The Cold Start Doctrine Watch.

[SQ8]

About this part - "victory" doesn't mean conquest or occupation in the Indo-Pak scenario. At least, not from an Indian POV. All said and done, India has no desire whatsoever to rule Pakistan or capture Pakistani Kashmir - most Indians don't care for any of that, which I know is in contrast to the Pakistani psyche that wants to take Kashmir from India. But there can be other forms of "victory".

To give you an example, the one moment after 9/11 when American people felt victorious and overjoyed was not when the Taliban govt was overthrown (most of them hadn't heard about Taliban before) or when Saddam's statue was toppled or he was captured (not many had subscribed to Bush's lies about Saddam and 9/11), but when Osama was shot dead by navy SEALs in Abottabad. I personally witnessed NY and Chicago celebrating with flags and chants of "USA! USA!", and random people high fiving each other on the streets. It was closure for them, it was evident in the very air.

In our context, in the event of major attacks from Pakistan that actually anger the population at large, if India does punitive strikes on terror camps or assassinates a terrorist, it will be seen as a victory for India. (Of course I know India has no capabilities to mount an Op Neptune's Spear.) But any decisive punitive strike on Pakistani "non state actors" or terrorist infrastructure or even military infrastructure, will be seen as a victory. You have to understand, that is the only sort of victory that Indians really want, not to march into Islamabad and plant the tricolor there.

Another example would of course be a Kargil style victory, where we can thwart a Pakistani attempt to take our lands - that will also be a big victory for Indians, but somehow I don't see any such misadventures from Pakistan in the medium term future.

"Victory" for Indians would be in defence or in retaliation - not in conquest or hegemony.

You dont understand, the victory for India is NEVER to invade(hell, that is hara kiri for India in ways you cant even imagine). Victory is destroying the Pakistani war machine, removing Pakistan and its non-state actors as a threat to India for a long term(preferably permanently) and solidifying its position on Kashmir, the Rann of Kutch and any other border anomalies that do not favour India.

It is that victory that Pakistan wishes to deny.

 

[rockstarIN]

Back to square one...

Pakistanis posters simply does not accept the 'idea' of retaliation in case of a massive terror attack. There are numerous options with India, but Pakistanis options will be one thing only...Full scale war..then nuke.

 

[janon]

You dont understand, the victory for India is NEVER to invade(hell, that is hara kiri for India in ways you cant even imagine). Victory is destroying the Pakistani war machine, removing Pakistan and its non-state actors as a threat to India for a long term(preferably permanently) and solidifying its position on Kashmir, the Rann of Kutch and any other border anomalies that do not favour India.

It is that victory that Pakistan wishes to deny.

That's what I'm telling you, it is not. While that may logically sound like the only kind of victory, most Indians don't know what "war machine" or destroying it means, don't care about Pakistani Kashmir (Indian Kashmir is already solidified as part and parcel of India that cannot be taken away), and don't care about border anomalies. None of this figures in the public consiousness.

For the common Indian, the average voter, "victory" is quite primal - revenge attacks on Pakistan if we are hit, through non state actors or state ones. And of course, defend every inch of the country, including Indian Kashmir. That is all that victory means to the common Indian voters, who's wishes are what the people in power try to please.

When the Kargil war ended, and ceasefire was declared, Indians across the country celebrated victory. For them, it was quite simple - Pakistanis tried to take our Kashmir, and our armed forces prevented that, and now Pakistanis have been forced to go back. It was victory, plain and simple. Flags were flown, songs were sung, the Prime Minister flashed the "V" sign on television. Nobody had any notions of destroying Pak's war machine.

Similarly, if there is a major terror attack in India, and the Indian military strikes a few targets in Pak, like say training camps or leaders of terror groups like lashkars and mujahideens, or do a few strikes on the Pak military, that will be considered a victory by most people. Revenge, that is all. Most people have no clue about "military victories" in the true sense. Their idea of victory is quite simple.

If India succesfully did that, either bombed a few terrorist cadres or leaders, do you think Pakistan will seek to escalate it into a nuclear war? Of course, Pak might retaliate too, and then both sides would agree to a ceasefire, and both sides will claim victory - as far as Indians are concerned, if a few undesirables were eliminated, that would be victory. It is about perception - many Pakistanis will try to paint it as a small nation attacked by a big one but holding its own, while Indians will simply think of it as retaliation for a wrong. As I said, "victory" means different things to different people, and to the common Indian, it is either about defence, or retaliation. The aims you spelt out, like destroying the Pak war machine etc simply do not exist in the public consiousness.

