Any military action by India will be condemned by Washington, says former Obama adviser

Discussion in 'Indian Army' started by bhramos, Sep 20, 2016.

  1. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,208
    Likes Received:
    6,641
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    Any military action by India will be condemned by Washington, says former Obama adviser

    [​IMG]

    NEW DELHI: The spirited calls for revenge notwithstanding, India will have to carefully think through any military response as a cross-border strike will almost certainly lead to international condemnation.

    While many in India dismiss the nuclear threat from across the border as Pakistani blustering, the fact is that Islamabad has prepared for years for a low-intensity conflict with India, most notably by arming itself with tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons which are meant to deter any incursion by Indian forces.‎ Pakistan has wanted to use these low-yield weapons to check the asymmetry with India in conventional warfare.

    America's foremost security expert and former senior adviser on South Asia to at least 4 US presidents, including Barack Obama, Bruce Riedel actually told TOI that India had ‎"no good military option" to stop Pakistani supported cross border violence in Kashmir.

    "Any military response in Pakistan risks escalation and will be condemned by the international community including Washington," said Riedel.

    "A better approach would be to seek diplomatic support for labeling Pakistan a patron state sponsor of terrorism," he added.

    Riedel is not among those who continue to live in denial about India-specific terrorism perpetrated by state or non-state entities in Pakistan and had earlier this year blamed the ISI for the attack on the Pathankot airbase. He had then said that ISI had used Jaish e Mohammed (JeM), a terror group it helped create and which is accused of having carried out the Uri attack,‎ to target the Pathankot airbase.

    However, purely a diplomatic response meant to get Pakistan declared a sponsor of terrorism is unlikely to satisfy many NDA government supporters who have been fed t‎he line for over 2 years now that India has the capability, as also the will, to steamroll Pakistan if it didn't mend its ways.

    In any case, the limitations of such an option were laid bare this year when China blocked UN action against Masood Azhar, the chief of JeM, despite India putting out evidence that JeM was responsible for the Pathankot attack.‎ It is unlikely that the Uri attack will have any impact on the position taken by China that Azhar is just a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan.

    The government has declared that it won't allow the perpetrators of Uri to go unpunished but it will need to absorb any likely threat from Pakistan's tactical nukes before it decides to act. Islamabad has developed the 60-km nuclear-capable Nasr missile specifically to deter any Indian cold start, a euphism for quick and unified offensive operations by Indian forces on Pakistan territory in the event of a Mumbai-like attack.


    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...former-Obama-adviser/articleshow/54410794.cms
     
  2.  
  3. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    India
    Oh the anti nuke lobby is at it again!!
    Where was these ass holes when pak was sending the tech to NoKo.
     
  4. Nicky G

    Nicky G Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,385
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Location:
    NA
    When push come to shove, US will never stand with India. All they need India for is China. If our planners have not factored this into their plans for a response, there is little hope for us.
     
    scatterStorm and Akask kumar like this.
  5. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    India
    We have never waited for US when Indian interests matter.

    US wont ally with India as that would prompt china to ally with pakistan overtly...and that would eventually turn into US and china fighting with each other using 2 different nations.


    We should not ally with USA on matters of war..but on bringing DIPLOMATIC BLOCKADES or effectively installing such against pakistan.
    USA would be glad to use such a move to erode china further in international arena without confrontation
    Whatever pakistan gives should be used against the nexus countering the AXIS of EVIL


    If left it as such and India making its own plan to kill pakistan china wont move to help pakistan or fight for pakistan...china pak is master slave relationship and master wont meddle in the affairs of a slave.

    India is a super power and India should punch proportional to its weight...and the time is NOW.
     
  6. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    India
    Let USA condemn it..thats good..
    Responsible nations should condemn incidents...thats a state policy and nice PR Event.
    But
    USA should not meddle in the Indian course of action


    In any case, the limitations of such an option were laid bare this year when China blocked UN action against Masood Azhar, the chief of JeM, despite India putting out evidence that JeM was responsible for the Pathankot attack.‎ It is unlikely that the Uri attack will have any impact on the position taken by China that Azhar is just a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan.

    Thats the immature china with its infantile diplomats speaking in the lines of pakistan.
    china should understand that J&K is a bilateral issue..And china is right on that..
    BUT
    a TERRORIST OUTFIT like JeM is an INTERNATIONAL ISSUE..an ISSUE that would even affect china in a matter of time.


