Pakistan needs strategic depth

[fatman17]

Pakistan needs strategic depth

By Ejaz Haider

Published: October 7, 2011


Five meetings on security in a week and I heard nearly a dozen times that Pakistan doesn’t need nor seeks strategic depth. That’s codswallop. Every state needs strategic depth and given Pakistan’s geographical location, she more than some others.

I hear the sound of bayonets pulled out of scabbards so let me repeat, Pakistan needs strategic depth. Hore Choopo!

But pray, what is this ‘hated’ concept?

Broadly, in military terms, it refers to a state’s ability to deal with an offensive through elastic, multi-layered defence, absorb the initial thrust, stress the enemy forces and inflict attrition on it through multiple counter-strikes that would lead to the offensive petering out and falling short of its objectives.

At a basic level it is a rather simple calculation of distances between the frontlines and/or any forward battle sectors and a state’s strategic assets: industrial areas, key urban and population centres, communications lines, military production centres, in effect the state’s heartlands or, to put it another way, all the soft and hardware whose agglomeration makes a state viable.

For politico-military planners this becomes a central precept. How vulnerable such assets are and what strategy must be adopted to ensure that a state can absorb a methodical offensive and still be able to respond to and defeat an adversary.

Pakistan’s physical thinness that runs along its length helps it in having shorter interior lines, a plus for quick mobilisation. But it also makes her vulnerable to a sweeping offensive with thrusts directed at strategic locations. Pakistan’s mil-ops strategy against a potential Indian offensive, given a relatively weaker air force, more reliance on air defences and lesser logistics and reserve capabilities, has entailed a combination of holding the Indian offensive in certain areas and striking in others. This meant identifying points of no penetration (Lahore and Sialkot, for instance), points where the Indian forces could be pulled in, areas where Pakistan would strike back and also, areas where, if need be, Pakistan could cross over.

This is a very simplistic overview of a complex mil-ops strategy which subsumes multiple operational plans. But the logic is to use interior lines that benefit the defender rather than taking the stress of exterior lines necessary for an offensive. All these concepts continue to be debated which is exactly what the job of a military is, Pakistani as much as any other.

The current confusion is owed to the ‘brilliance’ of former army chief Mirza Aslam Beg who posited it in relation to Afghanistan. His concept was unpopular even when he was the chief and it has never been entertained by serious military planners. No one thinks of placing military and other assets in Afghanistan and thus acquiring strategic depth. Afghanistan, for a host of reasons, one worse than the other, never offered any such possibility outside of the heat-oppressed brain of General Beg. But just because that was nonsense doesn’t make the idea of strategic depth nonsensical per se.

Also, the concept goes beyond the mil-ops categories. During a talk once I formulated it in political-diplomatic terms: strategic depth being the ability of a state to reduce threats by a combination of strategies which includes improving relations with neighbours to try and bring the possibility of an armed conflict to zero and thereby creating space for economic development and projection.

Since then I have been directed to one of the works by Ahmet Devatoglu, the current foreign minister of Turkey who is widely credited with being the architect of Turkey’s reorientation. The book is called Strategic Depth: Turkey’s International Position. It is written in Turkish and I don’t know of an English translation. But what I have gathered from some research on the internet, it seems that Mr Devatoglu has also argued the concept in political-diplomatic terms.

Not just that. It seems that this process of rethinking Turkey’s relations with its neighbours and the world in general began before Mr Devatoglu’s book came out. Other political scientists like Duygu Sezer, Ali Karaosmanoglu and Huseyin Bagci are also credited with proposing a “‘grand strategy’ for Turkish foreign policy” instead of Ankara’s traditional reactive approach. The same thought was put to me in March 2010 when I interviewed President Abdullah Gul in Ankara: zero conflict in the region; economic development; proactive policy.

It is in this sense that the concept of strategic depth must be seen. And from this perspective, Pakistan needs it not just in relation to Afghanistan, but even more importantly, India.

Put the bayonet back in the scabbard and rethink the concept, thank you.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 8th, 2011.

 

[suleman_ms202]

i am sorry i beg to differ ..
first of all .

there is our neighbour named iran , which was once surrounded by enemies from 3 enemies ir iraq , taliban and saudia
they didnt work on concept strategic depth isntead they focused on self sustained missile system development (land , air and sea based) .

even if this concept materializes wht do we end up with ? sectarian wars , poor population , mountains , no water , no infrastrucutre etc etc

i think we have wasted our time and money in this concept , we need something new and for this we should talk to iran and china
They both have had to develop their tactics keeping USA , a much larger adversary than their capability and importantly they both foucse on self sustained cheap defence systems

 

[suleman_ms202]

for example China in south china seas , keeping its weakness in mind , have developed plans to stop US carriers ... they have mainly develiped carrier killer missiles , cruise missiles ,. early warning mechanisms

meanwhile iran has developned an agrresive plan to attack US interests in middle east (bahrain fleet) ..

