US must convince India to move troops from LoC

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Complete Strawman.

This is why I specifically pointed out that militarily denuding the LoC was not what was being suggested, since infiltration would obviously be an issue on both sides, especially India.

A likely proposal would be the withdrawal on both sides of forces that could be utilized for offensive action across the LoC, which would not affect the IA's ability to interdict infiltrators.

In addition, '50 infiltrators' is not 'huge', as some here seem to be going into histrionics over, and the fact that barely 300 to 800 active insurgents remain in Kashmir is a strong testament to Pakistan's policy of restraint and preventing infiltrations since 2002.

That could make sense, but it depends entirely on how much of troop deployment from the Indian side is meant purely for an offensive against Pakistan.

From what I know almost the entire deployment is meant to fight the insurgents.
COIN takes a very heavy toll on the troops, so they are constantly rotated and refreshed in order to keep the fighting going daily for the last couple of decades.

Even Kargil was nothing but infiltration on a massive scale, this time by Pakistani jawans along with the usual insurgents.

P.S. 50 infiltrators at one time is huge. Even one terrorist can kill a couple of dozen people by opening fire at the right place or planting a bomb at the right location.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That could make sense, but it depends entirely on how much of troop deployment from the Indian side is meant purely for an offensive against Pakistan.

From what I know almost the entire deployment is meant to fight the insurgents.
COIN takes a very heavy toll on the troops, so they are constantly rotated and refreshed in order to keep the fighting going daily for the last couple of decades.

Even Kargil was nothing but infiltration on a massive scale, this time by Pakistani jawans along with the usual insurgents.

The IA force levels are still geared towards fighting an insurgency numbering in the thousands and massive infiltration under PA cover all year round, as was the case pre-2002 and at the height of the insurgency.

As such, given the significantly reduced infiltration and insurgent levels within Kashmir over a sustained period of time, reduction in force levels is a move that is feasible and a CBM, and would also reflect a demand by pro-India Kashmiri politicians who see the massive military presence as increasing alienation.

The Indian military presence in Kashmir is also not one entirely geared towards COIN - there is for obvious reasons a strong offensive military component geared towards combating Pakistan as well, and that is an area where movement can be possible as well.

 

[Xeric]

i really found it amusing to see comments of some worthy members on this thread, some of them are ex-military and others are the champions of strategy.

i have a doubt here: is it the responsibility of indian forces to stop people from walking over inside india via the border or should Pakistan commit another million to do the job? i think it is the indian military that has to take up this task.

i think if i have a threat that some idiot would enter my premises, it should be me who should take measures so as to stop the ingress, rather then telling the thief to stop attempting an entry.

Now some here will argue that before the indians beefing up the defensive measures Pakistan should be asked to stop sending in the infiltrators, well sir, it has already been done, no one is sending in the people as a state policy (though i doubt it was even done previously), various militant outfits have been banned and measures taken to stop this kind of repetition.

Now it is india's turn to act. The indians still say that people still cross over, so what? Who is to be blamed, incompetency of indian armed forces, i suppose.

So rather then doing the blame game, the indians should better zip up their own measures and STOP the damn 'militants' from getting inside their side of the border!

Now coming towards the suggestion made by bond:
First, it not a bad idea, but still it has it's own connotation.
Second, someone here talked about that the militaries of both the countries are at the LoC due to stop the infiltrations, well sir that is not the case, this may be one of the task assigned to them, but they are primarily there to fight each other in case someone tries to act smart, SO, the conclusion is that if there is a need to send more troops towards our western side, and if india also ease out on the LoC (i am talking about the regular Army not the BSF stuff), we can also pull back our Regulars, AND, the job of stopping the infiltration can be given to the BSF on that side and Rangers on this side (BTW, this is the primary task of these two forces-to man the borders, but the regular Armies are there to have a look on each other 24/7)

So, in short anybody who thinks that pulling out the military from LoC would harm the noble cause of stopping the infiltration is Just plain wrong! Though this doesn't mean that i am favoring the suggestion given in the article. Will talk about it later!

 

[Hellfire]

The IA force levels are still geared towards fighting an insurgency numbering in the thousands and massive infiltration under PA cover all year round, as was the case pre-2002 and at the height of the insurgency.

As such, given the significantly reduced infiltration and insurgent levels within Kashmir over a sustained period of time, reduction in force levels is a move that is feasible and a CBM, and would also reflect a demand by pro-India Kashmiri politicians who see the massive military presence as increasing alienation.

The Indian military presence in Kashmir is also not one entirely geared towards COIN - there is for obvious reasons a strong offensive military component geared towards combating Pakistan as well, and that is an area where movement can be possible as well.

Agnostic

As PA fights in the FATA regions, you shall realise the wisdom of maintaining a higher ration of troops and using them in an area dominance role. It negates the use of field artillery/air assets for further support.

Offensive corps are mainly plain oriented as IA has doctrine of defensive action in J&K and offesive in rajasthan-gujarat axis.