 

[SQ8]

That's what I'm telling you, it is not. While that may logically sound like the only kind of victory, most Indians don't know what "war machine" or destroying it means, don't care about Pakistani Kashmir (Indian Kashmir is already solidified as part and parcel of India that cannot be taken away), and don't care about border anomalies. None of this figures in the public consiousness.

For the common Indian, the average voter, "victory" is quite primal - revenge attacks on Pakistan if we are hit, through non state actors or state ones. And of course, defend every inch of the country, including Indian Kashmir. That is all that victory means to the common Indian voters, who's wishes are what the people in power try to please.

When the Kargil war ended, and ceasefire was declared, Indians across the country celebrated victory. For them, it was quite simple - Pakistanis tried to take our Kashmir, and our armed forces prevented that, and now Pakistanis have been forced to go back. It was victory, plain and simple. Flags were flown, songs were sung, the Prime Minister flashed the "V" sign on television. Nobody had any notions of destroying Pak's war machine.

Similarly, if there is a major terror attack in India, and the Indian military strikes a few targets in Pak, like say training camps or leaders of terror groups like lashkars and mujahideens, or do a few strikes on the Pak military, that will be considered a victory by most people. Revenge, that is all. Most people have no clue about "military victories" in the true sense. Their idea of victory is quite simple.

If India succesfully did that, either bombed a few terrorist cadres or leaders, do you think Pakistan will seek to escalate it into a nuclear war? Of course, Pak might retaliate too, and then both sides would agree to a ceasefire, and both sides will claim victory - as far as Indians are concerned, if a few undesirables were eliminated, that would be victory. It is about perception - many Pakistanis will try to paint it as a small nation attacked by a big one but holding its own, while Indians will simply think of it as retaliation for a wrong. As I said, "victory" means different things to different people, and to the common Indian, it is either about defence, or retaliation. The aims you spelt out, like destroying the Pak war machine etc simply do not exist in the public consiousness.

But its not the public conciousness we are looking at. It is leadership, the hawks within them.. the planning within there. After all, one does not build a massive war machine just for "revenge" attacks.

Back to square one...

Pakistanis posters simply does not accept the 'idea' of retaliation in case of a massive terror attack. There are numerous options with India, but Pakistanis options will be one thing only...Full scale war..then nuke.

Not exactly, the focus is on the escalation of the conflict and the choices available to Pakistan. India already tried the retaliatory strike post 26/11.. regardless of denials...there were incursion attempts made into Pakistan and a strike was planned. Quite simply, the border between India and Pakistan and its surveillance makes such attack unable to achieve surprise especially after a terror strike. The PAF would be up on the next minute if a terror event happens in India.. the success of that strike then goes down right after that.

See, a limited strike favors Pakistan more than India... here Pakistan can match the numerical strength and respond in kind. Leaving much more of a stalemate and at best a media victory for India. Nothing more. To truly end the terror threat, India has to dismantle the terror machinery which means boots on the ground which means full scale war.

 

[janon]

...To truly end the terror threat, India has to dismantle the terror machinery which means boots on the ground which means full scale war.

Can boots on the ground (Indian boots in Pak) fully eliminate terrorism forever and ever? Sure, we could kill a lot of terrorists. But will that be the end of terrorism? Once the boots come back, won't there be more terrorists training there?

The "terror machinery" is not much of a sophisticated machinery with costly instruments of war and electronic instruments. They are nothing but open land for training riflemen. There is no "machinery" or "infrastructure" to destroy, only people. And the people whom we kill can be replaced. In all probability, they will only get more volunteers if India somehow puts boots in Pakistan and kills a lot of terrorists. (Forgetting the whole nuclear thing temporarily.)

A much better way for India to be safe from terrorism, is to prevent the terrorists from getting in - and that is what we are doing. A few raids into Pakistan or airstrikes on terrorists can kill terrorists, but not terrorism. India might do that to satisfy the public's thirst for revenge, but it will still not yield a permanent solution or "victory" or bring about the end of the terrorism menace. For the foreseeable future, Pakistan will find no shortage of new young men to replace the dead.

