What arrogance, to presume that the US can “unleash” India! India is by no means on our “leash,” compadre. They are an ally and a friend, not a lackey. And they are certainly not our cannon fodder.
Aside from that, are you aware that India counts some 138 million Muslims among its own population? Are you aware that there are actually more Muslims in India than in Pakistan? Can you see how that fact might make a half-assed holy war by India problematic?
Indians (including the moderate Muslims of that nation) share our concerns about militant Islamic fundamentalism. (For that matter, the mostly moderate Muslim population of Pakistan shares our concern.)
Let’s please put aside the lurid fantasies of global meltdown.
Please see my explanation of the use of this tongue in cheek term above. Appropriately or not, it’s a reference to the Korean War, not to our current relationship with India.
No, not really, and no one is talking about a “holy war”. I’m talking about India acting in its own security interests. Why are you assuming this has to be all about a “war against Islam”? Or do you believe that all Muslims are such simpletons that they can’t interpret a war against Afghanistan or Pakistan in any other way?
Doesn’t that support my argument?
I don’t have to fantasize, campadre, when all I need to do is read the paper.
If you think India has any notions of “conquering” Pakistan, then yes, you are nursing a fantasy.
Think it through, for crying out loud. Even assuming that India could defeat Pakistan (which is a great leap considering the history of the conflict between the two nations) what do you suppose that India would do with Pakistan if India took it?
A victorious India would have just managed to nearly double its Muslim population. Most of those Muslims would be angry, and a significant minority would be willing to carry out acts of terrorism within “greater India.” Meanwhile, the other Muslim nations on India’s border would provide a nice haven for such terrorists. Not exactly a dream scenario, wouldn’t you agree?
I see that in the OP I did characterize the US’s hypothesized attitude as “take over the whole of Pakistan if you want”, but that doesn’t indicate that I thought that’s what India would actually do.
I get the feeling that there are a lot of hit and run posts in this thread: somebody sees the thread title, thinks, “that racist warmongering asshole!”, and posts a flame without reading any of the subsequent discussion. And then goes away without bothering to read my umpteenth weary response to the same old thing. I’m getting kind of tired of this. Has anyone really addressed the very specific scenario that I outlined early on in the thread?
Pakistan is not currently fighting the US. I doubt that that relationship would remain if it was revealed that the US was entering an alliance with India. So, forget all current land-based operations from Pakistan, and you’d better be able to get all current US and allied forces out of there once that blows up.
Secondly, you’re relying on Pakistan doing something really stupid to spark a conflict with India. If the US pulls out, why would they? What’s in it for Pakistan? Those who support the Taliban will be happy to see the back of the US, and those in government will most likely switch to a pretty vitriolic anti-US tack for such a perceived ‘betrayal’. Now you have the government of a nuclear-armed country pissed off at you. No direct threat, but it hardly helps US aims to restrict nuclear proliferation.
The rest of the allies are highly likely to pull out in disgust at perceived US attempts to manipulate regional politics in such a way. Say good-bye to military support (which I’m sure you could cope with) and, more importantly, diplomatic support. I doubt Blair would be rushing around Europe and the Middle East trying to whip up support any more. The US is on its own now. Militarily that might not be a problem, but it’ll hardly improve world stability or trading links.
Even if Pakistan were to descend into chaos, there’s no reason India would want to exploit that dramatically - oh, maybe they’d try a few land grabs around the border, but where’s the mileage in risking your soldiers and cities in a war? And if India were to attack while Pakistani forces are engaged in civil actions, how will you stop them reaching for NBC weapons in desperation? US military support? Great. Now you’ve not only encouraged, but overtly supported a war between two countries. Think the UN, Russia, Britain, France, Canada (etc) are going to support that?
This is all quite ignoring the moral issue at the heart of this: you’re suggesting that it’s okay to risk a potential nuclear conflict to gain control over a country that, on the surface at least, is currently supporting US aims? That’s what shocks me most.
I gotta agree with xanaxis. I believe most of you are seriuosly underestimating the animosity between Pakistan and India. Of the Indian and Pakistani people I have met it amazes me the sheer amount of hatred there is is. Now it is obviously not everybody there, but I have scene really cool people of both sides totally lose their heads and start ranting when the other side is mentioned. I saw a Pakistani Storekeeper go totally psycho when the girl in front of me polietly asked if he was from India. Although the current situation has confused the issue, I have to agree with the statement that either side would pounce on any internationally justifiable incident to go to all all out invasion. That is what I see as the ‘leash’. If the international comunity made it known it would turn it’s head, then I trully believe that India would invade Pakistan. Also, if Pakistan’s current government were to be overthrown I would expect India to invade under the (very likely justifible) guise of stabilising a Nuclear capable country with a severe hatred towards them and a psycho fundamentalist element.
