What's new

War against Pakistan and China? You’d need Napoleon

Fighter488

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
0
War against Pakistan and China? You’d need Napoleon
Shaukat Qadir

Last Updated: January 26. 2010 12:01AM UAE / January 25. 2010 8:01PM GMT

In what appear to be deliberately provocative remarks, India’s most senior army officer has declared that the country needs to prepare for a two-front war with China and Pakistan.

Most of the Pakistani media dwelt only on that part of a lengthy statement at the end of last month by General Deepak Kapoor, the chief of the Indian army staff, and consequently it was scoffed at, even in political circles. But there is more to it than that.


To begin with, making contingency plans for all possibilities, however improbable, is bread and butter for all militaries in peacetime. But a two-front war is a nightmare scenario for any country, whatever its military strength. And the challenge of facing China’s military forces by themselves should be sufficiently daunting for the Indians without adding the possibility of taking on Pakistan at the same time (indeed, Pakistan alone would be no walkover for the current Indian military).



It would seem, therefore, that Gen Kapoor is being unrealistic. But before attempting to understand the reasoning behind his assertion, let us examine what else he said.

In preparing for the two-front strategy, Gen Kapoor listed four requirements: first, continuing to develop a “Cold Start” strategy; second, countering “both military and non-military facets of asymmetric and sub-conventional warfare”; third, enhancing “strategic reach and out-of-area capabilities” and attaining “operational synergy” between the three services; and finally, achieving a “technological edge” over India’s opponents.


While “strategic reach and out-of-area capabilities” and achieving a “technological edge” over China appear over-ambitious, it is a sorry military that is still seeking to synergise its tri-service operations. The second requirement is an obvious necessity of the times. It is the first point that needs to be understood from a military perspective.

Cold Start is a concept that the Indian military has been aspiring to for some years, to offset the advantage Pakistan enjoys of being able to assemble forces for war in a shorter period of time; an advantage offered to it by geography alone, because Pakistan lies linear to India, with little depth.



The Indian military is deployed in considerable depth, along both the Chinese border and the Pakistani one. In the event of a war with one of the two countries, some of the forces deployed against the other would have to be moved in support of those at war. Usually, this “assembly” of forces takes place before battle is joined. However, the concept of Cold Start envisages troops moving from peacetime quarters directly into battle.



In military parlance there is a concept referred to as “balance”, which relates to the time-distance between forces; a force is said to be in a state of balance if it is capable of sustaining itself to achieve the assigned mission in a time period within which reserve forces can arrive, permitting the initial force to go further – whether in defence or attack.

In attempting a Cold Start there is an inherent risk to the maintenance of balance between the forces that have joined battle and those leaving barracks to reinforce them. There are too many imponderables, and the operation has to be impeccably planned. This delicate state of balance between his forces lay behind Napoleon’s success at the battles of Ulm and Austerlitz in 1805, when he defeated far superior forces. But then, that was Napoleon and he was at the height of his military powers. His attempt to repeat the feat ended in defeat at Waterloo.



Peacetime military leaderships are usually not trained to take risks; in fact, they tilt towards being over-cautious, although there are exceptions. This applies to the Subcontinent as much as anywhere else. It would be a bold commander who was prepared to undertake military operations without being certain of timely reinforcement.

So the question arises, what provoked Gen Kapoor’s remarks? After all, Pakistan is fighting a domestic war and making continuous overtures for peace with India. Relations between India and China have been steadily improving since the turn of the century; bilateral trade has almost tripled, and occasional hiccups such as the Chinese demands on India relating to the disputed territories of Himachal Pradesh are more tests of each other’s tolerance than gestures of aggression; so why, and why now?



Almost certainly India is looking to the future, at a post-US withdrawal from Afghanistan scenario. Despite US efforts to build up Indian military capabilities as a counter-balance to growing Chinese strength, India remains conscious of its inability to meet China militarily or economically on equal terms.

With the imminent US departure from Afghanistan, China is going to be the undisputed regional power and, without considerably increased assistance from the US, India will never be able to catch up with it.



Simultaneously, the US is committed to assisting Pakistan in its war against terrorists, even after it withdraws from the region. Was Gen Kapoor trying to raise the bogey of such a possibility to receive enhanced aid from the US? Or was he merely talking to his domestic audience in an effort to reassure them?

And in any case, whatever his audience, were they listening? I suppose only time will tell.