There is another dimension to the waiting game played by India - that when we prevent the terrorists from entering, the cost that Pakistan itself pays for nurturing those elements will be borne by Pakistani society. Pak pays a price too, and at the moment the price that India is paying to keep them out is not as unbearable as the price that Pakistani society is paying (socially and financially) for nurturing them.

So "victory" for India will only be a few punitive strikes, in the event of provocation. Putting boots there and rooting out terrorism is simply not possible.

 

[rockstarIN]

But its not the public conciousness we are looking at. It is leadership, the hawks within them.. the planning within there. After all, one does not build a massive war machine just for "revenge" attacks.



Not exactly, the focus is on the escalation of the conflict and the choices available to Pakistan. India already tried the retaliatory strike post 26/11.. regardless of denials...there were incursion attempts made into Pakistan and a strike was planned. Quite simply, the border between India and Pakistan and its surveillance makes such attack unable to achieve surprise especially after a terror strike. The PAF would be up on the next minute if a terror event happens in India.. the success of that strike then goes down right after that.

See, a limited strike favors Pakistan more than India... here Pakistan can match the numerical strength and respond in kind. Leaving much more of a stalemate and at best a media victory for India. Nothing more. To truly end the terror threat, India has to dismantle the terror machinery which means boots on the ground which means full scale war.

It is not that we will not ready to accept few loses in the process. Contrary to the Pakistani beliefs, India have considerable upper hand in air force strength as well as navy. There is no need for holding for forces for china factor. With accepting few loses India can inflict damages to Pak war machinery. Even a strike only on P0k camps can be said that 'we did not strike pak since we did damage on disputed territory - the same language Pakistan dais about Kargil. Even a stale mate for is a victory for India. A military option exercised by India against a terror attack will make Pakistan think twice to help terrorists or will sincerely try to close the terror factory.

 

[SQ8]

It is not that we will not ready to accept few loses in the process. Contrary to the Pakistani beliefs, India have considerable upper hand in air force strength as well as navy. There is no need for holding for forces for china factor. With accepting few loses India can inflict damages to Pak war machinery. Even a strike only on P0k camps can be said that 'we did not strike pak since we did damage on disputed territory - the same language Pakistan dais about Kargil. Even a stale mate for is a victory for India. A military option exercised by India against a terror attack will make Pakistan think twice to help terrorists or will sincerely try to close the terror factory.

That is your view from your countries PoV and as a citizen of India. I am telling you that the military option on a limited scale will have zero effect and India will take more or equal losses to Pakistan. See, in a limited strike you have to have limited assets in the picture to ensure the "image" of it being a limited endeavour. On the other hand, the adversary is bound by no such thing and can engage with whatever assets it has at its disposal. Kargil is a great example of this. Pakistan was bound by its false statements of infiltrators and irregulars, hence the PA sought it as a matter of prestige not to involve any other branch. India was not bound at all,it used whatever it had at its disposal.

Additionally, lets say a terror attack happens in India; the Pakistani war machine will immediately be on alert due to it expecting an attack as assumed from the Indian side. Then what happens to a limited attack? will it be successfully? Chances are even a larger limited attack will suffer severe losses and may backfire in its intention. The only option then left to truly send a message would be to initiative full scale war where the entire might of the Indian military can be brought to bear at any area of its choosing. Only then will India achieve its objectives of pacifying the terror machinery in Pakistan.

This was all debated back in 2008.. India wanted the tit for tat strike. It found however that even if it managed to get through Pakistani defences, it would expect a strike back its its bases.. and then things would gradually get out of hand. This was conveyed through various diplomatic channels to India. The calculations were made and it was found that it was much better to use diplomatic and media pressure to get Pakistan to capitulate on the terror cells rather than anything else. And @janon is right; India sees plainly that the terror cells are now eating up Pakistan from the inside and their threat to India is much more diminished the more the Pakistani establishment tries to pacify these terror elements. So why fire a shot when your entire threat spectrum from the west is being tackled on its own?