    Why is china doing international co-training to counter terror with other nations if terror outfits like JeM which is quite near to chinese border is a BILALTERAL ISSUE.

    If JeM terrorism is a bilateral issue for china then it can be safely assumed that china is using JeM terrorism for pakistan to FORCE India to the negotiation table.


    china should grow up and not grow obese.
     
    vrindavan likes this.
  7. Nicky G

    Nicky G Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,385
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Location:
    NA
    Well I am not so sure - particularly considering our inaction post parliament attacks and 26/11. US itself will sheild Pak as long as the latter is willing is do their dirty work.

    US is never going to ally with India - I doubt they'll do much if ever China were to attack us, unless we are willing to become a vassal state.

    Even in diplomatic blocades - they'll be vague and dither. France explicity called out the terror outfits in Pak that need to be dealt with - I have not heard US even blame Pak directly.

    Yes, US will try to use any opportunity to irk China, but I doubt they'll do much at Pak's cost. Atleast, I have yet to see any real instance of such a situation.

    China has interest in CPEC - I am not sure we can count on their inaction.

    We have never punched close to our weight while our rabid dog of a neighbour always has punched above it. I am not sure the mindset of our rulers - particularly the beaucracy allows for us to exert ourselves.
     
  8. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    India
    Absolutely..
    US interest in this region is India and china not pakistan.
    India because US can sell weapons and china because thats threatening the US ..NO1 spot.
    US in here is purely for business and just a tactical position.

    Indias interest in this region is pakistan supported by china.

    There is a conflict..but "how much" can India make US clip pakistan should be achieved by Indian diplomats.

    US pak relation has soured beyond a point of normalization...because of its protecting Laden(A huge political embarrassment for USA ) and the helplessness of US political class to justify all the funds allocated to pakistan on WoT which has actually gone into creation of more terrorists and opening Madrassas than killing them

    We have seen a shift in US attitude towards pakistan...but that doesnt mean US would continue to stop pakistan..as US wont leave its investment in corrupt pakistani establishment for china or Russia.

    china's interest in CPEC and colonizing pakistan is genuine..but we have to make the chinese tactic of employing JeM as a barganing chip to FORCE INDIA into the negotiation table giving pakistan a high morale.. very costly for china..
    This is where the Indian Balochistan Cause comes real handy...and IMO the political class has really played it well as they say a place and time of India's choosing.

    India should be able to convince the INTERNATIONAL community to through its political and other tools that India is NOT venturing into pak territory but INDIA's ITS OWN TERRITORY occupied by pak called as PoK where pak is using INDIAN PREMISES to promote terror against India.

    This should be done as LARGE SCALE Campaign.
    This is not even a CROSS BORDER STRIKE but terror cleaning campaign on pakistan OCCUPIED Indian Territory.

    With this India may be able to subdue the international pressure during war..be it of US or any other.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2016
  9. indiatester

    indiatester Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2013
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    463
    Location:
    Bangalore
    We never needed bothered about the condemnation or praise in any of the previous wars. More over this idiot is an "advisor" to Obama and the PT's have carried it like an official statement.
    Its only the sudden unexpected official acts that bother people.
    If it is covert acts OR graded continuous military response, no one is going to bother about what happens in that stupid country no one wants.
     
  10. ezsasa

    ezsasa Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    3,544
    Likes Received:
    3,071
    Location:
    Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
    Bruce riedel is part of brookings think tank. Usually brookings people have inside track on South Asia matters.
     
  11. Nicky G

    Nicky G Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,385
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Location:
    NA
    US-Pak relations have soured, true. However, Pakis will do the dirty work of anyone with money but we will not. That has inheret attraction for a power like US. I don't see US going to any real extent to isolate Pak. They will justify it as not driving a nuclear power into a corner.

    For China, I agree. My only concern is that unlike Pak, we cannot militarily deal with them on our own just in case they decide to get involved. Though, that would be silly on their part and much more costly than loosing CPEC.

    As for marching into PoK, I am all for it.

    I'd also like to declare Pakis a terrorist nation and abrobate IWT with them.
     
  12. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    India
    USA wont isolate pak..but India can delay the engagement for its own good...like what has started to happen.
    pak is a nuke power and powering NoKo..US concerns are NOW real as NoKo nuke test and paki tactical nukes powered by Jihad will strike American Economic Interests.

    china wont...china will buckle under pressure..
    Look at all the chest thumping about CPEC getting a different tone about pulling back the investment all together.
    India is trying to make pakistan UNAFFORDABLE for china. And we have passed some phases on it...
     