Important think in this thinking is , they cut out time advantage of enemy..

and us pakistanis are going no where , not only we are losing missile deterrence we are losing nucleur edge too..
we dont have any advantge in airdefence systems because we are not self sustained , we are not prepared for war of attrition , but our enemy is quite well prepared for this..

why do we invest in fighter planes when same results can easliy be achieved by airdefence missile systems

 

[Pulsar]

The concept of strategic depth was first articulated by army chief General Mirza Aslam Beg. This doctrine stressed:

• Dispersal of Pakistan’s military personnel and assets in Afghanistan well beyond the offensive capabilities of the Indian military. Pakistan’s geographical width was considered inadequate for a prolonged defence against India. In this context, post-Soviet Afghanistan was considered an ideal choice for Pakistan to gain strategic depth.

• To support secessionist movements in India, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir by training jehadists using Afghanistan as a base.

• To gain access to Central Asia in order to open that region for Pakistani economic penetration. Moreover, Pakistan could serve as the “gateway” to landlocked Central Asia for investment from the United States and other industrialized states. In this regard, a Pakistani controlled Afghanistan would enhance Pakistan’s geostrategic importance for United States.

• To continue to pursue a strategy of nuclear ambivalence.

• To enhance the existing strategic and military to military relationship with the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Now all this is pretty much hogwash except point number 3. The very premise of taking for granted that a sovereign country like Afghanistan is going to allow Pakistan to use its territory during war with India is preposterous to say the least. That is wishful thinking of a withered brain.

Second, do Pakistan's military 'strategists' think that they would be able to withdraw all their missiles and counter strike forces into Afghanistan for a riposte at a later time, akin to a second strike scenario? That's not going to happen as it is totally impracticable due to the lack of time and space.

Bottom line: This so called Strategic Depth concept, the lynchpin of Pakistan's strategy since the past decade and a half, is a complete non-starter. Towards this end the PA/ISI combine have been trying their best to install a pliable government in Afghanistan by supporting the Afghan Taliban (Haqqani/Omar) with weapons and equipment mostly diverted from the coalition support funds that the US was dishing out to Pakistan.

If Pakistan thinks that 'strategic depth' will be achieved post American withdrawal from Afghanistan, then they are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[third eye]

8 Oct 2011 ... 16 Nov 2014 ?

 

[Storm Force]

Interesting topic guys.

Why dont you use the Israeli concept who like you have no strategic depth.

They rely on sbsolute air and real time info superiority over their neighbours.

Much harder to achieve against an enemy like India but not impossible

 

[black-hawk_101]

As Pak is building new Ballistic Missiles; will it going use all of their old missiles with conventional warheads in any war near with any country?

 

[suleman_ms202]

As Pak is building new Ballistic Missiles; will it going use all of their old missiles with conventional warheads in any war near with any country?

Source: Pakistan needs strategic depth


are you blind? cant you see they are not interested in developping missile systems let alone solid fuel ballistic missiles.. currently pak defence relies on 2 pillars 1 . afghanistan (depth) 2. countering cold start


for countering cold start they are sayinng we are delveoping small 'minitiarized' nuclear arms , which combine with quick responce from airforce would theoretically atleast halt indian march inside pakistani territory... this concept itself has 2 BIG shortcomings

1. what if india laucnhes mini- nukes first then starts cold start ? Pakistn would have no response in this case.. cutting out our time and movement advantage

2. we assume air superiority... i know that is not going to happen , india has much larger awacs and much larger radards and could ptentially jam pakistani radar network...

again i'd like to point to 2 those 2 countries ie Iran and China.. they both face more or less same threats ...when was the last time we had developed long range radar ourselves????

 

[fiza200]

It is depend on Army struggle.

 

[krash]

are you blind? cant you see they are not interested in developping missile systems let alone solid fuel ballistic missiles.. currently pak defence relies on 2 pillars 1 . afghanistan (depth) 2. countering cold start

What rock have you been living under? Pakistan has had solid fuel ballistic missiles for years.

for countering cold start they are sayinng we are delveoping small 'minitiarized' nuclear arms , which combine with quick responce from airforce would theoretically atleast halt indian march inside pakistani territory... this concept itself has 2 BIG shortcomings

1. what if india laucnhes mini- nukes first then starts cold start ? Pakistn would have no response in this case.. cutting out our time and movement advantage

Incorrect. First India does not have "mini-nukes". Second if India did launch any form of nukes on Pakistani soil it would be an all out nuclear war. Third, our mini-nukes are not primarily meant to stop the IBGs but to lower the very nuclear threshold which those IBGs are meant to sneak under, thereby acting as a deterrent to any ignorant Indian misadventure, in the first place.