Brig Gen Shaukat Qadir is a retired Pakistani infantry officer

War against Pakistan and China? You’d need Napoleon - The National Newspaper
 
well, India can have whatever defense plans it wants, it has that right as do all countries, but realistically speaking the plan the general described just invites laughter, when one plans thing one creates a plan that is not likely but has a chance, then failing that has back up plans and back up plans for those, this plan of wining in a few days against pakistan and china combined is just not possible not or any foreseeable time in the near future, and since this plan is so insensible(unrealistic) to most experts it is just seen as a provoking statement rather than any kind of a plan... but you could say crazier things have happened in history but then ask your self which leader pins their hope on some of the most unlikely events instead of planning for the most likely ones.
 
These statement shows some king of bias.

Almost certainly India is looking to the future, at a post-US withdrawal from Afghanistan scenario. Despite US efforts to build up Indian military capabilities as a counter-balance to growing Chinese strength, India remains conscious of its inability to meet China militarily or economically on equal terms.

China is indeed a regional power. No doubt. BUT.....so is India. I understand this is uncomfortable for some but fact is fact. Both countries deals with each other as one power should behave with other.
India knows very well they can not win over China in anyways. But if we look into defensive terms, China can't also win over India which is what the focus of Indian military doctorine IMO. :)

With the imminent US departure from Afghanistan, China is going to be the undisputed regional power and, without considerably increased assistance from the US, India will never be able to catch up with it.

China is not going to be regional power, it is regional power. Also India is another. So what is the point?
As India-is-nothing-without-US thing, India was/is develeoping without US support. Someone forgets Russia!!

In preparing for the two-front strategy, Gen Kapoor listed four requirements: first, continuing to develop a “Cold Start” strategy; second, countering “both military and non-military facets of asymmetric and sub-conventional warfare”; third, enhancing “strategic reach and out-of-area capabilities” and attaining “operational synergy” between the three services; and finally, achieving a “technological edge” over India’s opponents.

(1) Cold start is actually formulated in 2004 if I am correct.
(2) There is nothing wrong in second point.
(3) I know few nations are not mature enough to understand this. This all "strategis reach" etc. does not mean military presence only. ;)
(4) This is what the purpose is. It is not suggested that we are ahead. It is planned to become one.

I don't know what is fuss about this. This is the job of the military.
I am glad Indian military planner are also considering non-conventional ways as well. This is natural and there should not be any reason to make much out of this.
:coffee:
 
Last edited:
Cold start is "slap , run and wait for back up" True indeed , Napoleon succeeded in using that doctrine but was subsequently defeated in repeating it. I would suspect that if the Indian military is advertising its strategy as being that of cold start, then clearly it is not the strategy they plan on using. :undecided:
 
Cold start is "slap , run and wait for back up" True indeed , Napoleon succeeded in using that doctrine but was subsequently defeated in repeating it. I would suspect that if the Indian military is advertising its strategy as being that of cold start, then clearly it is not the strategy they plan on using. :undecided:

This is a strategy adopted when the opposing side have superior advantages to you. With the right surprise it can be effective. It may be comparable to strategies adopted in Israel's six-day war, but superior mobility is a must.

regards.
 
China is led by extremely astute leaders and not Genghis Khan. They aren't going to war with India and India isn't going to war with China. Asking India to fight both China and Pakistan is about as easy as the current Pakistani team playing a test match at Perth against an Indo-Aussie combined XI. We all know what's gonna happen there - cold start or no cold start.
 
China is led by extremely astute leaders and not Genghis Khan. They aren't going to war with India and India isn't going to war with China. Asking India to fight both China and Pakistan is about as easy as the current Pakistani team playing a test match at Perth against an Indo-Aussie combined XI. We all know what's gonna happen there - cold start or no cold start.

But some for Great India dreamer always want Pakistan and Tibet of China become a part of your Great India.:smokin:
 
But some for Great India dreamer always want Pakistan and Tibet of China become a part of your Great India.:smokin:


Nope. Some fringe loonies might say so - but no one in his or her right mind wants Pakistan. It is a free, independent nation. We've seen how difficult it is for the Pakistani cricket coach to control 11 Pakistanis. You think anyone wants to try and control 160 million?!??

Regarding Tibet - I've never met any Indian who wants it to be part of India - not even fringe loonies. But lots of people do think that it should be independent and almost all love the Dalai Lama.
 
Nope. Some fringe loonies might say so - but no one in his or her right mind wants Pakistan. It is a free, independent nation. We've seen how difficult it is for the Pakistani cricket coach to control 11 Pakistanis. You think anyone wants to try and control 160 million?!??

Regarding Tibet - I've never met any Indian who wants it to be part of India - not even fringe loonies. But lots of people do think that it should be independent and almost all love the Dalai Lama.

For Kashmir, lots of people do think that it should be independent :china::pakistan:
 
For Kashmir, lots of people do think that it should be independent :china::pakistan:

In India too, people have been talking openly of Kashmiri independence. Vir Sanghvi was the first main stream editor to bring it up in a major newspaper.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom