayham.
As far as agreement and pacts are concerned, they are good only as long as both parties have interest in them. If one of the two parties is determined to undermine them, then their usefulness is only in the milage that you can extract, by accusing the other party of not adhearing to them, other than that, they are not worth the paper they are written on. Remember, on the international level there are no courts, where you can sue. It is always `jis ki lathi us ke bhanse`.
Like I said before, the covert action, should not be an end in itself, but a part of over all stratagy. It is useful in undermining the enemy`s strength, sapping his energy and softening him up before an overt action takes place. The best results are achieved when the local dissatisfied elements are encouraged and supported to create mayham.
As far as agreement and pacts are concerned, they are good only as long as both parties have interest in them. If one of the two parties is determined to undermine them, then their usefulness is only in the milage that you can extract, by accusing the other party of not adhearing to them, other than that, they are not worth the paper they are written on. Remember, on the international level there are no courts, where you can sue. It is always `jis ki lathi us ke bhanse`.
#70 Posted by shammi on October 30, 2002 6:51:39 am
sadna;
(i) gaining ground is not covert, it is overt. Once the dust settles down, one can no longer hide who is occupying which post/territory. (ii) changing the LoC unilaterally is tantamount to ditching Simla, something that Delhi should not do, (iii) rhetoric alone should not lead to war, rather political objectives have to be made clear, and the rhetoric should align with them.
(i) gaining ground is not covert, it is overt. Once the dust settles down, one can no longer hide who is occupying which post/territory. (ii) changing the LoC unilaterally is tantamount to ditching Simla, something that Delhi should not do, (iii) rhetoric alone should not lead to war, rather political objectives have to be made clear, and the rhetoric should align with them.
#69 Posted by sadna on October 30, 2002 12:12:39 am
shammi #68
One reason for covert action could be signalling that India will take advantage of Pakistan`s covert war to gain ground for India in a similar way while putting the onus on Pakistan to escalate. This method if feasible may be more convincing politically than regular statements of intent `we refuse to talk until cross border terrorism ends`.
One reason for covert action could be signalling that India will take advantage of Pakistan`s covert war to gain ground for India in a similar way while putting the onus on Pakistan to escalate. This method if feasible may be more convincing politically than regular statements of intent `we refuse to talk until cross border terrorism ends`.
#68 Posted by shammi on October 29, 2002 12:04:41 pm
Stuka:
I think that I need to better understand what your objectives would be from `covert military action`? Is it to punish? To deter? To end infiltration? To teach a lesson? To effect a change in Pakistan`s policy? To create a new ground reality and undermine the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration? What is it? Unless this is clearly understood, the military response will be muddled and ineffective. It will lead to nowhere, and ultimately lead to a descent of overt, conventional (or nuclear) warfare. There is a difference between each of the political objectives that I described above. The military `action` for each can be different. So, what are your political objectives? Perhaps an understanding of those will help in better understanding what actions are appropriate.
Siachen was overt, not covert. By my definition, in covert actions the identity of the actors can be denied. In Siachen it cannot. (Siachen is footnote to the overall Indo-Pak relations, and the Kashmir issue. As such, there are no significant political gains for either side by occupying Siachen.)
In Bangladesh, the Mukti Bahini alone would not have been able to liberate anything, and indeed had been brought under control by the Pakistani forces much before overt Indian action began in late November. That just goes to prove that covert action alone would have led nowhere, and supports my assertion that overt action is necessary and essential to deliver the coup-de-grace.
I did not understand the logic of your last paragraph. It seems to me that India will be painted as an aggressor regardless of whether it initiates a blockade or launches ground attacks.
I think that I need to better understand what your objectives would be from `covert military action`? Is it to punish? To deter? To end infiltration? To teach a lesson? To effect a change in Pakistan`s policy? To create a new ground reality and undermine the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration? What is it? Unless this is clearly understood, the military response will be muddled and ineffective. It will lead to nowhere, and ultimately lead to a descent of overt, conventional (or nuclear) warfare. There is a difference between each of the political objectives that I described above. The military `action` for each can be different. So, what are your political objectives? Perhaps an understanding of those will help in better understanding what actions are appropriate.
Siachen was overt, not covert. By my definition, in covert actions the identity of the actors can be denied. In Siachen it cannot. (Siachen is footnote to the overall Indo-Pak relations, and the Kashmir issue. As such, there are no significant political gains for either side by occupying Siachen.)
In Bangladesh, the Mukti Bahini alone would not have been able to liberate anything, and indeed had been brought under control by the Pakistani forces much before overt Indian action began in late November. That just goes to prove that covert action alone would have led nowhere, and supports my assertion that overt action is necessary and essential to deliver the coup-de-grace.
I did not understand the logic of your last paragraph. It seems to me that India will be painted as an aggressor regardless of whether it initiates a blockade or launches ground attacks.
#67 Posted by Ashaar on October 29, 2002 7:05:23 am
M. A. Shaikh
Original and insightful, half-prose, half-poetry... and you write for a nobel cause: the salvation in peace!
Bravo! Lovely!
Lovely creative art... I congratulate you on your publication on Chowk!
Original and insightful, half-prose, half-poetry... and you write for a nobel cause: the salvation in peace!
Bravo! Lovely!
Lovely creative art... I congratulate you on your publication on Chowk!
#66 Posted by stuka on October 29, 2002 7:05:14 am
Shammi
We are discussing covert military action, not covert war. The difference lies in the fact that the former is essentially a short term step carried out by state actors and the latter is a long term ``war`` kept covert by using non-state actors.
Siachen itself is an example of the success of covert military action carried out by the Indian Army. Bangladesh is another example where the Indian Army helped the Mukti Bahini in a covert actions, thereby creating the climate for an overt victory.
A blockade of Karachi ius an act of war. Why then wait for the Pakistanis to attack on land? Might as well do it first. Declare war and occupy enemy territory instead of waiting for them. Because they will attack in case of a blockade, and it is India that will be painted as an aggressor.
There is nothing wrong in covert action as long as it is taken by state actors.
We are discussing covert military action, not covert war. The difference lies in the fact that the former is essentially a short term step carried out by state actors and the latter is a long term ``war`` kept covert by using non-state actors.
Siachen itself is an example of the success of covert military action carried out by the Indian Army. Bangladesh is another example where the Indian Army helped the Mukti Bahini in a covert actions, thereby creating the climate for an overt victory.
A blockade of Karachi ius an act of war. Why then wait for the Pakistanis to attack on land? Might as well do it first. Declare war and occupy enemy territory instead of waiting for them. Because they will attack in case of a blockade, and it is India that will be painted as an aggressor.
There is nothing wrong in covert action as long as it is taken by state actors.
#65 Posted by shammi on October 28, 2002 8:35:45 pm
stuka;
are you suggesting that India do what Pakistan has tried and failed at in both Afghanistan and Kashmir (failed covert wars)?. Do you have any example of a country being made to change a policy as a result of being forced into a covert war? If you know of one, please share it with us so that we may learn a few lessons in military history. I am also awaiting a response on my assertion that a democracy will whittle away its advantage of being able to rally its population behind a national effort if it fails to share the war aims and the potential costs/hazards with the people. Victory does not come on the cheap, and a covert war is tantalizing because it appears to be `cheap` (again, that is what Hamid Gul thought) yet delivers little. There is no substitute to a frontal, head-on, no-holds barred battle that is conclusive and decisive, rather than fighting an endless guerilla campaign (you forgot that Sun Tzu decries long campaigns). I suggest that instead of Sun Tzu, you also read `Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power` by Victor Davis Hanson.
In the happy circumstance that Pakistan reigns in its overzealous jehadis, there will be no need for such a conflict; but should Pakistan persist in its present policy of waging a covert war, India will have no choice but take decisive action. If it fails to act, then India will have nobody else to blame, but itself. Self-pity can`t get get one too far.
are you suggesting that India do what Pakistan has tried and failed at in both Afghanistan and Kashmir (failed covert wars)?. Do you have any example of a country being made to change a policy as a result of being forced into a covert war? If you know of one, please share it with us so that we may learn a few lessons in military history. I am also awaiting a response on my assertion that a democracy will whittle away its advantage of being able to rally its population behind a national effort if it fails to share the war aims and the potential costs/hazards with the people. Victory does not come on the cheap, and a covert war is tantalizing because it appears to be `cheap` (again, that is what Hamid Gul thought) yet delivers little. There is no substitute to a frontal, head-on, no-holds barred battle that is conclusive and decisive, rather than fighting an endless guerilla campaign (you forgot that Sun Tzu decries long campaigns). I suggest that instead of Sun Tzu, you also read `Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power` by Victor Davis Hanson.
In the happy circumstance that Pakistan reigns in its overzealous jehadis, there will be no need for such a conflict; but should Pakistan persist in its present policy of waging a covert war, India will have no choice but take decisive action. If it fails to act, then India will have nobody else to blame, but itself. Self-pity can`t get get one too far.
#64 Posted by stuka on October 28, 2002 8:08:10 am
Decisive ``Political`` results are won with a combination of military and political action. You suggest overt military action, and I disagree. Military action should be covert, and political action accompanying it should be overt.
OK, to be honest, a lot of these thoughts of mine are not original. I read Sun Tzu.
OK, to be honest, a lot of these thoughts of mine are not original. I read Sun Tzu.
#63 Posted by shammi on October 26, 2002 7:32:09 pm
ajeet, stuka:
I repeat: Decisive political results in a conflict are rarely achieved through covert action alone. I have no objection to covert action as a PART of a larger overt strategy.
I repeat: Decisive political results in a conflict are rarely achieved through covert action alone. I have no objection to covert action as a PART of a larger overt strategy.
#61 Posted by Ajeet on October 26, 2002 11:04:44 am
shammi #60,
`I fundamentally disagree with this. Great nations ought not to behave as petty thieves.`
All nations of the world, great and small take covert actions to achive their aims. This is a part of overall statagy. There is no such thing as honorable or otherwise. The only parameter is success. All else hot air.
As far as blockade or quarantine, that would be an act of war. I have no problem with it as long as you are ready for the consequences and can back it up with overwhelming force.
However if all you are going to do is start it and then have to back off because of world pressure or the fact that you don`t have enough back bone or resources, then it is better not to start it. Perfect examples: Sadam`s adventure in Iran and Kuwait, as against, British action in Falkland?? islands, or Israel action in six day war.
`I fundamentally disagree with this. Great nations ought not to behave as petty thieves.`
All nations of the world, great and small take covert actions to achive their aims. This is a part of overall statagy. There is no such thing as honorable or otherwise. The only parameter is success. All else hot air.
As far as blockade or quarantine, that would be an act of war. I have no problem with it as long as you are ready for the consequences and can back it up with overwhelming force.
However if all you are going to do is start it and then have to back off because of world pressure or the fact that you don`t have enough back bone or resources, then it is better not to start it. Perfect examples: Sadam`s adventure in Iran and Kuwait, as against, British action in Falkland?? islands, or Israel action in six day war.
#60 Posted by shammi on October 26, 2002 7:17:30 am
stuka:
``..any steps taken have to be covert (and deniable)...``
I fundamentally disagree with this. Great nations ought not to behave as petty thieves. They should be completely willing to accept full responsibility for their actions. What have we to hide? Did we not adequately explain our actions to the world in the Bangladesh campaign and in Kargil? Was the world not in agreement? Lack of an ability to make a case to the world is not reason enough, rather it is a reason to improve our ability in that area if they are found to be lacking.
Democracies have at least one great advantage over authoritarian and totalitarian states -- they allow collective, deliberative decision-making. This results in a fighting resolve that dictatorships cannot hope to match. Soldiers are loathe to die for a man, they are more likely to die for a cause. Democracies are reluctant to go to war, but once in it, are easily the most devastatingly effective fighting machines (Hitler learned that quite well). By engaging in covert action, we will fritter away this great advantage, and reduce ourselves to Pakistan`s strategy in Afghanistan, Kashmir. Look at the quandry that they find themselves in now! Decisive political results in a conflict are rarely achieved through covert action alone. There is no substitute for a frontal, head-on clash. Learn it now, or learn it later.
``..any steps taken have to be covert (and deniable)...``
I fundamentally disagree with this. Great nations ought not to behave as petty thieves. They should be completely willing to accept full responsibility for their actions. What have we to hide? Did we not adequately explain our actions to the world in the Bangladesh campaign and in Kargil? Was the world not in agreement? Lack of an ability to make a case to the world is not reason enough, rather it is a reason to improve our ability in that area if they are found to be lacking.
Democracies have at least one great advantage over authoritarian and totalitarian states -- they allow collective, deliberative decision-making. This results in a fighting resolve that dictatorships cannot hope to match. Soldiers are loathe to die for a man, they are more likely to die for a cause. Democracies are reluctant to go to war, but once in it, are easily the most devastatingly effective fighting machines (Hitler learned that quite well). By engaging in covert action, we will fritter away this great advantage, and reduce ourselves to Pakistan`s strategy in Afghanistan, Kashmir. Look at the quandry that they find themselves in now! Decisive political results in a conflict are rarely achieved through covert action alone. There is no substitute for a frontal, head-on clash. Learn it now, or learn it later.
#59 Posted by stuka on October 25, 2002 6:25:46 pm
Shammi:
The steps you mention have no deniability and paint India as the aggressor to the rest of the world. The international community does not give two hoots to the Kashmir issue but it is very concerned about two nuclear nations going to war. Therefore any steps taken have to be covert. Limited military action on the LOC can be undertaken under the cover of confusion of the insurgency. An example is India`s attempt to take a Pakistani post using limited air power. Unfortunately, that attempt failed. However, with India and Pakistan giving conflicting statements, it is impossible for a third country to tell a truth from a lie.
The steps you mention have no deniability and paint India as the aggressor to the rest of the world. The international community does not give two hoots to the Kashmir issue but it is very concerned about two nuclear nations going to war. Therefore any steps taken have to be covert. Limited military action on the LOC can be undertaken under the cover of confusion of the insurgency. An example is India`s attempt to take a Pakistani post using limited air power. Unfortunately, that attempt failed. However, with India and Pakistan giving conflicting statements, it is impossible for a third country to tell a truth from a lie.