Skeletal amount of troops maybe kept on PA's side in Punjab-Sindh sector so that the remaining may be diverted for further operations against taliban

In any case, incase India embarks on military intervention across IB, be rest assured it shall be a historic blunder on part of India for we end up uniting the PA with insurgents which will support PA in any case against IA as also international opinion will not favor India anymore.
Thanks

 

[Xeric]

Not entirely true. The operation Meghdoot to capture Siachen was a pre-emptive attack. However, Siachen was not demarcated so technically India did not violate the borders.
Pakistan however violated the LoC during kargil, which was a mutually agreed ceasefire line, so that's a clear breach of trust.

Hey Mr india! you need to read again how the border was demarcated in Siachen, just a hint =Point NJ 9842......

Preemptive attack-my balls!

And don't derail the thread, we are discussing something important!

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Hey Mr india! you need to read again how the border was demarcated in Siachen, just a hint =Point NJ 9842......

Preemptive attack-my balls!

And don't derail the thread, we are discussing something important!

That point is disputed my friend. Its Pakistan's claim, not mutually agreed upon.

And yes, it was a pre-emptive strike because IA detected increased PA activitiy on Siachen and suspected a move from the other side.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

AFAIK, the bulk of IA and PA is stationed in the plains, so in any case thinning the LOC would not have much effect. It seems to me like another excuse to shift the blame towards neighbours.

I'd like to repeat - your country is being invaded by hostile forces. What are you waiting for?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And yes, it was a pre-emptive strike because IA detected increased PA activitiy on Siachen and suspected a move from the other side.

One last point on this before we move on, but that 'PA activity' was the issuing of permits to private mountaineering expeditions, many non-Pakistani.

I have yet to come across any valid references to PA military activity on Siachen that had to be 'pre-empted'.

A good discussion to carry on in the history section though.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AFAIK, the bulk of IA and PA is stationed in the plains, so in any case thinning the LOC would not have much effect. It seems to me like another excuse to shift the blame towards neighbours.

Adjusting force levels along the IB could be a possibility as well, but the fact that in Kashmir we have an LoC and not a border is a matter of concern since legally there isn't much Pakistan could do to reclaim territory India occupies in case of aggression.

Emasculated international condemnation is probably the best Pakistan would hope for, so Indian force levels in Kashmir do have a significant bearing on Pakistan's security concerns.

I'd like to repeat - your country is being invaded by hostile forces. What are you waiting for?

That is technically incorrect, since most of the Taliban are Pakistani, so they can't be 'invading'.

That said, Pakistan has a legitimate concern over actually being 'invaded' from the East, and that concern cannot be overlooked while combating the threat in the West.

But can we stick with the thread topic please.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Alright, lets get down to numbers. What sort of additional deployment is the PA looking at to fight the Taliban?

 

[afriend]

Hey but at the current scenario, what exactly is the level of threat that pakistan is facing from its eastern border ??? And is it like the entire pakistan armed forces is in the eastern border????

 

[Xeric]

Alright, lets get down to numbers. What sort of additional deployment is the PA looking at to fight the Taliban?

Let the situation unfold itself(only if another military action is executed), otherwise you'll never find it out

Hey but at the current scenario, what exactly is the level of threat that pakistan is facing from its eastern border ??? And is it like the entire pakistan armed forces is in the eastern border????

Well i'll get you the direct numbers of Military Intelligence, you can talk to them, i am sure they'll answer your queries in a better way.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Well Pakistan has to communicate these concerns to India and also explain the rationale behind reducing troops, giving concrete figures regarding how many additional troops are needed to fight the insurgents. Only then can such a process go forward.

In the meanwhile the Talibs continue to expand their control.

Perhaps it would give India more confidence if the PA actually began to fight the Talibs earnestly rather than wait around for the IA to vacate its posts.

 

[godsavetheworld]

Awesome. Now they want India to reduce the number of troops to make them act against their internal threat. Complete BS!. What happened before 26/11? Wasnt Pakistan still failing to control Taliban while its army didnt interfere? Oh no, then they didnt have an Indian reason, for their failure.

This is mere brainwashing. You dont need more than 4-5 Brigades to take care of Taliban. The rest of the army is going to laze around in their barracks, its better if IA keeps them on their toes.

 

[Xeric]

Well Pakistan has to communicate these concerns to India and also explain the rationale behind reducing troops, giving concrete figures regarding how many additional troops are needed to fight the insurgents. Only then can such a process go forward.

In the meanwhile the Talibs continue to expand their control.

Perhaps it would give India more confidence if the PA actually began to fight the Talibs earnestly rather than wait around for the IA to vacate its posts.

Well if you are thinking that the talibans require a complete Army of .6 million to fight them, then you have completely misjudged the situation, a few thousand of talibans and 3/4 of a million troops to fight them, well that ain't happening.

If india don't want to move away from the LoC, it's their baby, i personally think that we don't require them to nor we are so troops-starved that we should move away the Army from a threatened place like the LoC, what do you think the remaining strength is doing (the troops less the ones deployed at LoC)

But if india decides to move away, we would be happy to replicate, as this would be in the intrest of both the countries-but wait, why don't we solve the Kashmir and Sicahen issue first-just a though.