- Joined
- Jan 17, 2019
- Messages
- 1,447
- Likes
- 5,876
There's a big difference between a 26/11 and a Uri. Like it or not, the world sees losing 10-20 soldiers as the natural/inherent cost of having a military presence in a rebellious and contested territory.I used to think so along these lines. That the next 26/11 will cost Pakistan PoK. However, Modi's response (lack thereof) to Ladakh has completely eroded that belief.
We have also ceded our strategic canvas vis a vis Pakistan to America by conforming to their arbitrary definition of "proportionate response" (i.e. we can only take one eye for an eye, no more, the scale of our retaliation can never be deterrent in nature, only retaliatory, and strictly proportionate to the Pakistani provocation).
We Indian public are such fools that we even accepted Modi's trick of sugarcoating this BS by calling it "surgical strikes" and "calibrated response." Every time there's a Paki attack, we are programmed to expect - and celebrate - "surgical strikes of some huts in PoK" and not "carpet bombing of Lahore"
Until India is willing to become Iran for the next 10-15 years, forget about PoK.
Paki terror will not stop until they start losing territory to India.
Similarly, I didn't expect India to go to war over Pulwama either; though I do believe we could've justified a "sustained period of anti-terror Ops in PoJK" after that attack. Still, an airstrike on Pak proper (for the first time since '71) which took out ~300 terrorists and possibly some soldiers/military installations @ Chakoti and Muzaffarabad was a good step. And don't forget, we used that opportunity to finish Articles 370 + 35A and more or less crackdown militarily on the valley as well.
There's a clear escalation from no response post-Pathankot, to commando raids post-Uri, and the Airstrike post-Pulwama. Both in terms of progression over time, and with greater & greater casualties in terror attacks - it made sense. We are steadily climbing the escalation ladder. But I do firmly believe that now that we have already gotten our foot in the door, and set certain historical precedents, our responses need to become more proactive/preemptive and increasingly disproportionate/escalatory re: Pakistan.
OTOH, a big terror attack against civilians, in mainland India - is a different situation altogether. I don't really share your pessimism, but then beyond a certain point, discussing these things over and over again on forums becomes pointless - we won't really know the truth until such a situation (and its response/lack of response occurs).