#58 Posted by shammi on October 25, 2002 3:10:26 pm
re: stuka
``...This means individually targetting posts, and pushing the LOC inch by inch, till the Pakistanis see that their self interest lies in negotiating a settlement...``
Rather than get embrolied in moving pieces on a chessboard tactically (eg. capturing posts), how about imposing a kennedyesque `quarantine` on all vessels going to and from Karachi (this will hit the Pakistani elites more than the poor, who are disconnected from the global economy anyway, while the elites are not) as an option for increasing the cost on the Pakistani economy? A `quarantine` is not a blockade, and is not an act of war (although, to me a blockade would be very painful and for that reason, effective) but will impose real costs on the Pak economy. How about walking out of the Indus Waters Treaty and using the water for domestic consumption? How about both? Intermittently, with rewards and punishment built in? The trade will be clear: you push infiltrators, we block traffic or water? Tit for tat.
``...This means individually targetting posts, and pushing the LOC inch by inch, till the Pakistanis see that their self interest lies in negotiating a settlement...``
Rather than get embrolied in moving pieces on a chessboard tactically (eg. capturing posts), how about imposing a kennedyesque `quarantine` on all vessels going to and from Karachi (this will hit the Pakistani elites more than the poor, who are disconnected from the global economy anyway, while the elites are not) as an option for increasing the cost on the Pakistani economy? A `quarantine` is not a blockade, and is not an act of war (although, to me a blockade would be very painful and for that reason, effective) but will impose real costs on the Pak economy. How about walking out of the Indus Waters Treaty and using the water for domestic consumption? How about both? Intermittently, with rewards and punishment built in? The trade will be clear: you push infiltrators, we block traffic or water? Tit for tat.
#57 Posted by sadna on October 25, 2002 6:08:54 am
stuka #54
``What is the basis of your assumption that the Pakistan Army even needs a peace constituency in India? ``
Perhaps your question is `what is the basis of your assumption that the PA needs peace with India`. If so, you are right, there is no basis except :
`` The paramountcy of the institution precedes the benefit of the nation. ``
If the parasite institution(in this case the PA) sucks the host nation(the Pakistani nation) dry what remains? The institution cannot exist in a vacuum, its share of the pie is linked with the size of the pie of their nation. Prolonged conflict with India only impoverishes Pakistan and eventually their Army.
The way it has managed so far is being able to budget its conflict with India through getting paid for maintaining conflict elsewhere(successfully like the two Afghan interventions of US ).
It is now trading on US apprehensions about its internal instability, spread of armed fundamentalism and the threat of nuclear war.
But how much longer can this extortionism keep yielding benefits for the Pakistan Army, esp as those Central Asian jihadi eggs didnot hatch alas, Jammu and Kashmir is far far from being the first jihadi-won seed Islamic state esp post 9/11 and Al Qaeda is finding other countries more hospitable.
What can possibly be the PA`s long term strategy for survival except the wellbeing and progress of their nation? (which cannot be separated from end of conflict with India). Are they confused or what?
``What is the basis of your assumption that the Pakistan Army even needs a peace constituency in India? ``
Perhaps your question is `what is the basis of your assumption that the PA needs peace with India`. If so, you are right, there is no basis except :
`` The paramountcy of the institution precedes the benefit of the nation. ``
If the parasite institution(in this case the PA) sucks the host nation(the Pakistani nation) dry what remains? The institution cannot exist in a vacuum, its share of the pie is linked with the size of the pie of their nation. Prolonged conflict with India only impoverishes Pakistan and eventually their Army.
The way it has managed so far is being able to budget its conflict with India through getting paid for maintaining conflict elsewhere(successfully like the two Afghan interventions of US ).
It is now trading on US apprehensions about its internal instability, spread of armed fundamentalism and the threat of nuclear war.
But how much longer can this extortionism keep yielding benefits for the Pakistan Army, esp as those Central Asian jihadi eggs didnot hatch alas, Jammu and Kashmir is far far from being the first jihadi-won seed Islamic state esp post 9/11 and Al Qaeda is finding other countries more hospitable.
What can possibly be the PA`s long term strategy for survival except the wellbeing and progress of their nation? (which cannot be separated from end of conflict with India). Are they confused or what?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- morni: If any one can... The Cry of Karachi
- tahmed32: Tea for you, Masadi... Three Cups of Tea
- tahmed32: yawn...so,how was your weekend,... The Republican Red Scare
- peonofthewest: see how pathetic you... Three Cups of Tea
- altar: I am going to... The Heart of Starkness:
- KaalChakra: "Now or Never" is... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- muqaddam: If one did a... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- muqaddam: Omar Abdulla is just... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