2. we assume air superiority... i know that is not going to happen , india has much larger awacs and much larger radards and could ptentially jam pakistani radar network...

That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works.

again i'd like to point to 2 those 2 countries ie Iran and China.. they both face more or less same threats ...when was the last time we had developed long range radar ourselves????

What has Iran developed of any note?

 

[Inception-06]

What rock have you been living under? Pakistan has had solid fuel ballistic missiles for years.




What has Iran developed of any note?

Iran has a very huge coastal missile arsenal in the coastal defence lines and in Bunker Systems covered by a spectrum of SAM.

 

[krash]

Iran has a very huge coastal missile arsenal in the coastal defence lines and in Bunker Systems covered by a spectrum of SAM.

View attachment 149388 View attachment 149389 View attachment 149390 View attachment 149391 View attachment 149392

Sub-par copies of obsolete systems. Im not ridiculing the Iranians, just explaining that suleman_ms202's advice for looking at Iran as an example of self proficiency and/or "development" is wholly unfounded. Pakistan has achieved far more than the Iranians have, in almost every field.

 

[Inception-06]

Sub-par copies of obsolete systems. Im not ridiculing the Iranians, just explaining that suleman_ms202's advice for looking at Iran as an example of self proficiency and/or "development" is wholly unfounded. Pakistan has achieved far more than the Iranians have, in almost every field.

Yes that might be right,but it is out of question from the military view that the Iranians have done the best of their situation under the sanctions. Their bases and coastal defence I am not talking about their Naval air and sea arm, are a dangerous threat for any Fleet which trys to attack Iran from sea. With their current tactic, development and mass production of Anti-ship missiles and the combination of long and short SAM arsenal they can hold their declared enemy at the Bay.

The Tactic which the Iranian coastal defence use is very simple:

- firing Anti-Ship missiles in salves

- using older and new typse of missiles, makes it more difficult and complex for the enemy to expect the technical threat and choose the meassures

I am not fan of Irans politics neither I am interest in politics, I am just a military reader and writer,who want see Pakistan in peace through military and economic strengthened by a peaceful foreign politic of Pakistan.




Coming back to the "strategic deep"

"Whosoever talks about the strategic depth policy is either outdated on the issue or is seriously mistaken," remarked one Pakistani security official, so @fatman what was the goal to post such a article here without any minde and comment from you ?

I dont think that this old -deep in afghanistan strategy is possible through agressive foreigne politics or through intervention in afghanistan politics via ISI or other elements. More realistic is to bring the Afghan economy so close to the Pakistani, that the Afghans depends on Pakistani exports and imports, the next step is than to train their junior Officers in Pakistan and ours in Afghanistan, to hold military exercises, Border patrols etc. the goal is to staion a full heavy equipped mechanized Brigade of Pakistani Soldiers in Afghanistan, to get a military base in Afghanistan, the task is to protect Kabul from the Talibs and to get trust and brotherly cooperation......and so on. Is that possible ? I say yes, for that our tasked men of the Pakistani government and Military most workeout a new Afghanistan-strategic-deep doctrin, for this new line Pakistan musst build a longterm, serious, foreigne political agenda for Afghanistan. A message that Gen. Raheel Sharif carried on his recent trip to Afghanistan. The new policy is one of no interference, no favorites in Afghanistan, which is supported by the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz. According to ISPR Raheel Sharif was even ready to offer the Afghan military in building and and equipping a full Afghan infantry Brigade near Kabul !


Mechanized Pakistani Forces

I don't want declare essay works from ministers of my: For that here is very good and actual article to this "strategic deep" issue.

Hussain Nadim is currently serving as the Special Assistant to Pakistan's Federal Minister of Planning, Development & Reform :

It's very rare that one comes across optimism towards Afghanistan among the security establishment in Pakistan, but when I interviewed a senior member of the country's intelligence community recently, he said of the recent elections in Afghanistan: "[It] doesn't matter if the president is Abdullah Abdullah or Ashraf Ghani, the democratic process in Afghanistan in itself is a sign of stability and progress." Several senior members of the Pakistani security establishment expressed similar views when asked about the Afghan elections, indicating a dramatic shift in Pakistan's policy toward its neighbor that is a refreshing break from the past -- a message that Gen. Raheel Sharif carried on his recent trip to Afghanistan.

