Very Trumpish argument, there was a reason why no other administration went for tariff's, this is not higher mathematics or astrophysics invented by Navarro and Trump, just a childish approach.
Achieving limited objectives is something (with its own set of consequences) in war plans but taking over a country size of Pakistan is another. It is not possible for US with her might to go after Pakistan on ground.
There is significant risk even with limited objective interference also. US...
Strengthening Pakistan do not fit in the overall strategy, there is not even a short term goal associated with Pakistan at this point. Any help needed in Afghanistan can be extracted by FATF threat.
Responsibility goes to Pakistan's leadership, they are unable to barter their services.
If Bharat had the upper hand in skirmish they have for sure escalated it get some land in Pakistani Administered Kashmiri. This was blessed by Pompeo, and planned accordingly, PAF is what prevented the war.
Google what? There is no such example to begin with in IN naval arm history before this event, situation is obviously desperate for IAF. Countless articles are written in indian press on this subject and the need of 42 squadrons vs 32 available. There is an article being shared for discussion...
Irrelevant example. Fighter pilots get deployed to different services, even different Air forces. No country procures career based fighters and deploys them deep inland.
The Indian Navy plans to deploy 20 of its 45 MiG-29 carrier-borne fighters to the Himalayas to reinforce air force jets flying patrols over a disputed region bordering China.
The MiG-29Ks are supposed to fly from the fleet’s new aircraft carrier Vikrant. But Vikrant is years behind schedule...