 

[Donatello]

There has been marked change in Pakistani attitude towards these so called proxies. However, Pakistan knows the mess India is creating on it's borders and it's not exactly tit for tat. After the US pullout from Afghanistan, India is hedging that all these talibanies and their affiliates go towards western regions of Pakistan and not Kashmir. \So it is hell bent on keeping them busy, as fighting is the only thing these people know. For India to attack Pakistan it needs credible information. It's simply not worth it to get thousands killed in a war to avenge for the loss of a few lives. Does not make sense.

After 27 pages this is simply going back to square one, going back full circle. All you have said here is that a conventional war can escalate to nuclear, and India cannot take that chance. (Can Pakistan?) The very reason for devising new strategies after 2001 (whether cold start or something else) was because of this understanding. The very reason for this term "cold start" was to wage limited war against the nuclear backdrop. In short, Indians and Indian military planners are well aware of the possibiltiy of escalation. Your post should have been the start of the discussion, not come after 27 pages. Because trust me, that is what the military planners start off with, since they know these facts as well as we do.

Are you suggesting that war will never happen between the two countries? That's a very far fetched conclusion to make. US and China have not ruled out the possibility of a war, and in fact are preparing hard for such an eventuality, although in case of a war between them, both those countries stand to lose a lot more than India or Pakistan would.

Besides, I see this constant assumption that India fears nuclear war more than Pak does. While it is true that India will not initiate a nuclear conflict, be assured that India will risk one if push comes to shove. If another 26/11 happens, public pressure will be too high for the govt not to go to war or launch punitive strikes. And of course, a Kargil like attempt by Pakistan will also not be allowed to succeed - any attempt by Pak to take Indian territory will lead to war, these are non negotiable things. It is a fact that Pakistanis still dream of taking Kashmir from India, and if any such attempt is made, the threat of nuclear war will not prevent India from defending every inch of her territory.

It is a Pakistan dream just as much as it is Indian dream to take Kashmir from Pakistan. Cannot single out one nation only. About 26/11 happening, that depends a lot on how India wants to deal with it. As Oscar rightly pointed out, India simply does not have the capability to launch 'limited strikes'. The moment Indian forces cross border, it is war. Pakistan won't care if India's intention was limited or what. It will stike back, and India will lose any merit it had. Like i said before, even a small limited war will leave thousands dead and economy affected. Not really worth it.

 

[rockstarIN]

@Oscar

hat is your view from your countries PoV and as a citizen of India. I am telling you that the military option on a limited scale will have zero effect and India will take more or equal losses to Pakistan. See, in a limited strike you have to have limited assets in the picture to ensure the "image" of it being a limited endeavour. On the other hand, the adversary is bound by no such thing and can engage with whatever assets it has at its disposal. Kargil is a great example of this. Pakistan was bound by its false statements of infiltrators and irregulars, hence the PA sought it as a matter of prestige not to involve any other branch. India was not bound at all,it used whatever it had at its disposal.

You can't compare with Kargil situation where Pakistan 'officially denied' that it is just the mujahiddin, not the pak army. If you analyse closely Indian war games post 26/11, you can see the difference. More than 400 planes participated the last Iron fist war game, 95% of those were fighter/bomber jets. So it will not be like a 'sniper vs hunters' situation. And it is not necessary to have boots on the ground to strike. May be the surprise factor will not be there and IAF will have to accept loses, but given an another situation like 26/11 with huge public outcry coupled with a strong leader at centre might think otherwise.

This was all debated back in 2008.. India wanted the tit for tat strike. It found however that even if it managed to get through Pakistani defences, it would expect a strike back its its bases.. and then things would gradually get out of hand. This was conveyed through various diplomatic channels to India. The calculations were made and it was found that it was much better to use diplomatic and media pressure to get Pakistan to capitulate on the terror cells rather than anything else.

Way back in 2008, it was all surprise and the then PM was not ready to take risks and accept the loses. But not all future leaders will not be the same. Whatever will happen after such a strike, it will maximum go for 1-2 weeks till the ceasefire will be called (just like any such war) and India does not look for capturing anything and there will be no such disintegration problems for Pakistan, the nuke word only will be uttered for threatening only. So basically it will come down to the fighting or 1-2 weeks conventionally and then stop.(if Pakistan retaliates a limited strike)

@janon is right; India sees plainly that the terror cells are now eating up Pakistan from the inside and their threat to India is much more diminished the more the Pakistani establishment tries to pacify these terror elements. So why fire a shot when your entire threat spectrum from the west is being tackled on its own?

