Ot with France, or the UK. Face it, when it comes to regional powers China and USSR were the only ones with the military might to excersize a pre-emptive policy. Nothing to do with their ideology, just the size of the military. And by the way, do you really think this is a “new” US policy? Need I mention Grenada, Cuba, Panama, Colombia?
litost, my recollection (and I could be wrong) is that in each of the India-Pakistan wars, it was the Indian army that first invaded the territory of Pakistan.
You appear to be arguing that such a war is not preemptive because in each case India was provoked by actions of Pakistan.
If provocation is what removes a war from the preemptive category, then the war in Iraq was not preemptive, either.
Sua
What, you’ve never heard of the IRS?
Yes, isn’t is so silly when entities act in their own interest and make judgments from that perspective? Absurd!
That is an incorrect supposition. The first war was fought after Pakistan-supported “troops” rebeled against the Maharaja of Kashmir and under the ruler’s request (or more appropriately, bargain), India sent its troops to Kashmir. In this case, the terrority was neither India’s nor Pakistan’s and the whole issue of who invaded first is moot. The second war “broke out” over the border. There wasn’t a clear calculated Indian (or even Pakistan) invasion based on extraneous foreign policy conflicts. The causes for the third war are probably the most complex. Its genesis is in a large-scale civil war between the two chunks of Pakistan that straddled India. It is often reported that Pakistan first attacked India in Kashmir using airstrikes during the mayhem. I will have to dig deeper to find out the exact series of events but suffice to say, there is enough propaganda to last a lifetime of reading. In the last war, as I wrote before, there was an intrusion across the border which India repelled. This is widely acknowledged.
You may be confusing the loud rhetoric of the current Indian administration frequently threatening to attack Pakistan on account of its support for Kashmir terrorists with what actually happened in the past wars. As I wrote before, this is a new development. (In fact, terrorism in Kashmir itself is relatively new)
No, what’s silly and absurd is when people make such clumsy attempts to replace another person’s words with their own. I said it was ‘sadly predictable’, and is precisely what I meant.
Just to clarify even further:
- First War
In British India (which included present-day Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India) there were a number of so-called “princely states.” These were kingdoms who had signed over their international political and trade rights to the British government. At independence, the British allowed these kingdoms to either join India, Pakistan, or by doing nothing, become fully independent. According to the terms of the partition plan, heavily majority Muslim areas became Pakistan, while heavily majority Hindu areas became India. However, this partition scheme only applied to areas directly under British control and not to the princely states.
Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu king, but was majority Muslim (although areas of it were majority Hindu). After independence, the Kashmiri King tried to hold out as independent, but irregular troops crossed the Kashmir-Pakistan border in order to overthrow the king. This was compounded by the fact that there was an active insurgency movement against the king at the time.
The king flew to India and turned over Kashmir to India, which was his perrogative (at least according to British law), at which point Indian troops moved in. By this time, regular Pakistani troops had moved in as well. So, this is a complex situation, but it’s not what I would call pre-emptive, because according to British law, the entire country of Kashmir had become Indian territory before Indian troops moved in. In fact, Nehru refused to commit Indian troops to the situation until the territory was turned over.
-
Second War - I’m not clear on who actually fired the first shot, but sporadic fighting had been breaking out along the border for at least a few months before the actual war started. I don’t think this would be considered preemptive either, since both sides presumably were responding to an outbreak of fighting.
-
Third War - Complicated once again. The Awami League (which was in favor of Bangladeshi autonomy) had won a majority in the Pakistani parliamentary elections. The government of Pakistan, though, dissolved the parliament and voided the elections, at which point the Awami League declared independence. India gave political (and perhaps financial and military) support to the Awami League, which was operating out of Kolkatta, but did not actually engage in open hositilities until Pakistan began to bomb Indian airfields. Furthermore, India had already received some 10 million Bangladeshi refugees by this point. Not really preventative, although IMO it’s pretty clear that India was providing support to the independence movement in Bangladesh prior to the outbreak of war.
Just wanted to add, it wasn’t my intention to hijack this tread and turn it into a debate about Indian and Pakistani claims to Kashmir, I was just clarifying Indian position with regards to pre-emptive war in the first 3 wars.