On the otherhand I say let the Taliban supporters in Pakistan go through the border to Afghanistan. I would rather have all my enemies in one basket,Where they could be fought militarily, than in an country allied with us fomenting rebellion and terrorism where we can’t fight them.
India wants to invade partly to sort out the Kashmir problem and partly to deal with the hardline Islamic schools in North Pakistan (from where the Taliban originated and from where many of the terrorists in Kashmir originate). But mainly they want invade in order to remove Pakistan’s nuclear capability.
If they actually did invade Pakistan, they would withdraw from most of Pakistan (after destroying it’s nuclear capability) but they would retain control of the whole of Kashmir, except the Chinese bit.
India isn’t afraid of the Islamic hardliners or, indeed, Pakistan itself for that matter. Part of the reason they would like to see a coup is so they have a reason to go in and deal with the hardliners in their own way. Something which Pakistan is unwilling to do.
One thing you need to understand is that, in a war between India and Pakistan, India would win and they know this. And so do Pakistan which is why they are so keen to have nukes.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I love India, Ive been there and travelled all around including to Kashmir.
This is all just my reading of the situation not what I would like to see happen.
Personally I don’t think India should invade Pakistan even if there is a coup. There would be enormous bloodshed.
But, that said, I think they will invade given the chance.
What I want to happen and what I think will happen are two completely different things.
Its not fun.
This isn’t my view. They would invade for the reasons I explained above. Jingoism has nothing to do with it.
One further point:
The US is currently at war with Afghanistan, it needs Pakistani airspace in order to prosecute this war. If there were a pro-Taliban coup in Pakistan this would make no difference to the US wanting to continue its war with Afghanistan.
If the new Pakistan Government refused to allow the use of its airspace then they would suddenly find themselves also at war with the US. The US wouldn’t want to actually fight this war themselves, they’ve got enough on their plate at the moment with Afghanistan so the US would covertly encourage India to invade Pakistan. They would raise no objection to India going into Pakistan and fighting their war for them.
The US isn’t going to call off its war on Afghanistan and al- qaeda just because there is a new regime in Islamabad.
If the Pakistani government becomes pro-Taliban then they will have to be removed for exactly the same reason as the Taliban government themselves have to be removed.
So what have we got:
Theres a hardline coup in Pakistan
India doesn’t want this
The US doesn’t want this
Russia doesn’t want this
India would invade (which they want to do anyway)
They would be supported by the US and Russia
If Pakistan started throwing nuclear threats around, they may find they are on the receiving end of a few nuclear threats themselves. From India of course, but also from the US and Russia.
Pakistan would have to surrender or face obliteration. If they did manage to fire a coupla nukes towards India then the gloves would come off and they would be dealt with. Very quickly.
ps General Musharraf and the Pakistani leadership are well aware of all the above which is why I don’t think there will be a coup.
I don’t think any of the above will happen, simply because there won’t be a coup.
As I said earlier, most people in Pakistan aren’t so bothered about the Taliban that they are willing to go to war for them. Therefore the problem hopefully (and I’m actually touching wood here) won’t arise.
Welcome to the dark side of (Not So) Great Debates.
I have also noticed a preponderance of posters whose participation is largely limited to sniping and criticism without substantial contribution to the topic at hand.
As to your scenario;
I still think that the best thing would be for the US to go it alone so that there would be a reduced chance of nuclear exchange. We would have to go in and secure the warheads ourselves and extract the fissile material for exportation.
India’s participation would not be a desirable thing as we would lose a large element of control over the situation.
I also tend to agree with you that we may very well have a good idea of exactly where the warheads are stored. There are many support, structural and traffic features to such a location. Our spy satellites are more than capable of sorting such information. It would be insane of us to even hint at such knowledge because it would instantly result in the weapons being moved to a less accessible site.
DR, I think that a lot of people reading this thread thinks it’s simply too far out there to discuss. Certainly I do. Allow me to restate your implicit and explicit assumptions contained in the OP:
a) Pakistan has a coup
b) hardliners/Taliban sympathizers/the Tailban take over
c) US perhaps does a surgical strike to take out the Pakistan nuclear arsenal
d) US encourages India to invade Pakistan, make sure the nukes are in safe hands, settle the Kashmir question, and hell take over the entire sovereign country if they want to. At the same time, allow China to keep their piece of Kashmir.
e) India then invades Afganistan and takes care of a little problem we’re having with the Taleban.
f) This solves all problems in the region without creating any new ones.
DR, I’m not even exaggerating with the above assumptions, but took them straight out of the OP. I think IMHO with a little effort you could have written a better OP that would be worthy of discussion or debate, but given these unrealistic assumptions there isn’t much to debate.