It is altogether different and even agree to it.

 

[Secur]

Whatever will happen after such a strike, it will maximum go for 1-2 weeks till the ceasefire will be called (just like any such war) and India does not look for capturing anything and there will be no such disintegration problems for Pakistan, the nuke word only will be uttered for threatening only. So basically it will come down to the fighting or 1-2 weeks conventionally and then stop.(if Pakistan retaliates a limited strike)

Tell me , what exactly does India look for ( try to go past a few " terror camps " ) ? Does India seek to invade or punish Pakistan by any means without inviting retaliation ? Do Indians have some shared delusions that Pakistanis will welcome them at the border with garlands and roses , let them do their business and be given a safe exit somehow ? Now this isn't something new for me by any chance , I have come across such theories , confident statements and underlying tones , in previous discussions on these topic and I believe that I am seeing , almost no different on this one , with the " If Pakistan retaliates " and " there would be no problems " being put forward . The problem with your argument is that we had no nukes in any other war , so basing your entire opinion on that is useless and unrealistic .

The problem again is that you have been never able to factor in the " nuclear option " after we went nuclear , which is why it hadn't gone beyond verbal threats or mobilizations - the last four times . Why ? Because , despite that it may seem easy and doable to you , there's no way to guarantee that the war will remain conventional for the time its fought . You cant anticipate the adversary's response . Would there be no capture of areas ? Excuse me , I am sure this is a full scale war you are talking about when referring to 1-2 weeks time-frame . Would there be no threat to sovereignty and integrity of Pakistan ? Now there , you must be kidding me ! and now if you think and tell me , Islamabad will take Indian guarantees for all of that stuff not hapening , I would ask you to take a break and have a Kitkat .

You guys are well versed in painting an ideal scenario without taking into account , the reality on ground , I will give you that . Beyond that , the nuclear bomb will continue to be the powerful deterrent it always has been . There's a reason after all for the return to base and standstill orders after Op.Brasstacks and Op.Parakram ? Or would the excuse like always be the incompetent and ball-less netas ? Maybe , its about time to search for a deeper reasons beyond the civilian leaders " being not ready to take risks " ? Find us all , something realistic and we will talk .

 

[rockstarIN]

Tell me , what exactly does India look for ( try to go past a few " terror camps " ) ? Does India seek to invade or punish Pakistan by any means without inviting retaliation ? Do Indians have some shared delusions that Pakistanis will welcome them at the border with garlands and roses , let them do their business and be given a safe exit somehow ? Now this isn't something new for me by any chance , I have come across such theories , confident statements and underlying tones , in previous discussions on these topic and I believe that I am seeing , almost no different on this one , with the " If Pakistan retaliates " and " there would be no problems " being put forward . The problem with your argument is that we had no nukes in any other war , so basing your entire opinion on that is useless and unrealistic

The problem again is that you have been never able to factor in the " nuclear option " after we went nuclear , which is why it hadn't gone beyond verbal threats or mobilizations - the last four times . Why ? Because , despite that it may seem easy and doable to you , there's no way to guarantee that the war will remain conventional for the time its fought . You cant anticipate the adversary's response . Would there be no capture of areas ? Excuse me , I am sure this is a full scale war you are talking about when referring to 1-2 weeks time-frame . Would there be no threat to sovereignty and integrity of Pakistan ? Now there , you must be kidding me ! and now if you think and tell me , Islamabad will take Indian guarantees for all of that stuff not hapening , I would ask you to take a break and have a Kitkat .

Going back to the first page again, it is like - stiff resistance->all out war->Nukes.

What if there is not? Iran-Iraq fought war for years without a 'grave' threats of disintegration. (out of the context, I know). If the agressor decides, no boots on ground, where the threat to integrity? about sovereignty, the aggression will be there only if a serious breach, may or may not be actors/non state actors against India.