Without compounding the hijack further, it appears you agree with the notion that the three/four wars India fought with Pakistan do not fall crisply within the definition of pre-emption (not even remotely comparable to US vs Iraq) and clearly were not a result of India invading first into Pakistan territory.
Back to the OP, I do believe the aggressive nature by which US is marketing the notion of pre-emption is unprecedented in recent times. But, I don’t think it will have much impact on India’s policy. Though they may use that to raise the rhetoric, they do not have the power to follow through. I am more concerned with its impact on China and Russia.
I’m no fan of Pakistan, but as things stand, India has no chance of actually pulling off a pre-emptive war, with the damnable strong risk of Pakistan going nuclear in the process. In all honesty here, I’m worried that a war will turn the whole region into chaos.
Understand, I’m not really concerned with “rights” or principles dealing with actions between nations. I just don’t want to see India decapitated and Pakistanis slaughtered. Kashmir isn’t worth it. In any event, I said Pakistan was no threat to India. That is not true. What I should have said is that a stable anti-terrorist Pakistan is a lot better for India than a nuked or angry Pakistan. And unlike Iraq, I see hope for a secular, peaceful Pakistan. And Pakistan is not a significant military threat to India as long as they remain non-nuclear.
And I’d say that India, should get together with Musharref, (and the US, quietly) make peace, split Kashmir, get the bloody Chinese out of their corner, and kick some terrorist buttocks.
Irrelevant as the short war itself isn’t even over yet, there is overwhelming evidence they did have them, we’ve already begun detecting sources of chem/bio weapons, and that was not the sole reaosn for the conflict. And even then it would be tangential.
I second that. Most of India’s educated middle and uppper class (about 400 million people) don’t support the war in Iraq. Not out of any love for SH, you see. They just don’t see any justification in a policy of pre-emption. And yet, when the issue of attacking or going to war with Pakistan comes up, these very people are suddenly all for a pre-emptive strike. Fortunately, the 1% elite which makes the ultimate decisions, knows that a war with Pakistan is just not winnable - and that is why there will be no war with Pakistan. So relax, it’s mainly rhetoric and sabre-rattling. Unless something really drastic happens. Remember, even at the time of the Kargil conflict, India only pushed the infiltrators back into Pakistan - no more. [Personally, I think India does have the right to pre-emptively invade Pakistan, because of the history the two countries share (living with a real threat of terrorism every day puts one in that position too). But I know that such an act won’t solve any problems, and that’s why I won’t support a war against Pakistan.]
The basic issues though, IMO, are the same - the US started off with accusing Iraq of supporting the al-Qaeda network. India accuses Pakistan of harbouring terrorists, not just those operating in Kashmir. Iraq has been accused of having aquired WoMD, and of in the future possibly transferring them to al-Qaeda. Pakistan does have nuclear weapons, and there is a danger of these weapons falling into the hands of Islamists in Pakistan, who might not exercise as much restraint as the givernment does.* There have also been numerous reports that Pakistani has exchanged nuclear weapons tech with N. Korea for missile tech.
There are other issues too, naturally, but that’s not really the point. This is the view from India, as is reported in our press.
- Reports in Jane’s Defense Weekly have repeatedly said that the Pakistani nuclear program is now under the supervision of the US, just in case the Musharraf government falls to Islamists in that country. I coudn’t bring up a cite because Jane’s is a paid site.
Actually, I opened a thread over the question of what would happen if a nuclear country is sponsoring terrorism. (Was a very short-lived thread!). One aspect to this war is the fact that US has the world’s most potent military… so they can wage pre-emptive wars, and especially with weakened countries like Iraq. (It does make me wonder if the US admin would believe in their ideology enough to wage a war with Iraq fully knowing it possessed chemical and nuclear weapons.)
And, you are right. While the merits and demerits of pre-emption can be debated academically, when it comes to its application, ideology ought to go out the window in favor of pragmatism. India just cannot wage a winnable war with Pakistan that would ultimately make it a safer place. As simple as that. Which is why I believe India would not be following this precedent set by the US. All bets are off on China. There is a much greater chance of ideology blinding the Chinese.
There’s a difference between “Simple self interest” and “enlightened self interest.”