DR, I think that a lot of people reading this thread thinks it’s simply too far out there to discuss. Certainly I do. Allow me to restate your implicit and explicit assumptions contained in the OP:
a) Pakistan has a coup
b) hardliners/Taliban sympathizers/the Tailban take over
c) US perhaps does a surgical strike to take out the Pakistan nuclear arsenal
d) US encourages India to invade Pakistan, make sure the nukes are in safe hands, settle the Kashmir question, and hell take over the entire sovereign country if they want to. At the same time, allow China to keep their piece of Kashmir.
e) India then invades Afganistan and takes care of a little problem we’re having with the Taleban.
f) This solves all problems in the region without creating any new ones.
DR, I don’t think I’m even exaggerating with this rewrite of you assumptions as they come straight out of the OP. You can pick nits if you want. I think IMHO with a little effort you could have written a better OP that would be worthy of discussion or debate, but given these unrealistic assumptions there isn’t much to debate.
Please point out to me where in my OP or in subsequent posts that you found point “f”.
Since you won’t be able to find it, I’ll substitute it with something I did say: If Pakistan falls, the US is going to lose this war without substantial help from a major power in the region. For reasons I’ve discussed above, I don’t think it would be China or Russia. That leaves India. I don’t think that the US will regard India’s entry into the conflict as anything close to an ideal choice–just the only choice they have left. There’s no doubt that it will cause problems and ramifications for the next half century, but the question is whether policymakers are willing to risk it in view of their short-term goals.
Thanks for your criticism; it’s so valuable to me now that you’ve actually bothered to read the OP. Regarding the assumptions I did state: why do you come into this thread, mutter “that’s unrealistic!” and stamp out again without giving us a reason why? And once again, if it’s unworthy of your attention, why are you here, especially after telling us once before that you weren’t “interested in debating this scenario”?
The thing that troubles me about the OP is a blatant disregard for the people in the subcontinent.
Granted, that if there is an Islamic coup inside Pak things would be tough for India. But India doesnt want a permanent enemy at its borders. Nor does it want to annex Pakistan.
U are essentially encouraging a war between 2 nuclear capable countries, a definite loss of lives running into the tens of thousands, just coz u want to win in ur fight against terrorism against OBL.
U r basically making the US out to be a war-mongerer of the worst kind. Why dont u propose that the US invade Afghanistan instead? They already have a base in Uzbekistan. And if the US cant do that, then accept defeat. And make sure ur policy never supports regimes like Pakistan again which openly support terrorist activities like they did in Kashmir.
And what kinda country is it that wants other people to fight its own wars? U want India-Pak to engage in war, millions of innocent civilians dead, while the US just sits at home and reaps the benefits. Whats the matter with u?
I’ll go backwards through the thread and try to address some of the legitimate points raised.
Actually, entering into a formal or semi-formal alliance might be our best hope of maintaining some semblance of control. Given the dangers it faces right on its own borders, I would argue that India would probably take some action against a fundamentalist Pakistani regime with or without our help. In return for our tacit support, India might be persuaded to keep its war aims limited. And in return for our help in smashing Pakistani resistance ahead of their forces, India might be willing to at least help us set up a new staging ground for action against Afghanistan.
That being said, I agree that the US should try to handle extraction of nuclear material by itself; it wouldn’t be helpful for India to complement its own technology and nuclear raw materials. Again, in return for our help in other areas, we might have some leverage in persuading New Delhi to lay off in this area.
I share your sentiment, but things are starting to look pretty iffy if this Washington Times article is correct. One quote that caught my eye:
Scary stuff, and that’s while Pakistan is still supposedly our ally.
Take out the bit about “a country allied with us”, and you’ve got some disturbing echoes of North Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
I think you’ve misunderstood the sequence of events I’m suggesting: first, the current Islamabad regime gets overthrown, and only then do we start (overtly) looking to India for help. All of our current US and allied forces in Pakistan are in deep shit already, because they suddenly find themselves in a country governed by a hostile regime.
As suggested by xanakis and others, a pro-Taliban Pakistani regime need not do anything except simply exist in order to alarm India. If we need to worry about “the government of a nuclear armed country pissed off at you”, how do you think New Delhi feels?
I doubt Tony Blair would object to our pursuit of the only diplomatic avenue that would prevent his country’s troops being slaughtered and defeated along with our own. As for the Middle East, that is indeed a sticky wicket, and one of the reasons I was interested in debating this topic in the first place. Would an alliance with India against Pakistan be viewed as confirmation that we are “at war with Islam”? And would it matter? I don’t know, but I don’t think it’s nearly the open and shut case that some of you all seem to suggest.