  13. sukhish

    sukhish Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    262
    US has already gauged our response from the last 48 hours, they know what India is capable of. problem is not the U.S , it is in delhi. Unless a forceful response is seen forget about permanent seat in UNSC.
     
  14. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    India
    Forceful response doesn't always mean military..but political class has given the Indian army what they want with what they can option.
    For the past 48 hours India has done much and US is bringing up a bill to term pakistan a terror state..
    It wont be a smooth sale..but it would be implemented in a short run.

    UNSC need to be overhauled before a permanent seat to make UNSC more relevant in todays world affairs.
    So more than UNSC the issue is pakistan for India.
     
  15. scatterStorm

    scatterStorm Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    India
  16. PD_Solo

    PD_Solo The only one

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    166
    Bill moved in US Congress seeks to declare Pakistan state sponsor of terrorism

    Even as Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is trying to shore up support in the UN general assembly for Pakistan over Kashmir, two American lawmakers introduced a bill in the US Congress on Tuesday proposing to designate Islamabad a state sponsor of terrorism. But Pakistan may still escape the terror tag.

    “Not only is Pakistan an untrustworthy ally, Islamabad has also aided and abetted enemies of the United States for years,” said Ted Poe, chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, in a statement announcing the introduction of the bill, H.R.(H.R stands for House of Representatives) 6069, the Pakistan State Sponsor of Terrorism Designation Act.

    “From harbouring Osama bin Laden to its cozy relationship with the Haqqani network, there is more than enough evidence to determine whose side Pakistan is on in the war on terror,” he added.

    Poe, a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Texas, introduced the Bill jointly with Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican from California who heads the House’s sub-committee on Europe, Eurasia and emerging threats.

    If enacted, the Bill will require the President to give a report to Congress within 90 days on whether Pakistan had supported international terrorism, or not. Within 30 days thereafter, the secretary of state will either determine Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism, or say why not.

    “It is time we stop paying Pakistan for its betrayal and designate it for what it is: a state sponsor of terrorism,” Poe said.

    The Congressman did not cite Pakistan’s role in the Uri attack, as alleged by New Delhi, among the reasons for introducing the bill, but there was an unmistakably direct link given the time and the context. There has been a steady stream of bipartisan expressions of support for India and condemnation of the attack on the army base in Uri by Pakistan-based Jaish-i-Mohammad since Sunday, from members of both chambers of Congress.

    Frustration with Pakistan’s patchy record on counter-terrorism was so high that members had been mulling state-sponsor of terror designation for Pakistan for a while.

    “If our current efforts in Pakistan are not producing the results we seek then what are our options?,” Representative Matt Salmon, a Republican, had asked during a recent Congressional hearing about Pakistan. “We could simply turn the money off … we could enforce sanctions or declare Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism,” he added.

    Richard Grenier, who was once CIA station chief in Islamabad, told lawmakers at another hearing recently that the US had nearly designated Pakistan as a state sponsor of terror in the 1990s, around the time when militancy was escalating in Kashmir.

    Pakistan escaped then, and will possibly escape this time as well.

    What could work in favour of Pakistan is that there is not enough time left for this Congress to consider the Bill and ensure its passage through many stages. And even if it is passed, it may not get presidential assent given that the Obama administration is at the fag end of its term.

    But the thought of a such a bill in the US Congress is unlikely to sit well with Prime Minister Sharif as he seeks to draw the world’s attention to an area frequently targeted by terrorists based in Pakistan.

    The US currently has three countries on its list of state sponsors of terrorism — Iran, Syria and Sudan — who under the rules are subject to foreign assistance restrictions, ban on defence exports and sales, export control on dual use items and various other forms of restrictions.
     
  17. PD_Solo

    PD_Solo The only one

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    166
    NASR: A Disadvantage for Pakistan
    Reshmi Kazi
    August 19, 2011

    On April 19, 2011, Pakistan successfully fired the NASR short-range surface-to-surface multi-tube ballistic missile. The nuclear-capable missile from the family of Hatf-IX missiles with a purported range of 60 km has high accuracy and a shoot and scoot delivery system. According to the Director General of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Divions, Khalid Kidwai, the NASR will provide Pakistan with short-range missile capability. NASR is believed to be a battlefield deterrent, capable of inflicting damage on mechanized forces such as armoured brigades and divisions. This quick response system is expected to deter evolving threats and will provide battlefield support for the Pakistan Army.