You guys are well versed in painting an ideal scenario without taking into account , the reality on ground , I will give you that . Beyond that , the nuclear bomb will continue to be the powerful deterrent it always has been . There's a reason after all for the return to base and standstill orders after Op.Brasstacks and Op.Parakram ? Or would the excuse like always be the incompetent and ball-less netas ? Maybe , its about time to search for a deeper reasons beyond the civilian leaders " being not ready to take risks " ? Find us all , something realistic and we will talk

Nobody is saying nuke will not be a deterrent. Deterrent for what? disintegration? I agree. but a conventional fight? Its up to you. The doctrine might give you a confidence. A decision, should be taken at what juncture your top brass will take.[/QUOTE]

 

[Donatello]

Tell me , what exactly does India look for ( try to go past a few " terror camps " ) ? Does India seek to invade or punish Pakistan by any means without inviting retaliation ? Do Indians have some shared delusions that Pakistanis will welcome them at the border with garlands and roses , let them do their business and be given a safe exit somehow ? Now this isn't something new for me by any chance , I have come across such theories , confident statements and underlying tones , in previous discussions on these topic and I believe that I am seeing , almost no different on this one , with the " If Pakistan retaliates " and " there would be no problems " being put forward . The problem with your argument is that we had no nukes in any other war , so basing your entire opinion on that is useless and unrealistic .

The problem again is that you have been never able to factor in the " nuclear option " after we went nuclear , which is why it hadn't gone beyond verbal threats or mobilizations - the last four times . Why ? Because , despite that it may seem easy and doable to you , there's no way to guarantee that the war will remain conventional for the time its fought . You cant anticipate the adversary's response . Would there be no capture of areas ? Excuse me , I am sure this is a full scale war you are talking about when referring to 1-2 weeks time-frame . Would there be no threat to sovereignty and integrity of Pakistan ? Now there , you must be kidding me ! and now if you think and tell me , Islamabad will take Indian guarantees for all of that stuff not hapening , I would ask you to take a break and have a Kitkat .

You guys are well versed in painting an ideal scenario without taking into account , the reality on ground , I will give you that . Beyond that , the nuclear bomb will continue to be the powerful deterrent it always has been . There's a reason after all for the return to base and standstill orders after Op.Brasstacks and Op.Parakram ? Or would the excuse like always be the incompetent and ball-less netas ? Maybe , its about time to search for a deeper reasons beyond the civilian leaders " being not ready to take risks " ? Find us all , something realistic and we will talk .

I don't even know why this topic is ongoing when this argument has been put to rest.

In any case, India had an opportunity to attack Pakistan in 2008. But all talk as usual and nothing happened. Don't know what Indian members here are harping about.

 

[SQ8]

Going back to the first page again, it is like - stiff resistance->all out war->Nukes.

What if there is not? Iran-Iraq fought war for years without a 'grave' threats of disintegration. (out of the context, I know). If the agressor decides, no boots on ground, where the threat to integrity? about sovereignty, the aggression will be there only if a serious breach, may or may not be actors/non state actors against India.



Nobody is saying nuke will not be a deterrent. Deterrent for what? disintegration? I agree. but a conventional fight? Its up to you. The doctrine might give you a confidence. A decision, should be taken at what juncture your top brass will take.

[/quote]

The Iran-Iraq war dynamics were quite different to those between India and Pakistan. I hope you kept that in mind. Both the Iraqis and Iranians had different military training dynamics and tactics used. Neither side held the actual capacity to truly disintegrate the other and neither had nuclear weapons

The Iraqis for e.g. in their pre-emptive attacks had misgauged the support of Iranian Arabs. By contrast, both Pakistan and India have military forces that are graded very highly on their training standards and preparations.

 

[rockstarIN]

The Iran-Iraq war dynamics were quite different to those between India and Pakistan. I hope you kept that in mind. Both the Iraqis and Iranians had different military training dynamics and tactics used. Neither side held the actual capacity to truly disintegrate the other and neither had nuclear weapons

The Iraqis for e.g. in their pre-emptive attacks had misgauged the support of Iranian Arabs. By contrast, both Pakistan and India have military forces that are graded very highly on their training standards and preparations.

[/QUOTE]

I take Iran-Iraq scenario just for an example that a conventional war might be very long and will result in stalemate, not necessarily result disintegration(even though both were tried hard for the same), thus holding back the nuke option.

 

[janon]

I take Iran-Iraq scenario just for an example that a conventional war might be very long and will result in stalemate, not necessarily result disintegration(even though both were tried hard for the same), thus holding back the nuke option.

In evenly matched forces, yes. But when there is a very large disparity in the size of the forces, population, economy, geographic size etc, it is unlikely that there could be an 8 year conventional war that ends in stalemate.