The new policy is one of no interference, no favorites in Afghanistan, which is supported by the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz.

But what about the ‘strategic depth' policy -- a vivid idea that Pakistan must control Afghanistan so not to have an enemy on its Western border? "Whosoever talks about the strategic depth policy is either outdated on the issue or is seriously mistaken," remarked one Pakistani security official. While the strategic depth policy was once an integral part of Pakistan's Afghan policy before 9/11, it is now redundant and obsolete. He added that: "The policy was a byproduct of [the] Soviet invasion of Afghanistan under a certain context. It is not sustainable and doesn't make any sense today given how the context and regional dynamics have changed."

With the ‘strategic depth' policy out of the window, India'sgrowing involvement in Afghanistan is becoming more acceptable to Pakistan's security establishment. That is not to say that Pakistan is completely comfortable with it, but more that it is slowly coming to terms with the idea as part of its new ‘no interference, no favorites' policy. "Afghanistan is a sovereign state, and it can choose to have any relations with any country. That should not be a concern for Pakistan, unless third powers are using Afghan soil to target Pakistan," explained a senior military official. On the question of a recent India-Russia deal to provide arms to the Afghan Army, the same official replied with a question: "Has the deal been signed yet?"

The newly found comfort over Indian advancements in Afghanistan can be attributed to three causes: First, Pakistan's security establishment realizes that Afghanistan requires regional partnerships for development. Second, Pakistan feels that, since India does not share a direct border with Afghanistan, it can only have limited influence on ground. Third, Pakistan's security apparatus has developed a relationship of good will and understanding with the Afghan leadership.

There is also a realization within the establishment that there is much to be learned from India in terms of its development strategy of winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan. While Pakistan may provide hardware and infrastructure development to Afghanistan, Indians are going out in rural Pashtun areas to provide books, medicines, and hospital facilities -- items that affect the people most and create goodwill. If Pakistan wants cordial relations with the people of Afghanistan it must follow the same route.

Most of the Pakistani security officials I interviewed are confident and optimistic about Afghanistan's future -- something that wasn't the case a couple of years back -- because of ongoing trends in the country, such as the elections, the quality of the candidates, and how everyone, young or old, turned out to cast a vote. One of the intelligence officers I talked to was of the view that Afghanistan has even gone beyond its ethnic divide, especially if one looks at voting behavior, and how Tajiks and Pashtuns voted for candidatesregardless of their ethnic affiliation. Moreover, the candidates have worked to mobilize the vote across ethnic divides, something that has been met with success. For example, Abdullah was supported by Pashtuns in Kabul and Jalalabad, and Ghani received support from Tajik strongholds in the north. As a result, Pakistan's security establishment does not predict an ethnic civil war breaking out between different ethnic factions, nor with Taliban................

read the full article here:

Pakistan's New, Optimistic Afghan Strategy

 

[StormShadow]

Incorrect. First India does not have "mini-nukes".

Ofcourse we do have 'em. Why do you think we developed Prahaar missile in such a short time?

Second if India did launch any form of nukes on Pakistani soil it would be an all out nuclear war. Third, our mini-nukes are not primarily meant to stop the IBGs but to lower the very nuclear threshold which those IBGs are meant to sneak under, thereby acting as a deterrent to any ignorant Indian misadventure, in the first place.

Same is the case with pakistan. India has even gone to the extent of changing it's nuclear doctrine for this purpose.

2.3. India shall pursue a doctrine of credible minimum nuclear deterrence. In this policy of "retaliation only", the survivability of our arsenal is critical. This is a dynamic concept related to the strategic environment, technological imperatives and the needs of national security. The actual size components, deployment and employment of nuclear forces will be decided in the light of these factors. India's peacetime posture aims at convincing any potential aggressor that :

(a) any threat of use of nuclear weapons against India shall invoke measures to counter the threat: and

(b) any nuclear attack on India and its forces shall result in punitive retaliation with nuclear weapons to inflict damage unacceptable to the aggressor.

Read it carefully. You may invite a nuclear strike just if you threaten us with nukes. Next, not only on India, but even if our forces are attacked with nukes(and it dosent differentiate between tactical/strategic), the perpetrator will invite massive and unacceptable retaliation.

Good luke nuking the Indians.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Interesting topic guys.

Why dont you use the Israeli concept who like you have no strategic depth.

They rely on sbsolute air and real time info superiority over their neighbours.

Much harder to achieve against an enemy like India but not impossible

Strategically speaking. Israel does have depth. All the way to the state of Montana.