Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
That is because they don't want the burden of having to defend the argument around sunk costs of maintaining a useless occupation. The people need to be told that its important to keep the 20 year old narrative intact, when the reality is that if both scaled back from the glacier, these is nothing of a strategic advantage to be lost. You cannot sever Pakistan's link with China and we certainly cannot influence the Indian presence in IoK through Siachen unless both sides have plans to hop over the terrain and capture additional territory (I am joking of course).
Obviously, both sides will stick to their positions if nothing comes of it, but pragmatism should prevail becasue there is nothing strategic to gain from maintaining current positions. The simple explanation for us being there is that you should not be there and the same goes for you. If you can understand this, then none of the other theories around strategic advantage matter because they were conjured up to support the basic premise of not letting the other occupy one's territory.
Please take a look at the italicised bits in post 27.
Oops! You've looked at it! Sorry.