    The development of the NASR raises several questions. Firstly, does Pakistan require operational Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs) for battlefield purposes? The rationale offered by Pakistani analysts for developing the NASR is that it is a counter to India’s Cold Start doctrine and is meant to deter any Indian mechanized offensive into Pakistan. The general opinion is that India will launch an offensive surgical attack into Pakistani territory by virtue of its Cold Start doctrine. Pakistan believes that given its inferior conventional capability vis-à-vis India, tactical nuclear capability will serve to deter an Indian riposte to any Pakistani misadventure like the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

    But this is a fallacious assumption. India’s Cold Start doctrine has been devised because of Pakistan’s proxy operations against India at the sub-conventional level and because of the concern that retaliatory strikes against Pakistan may escalate into a full-fledged war. In any event, the Indian military strategy is not to dismember Pakistan but to have a stable neighbour and to foster a beneficial relationship at all levels. Nor does India favour initiating surgical attacks against Pakistan without grave provocation. Further, India is acutely aware of the risk of escalation from sub-conventional to conventional and nuclear levels, and is therefore unlikely to embark upon a senseless war. The Cold Start has been devised precisely with this aspect in mind.

    Pakistan can actually discourage India’s Cold Start doctrine in two ways: by giving up its covert sub-conventional operations against India, or by formulating a prudent strategy to counter India’s proactive tactics. As has been argued by Rodney Jones, Pakistan need not resort to the nuclear option to counter India’s Cold Start doctrine since the results of the Azm-e-Nau III military exercises held in 2009-10 suggest that its conventional defences alone are fully capable of resisting a shallow penetration as envisaged by the Cold Start doctrine. 1

    Secondly, does Pakistan’s development of battlefield nuclear weapons erode India’s no-first-use (NFU) policy? It is a contentious idea that the use of TNWs will not escalate into a full fledged nuclear war. It is irrelevant whether a target has been hit by a strategic or tactical weapon. A nuclear attack is a nuclear attack. To quote Air Chief Marshal P. V. Naik, “Tactical or strategic, it (NASR) is a nuclear weapon. Our response would be absolutely violent, if it is used, as per our existing policy. So, it's not a game-changer.” What this essentially means is that in the event India faces a nuclear attack, New Delhi will be left with no other choice but to use nuclear weapons in the form of a massive retaliation. In that case it makes little sense whether a strategic or tactical nuclear weapon or a long range or short range weapon is used, since the general response would be to carry out a punitive attack on the adversary.

    There is no universal definition of TNWs and hence it is difficult to categorize them. They cannot be defined either by their range or yield. Notwithstanding their battlefield utility, TNWs can lead to uncontrolled escalation given their inherent tendency to obscure the decision-making process thus creating confusion and leading local commanders with pre-delegated authority to use them. Further, there is a risk that they could be grabbed by terrorist groups.

    Although by definition TNWs are meant for employment against counterforce targets, they can also be potentially used for countervalue strikes. The moment a nuclear weapon whether tactical or strategic is used the deterrent factor suffers a failure. Thus, Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence against India will fail if it launches TNWs. Moreover, given the geographical proximity with India any detonation of TNWs by Pakistan will have radiation fallouts on the territories of both countries. Pakistan could thus find itself in a situation where it would be self-deterred. Considering the pros and cons of TNWs like NASR, it does not pose any advantage to Pakistan; it only creates disadvantages.
     
  18. rkhanna

    rkhanna Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    Mumbai
    The United States has diplomatically lost the South China Sea, Half of Ukraine and Chunks of East Asia, the bulk of the Middle East, Swarths of Africa and a few countries in South America. Would love for them to show the balls to "loose" India.

    The Russians are waiting for us with gleeful drool lol.

    And outgoing US President will not life a muscle and Clinton is far more of a warhawk than Obama and Trump.
     
  19. busesaway

    busesaway Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    71
    The United States has condemned many things in the past. Falklands War against the British, France against Iraq, etc...

    The reality is that even NATO are involved in a war in Pakistan. For a large portion of the 2000s, the United States practically occupied Pakistan. There have been several countries who have called it a 'failed state'.
     

Share This Page