Again, I think that India will have every incentive to try to smash a nuclear-armed fundamentalist regime next door, with or without our help. As I mention above in response to Zenster, I think the US could reasonably make the case that an overt alliance with India (in this scenario) would help defuse the nuclear threat rather than enflame it.
I’m far from suggesting it’s “OK”. I’m suggesting that an alliance with India might be the best way to neutralize a Pakistani threat in the scenario I’ve outlined here, and indeed the only way to win the war. And again, it might be the best way actually to avoid a nuclear conflict.
As for the shocking idea of going to war against a country whose previous regime supported us:
Big. Deal.
We can say the same about nearly every county we’ve ever gone to war with.
Fair enough. Some of my points aren’t relevant in the event that a pro-Taliban regime is installed in Pakistan. On the other hand, I’m still not sure that allying with India would be the best solution to that problem – you’d still be creating increasing numbers of anti-US martyrs. It’d still be seen by a lot of countries as interference in the region’s politics beyond the call of the current mission: unless the new Pakistani regime were to openly support the Taliban, I’m not sure international support would extend to displacing ‘sympathisers’.
Doghouse Reilly: Well I can only say my sense of the situation is this - India wouldn’t do it. India might try to clear Kashmir or otherwise rearrange the border slightly, but unless directly attacked I strongly suspect they’d just grin and bear with a fundamentalist regime in Pakistan. The cost of invading Pakistan, even as a U.S. ally, would be enormous.
And why would they bother? Such a nation could scarcely be any more hostile than Pakistan already is and India still has their own nuclear deterrence. Further India is no friend of the United States - Not an enemy either, but they are about as close to the middle-of-the-road in relation to the U.S. as you are likely to find. If the U.S. felt compelled to try to stifle a Pakistani revolution, my personal opinion is that India would take the pragmatic approach and let them, without lifting a finger to help. The U.S. can’t offer them anything, short of support for claiming Kashmir and that level of cynical realpolitik just wouldn’t fly on the international scene these days ( besides I don’t think that would be enough incentive anyway ).
As far Afghanistan goes, my personal opinion is that at the end of the day, India could give a rat’s ass what happens there. Oh they likely would enjoy seeing al-Quaeda crushed. But India, though on the list for Kashmir, is way down there in terms of probable targets. And al-Quaeda, as has often pointed out, isn’t solely an Afghan centered problem. The Taliban meanwhile aren’t a threat to them at all ( Taliban support and potential support for Kashmiri guerilas is miniscule, relative to Pakistani involvement ).
Nope, I just don’t think your scenario is at all likely. IMHO, if a revolution does break out in Pakistan ( and the potential certainly exists ), I think India will either - a.) Make a quick land grab on the border ( If they’re feeling militant ) or b.) Sit and watch ( if they’re feeling cautious ). That’s about it.
Yes, those all-seeing reconnaissance satellites sure helped to divert September 11-th attacks.Oh,wait, they didn’t…
There’re 3 problems with reconnaissance satellites
1)They’re very useful in case of a conventional war–for things like tracking enemy positions, supplies locations etc.
But they can also be totally useless. For real-life examples you don’t have to go back any further than 3 years ago, when Pakistan tested its nuclear weapons, which came as a complete surprise to the US.What makes you think that those all-seeing eyes in the sky, who entirely missed Pakistani preparation for that “small” event, would know where the nukes are now?
From real-life examples we can go to made-up examples. Let’s say Pakistan has 20 nuclear bombs and it keeps them in a single facility (although in real life, they would probably be dispersed,as to not allow any ‘accident’ to destroy country’s nuclear arsenal).Now, let’s say that your satellites detect a truck coming out of that storage facility and going to a location somewhere in the desert. Now, the question is, what’s inside of that truck? Are they trying to hide a nuclear bomb somewhere in the desert? Or maybe this storage facility simply likes to dump its garbage in the desert? Or maybe the driver of the truck simplyenjoys taking long rides in his car in the desert?Who knows…the most advanced satellites can’t answer any of these questions
And’ don’t even start me on another real-life example.In the early 80-s, the US was suspecting that USSR was building a huge anti-missile radar somewhere north of Novosibirsk (in violation of ABM treaty). Now, we knew the approximate location of thing and there’s nothing more Reagan administration would’ve loved than to have a photo proof of its existence. So, we diverted several satellites to find it. Guess what?It was never found (well, until mid 90-s, when you could go in there as a tourist). And this radar is a size of 15 football fields.
2) The amount of information the satellites produce is simply overwhelming. 95% of photos taken are never looked at by human experts.And even assuming that 90% of those photos are garbage, how do you know that remaining 5% don’t contain something valuable?
3) And the worst aspect of the current situation with the reconnaissance satellites is that the public (and politicians) just LOVE them.After all, we invested billions of dollars in them (while the exact figure escapes me at the moment,the cost of developing a piece of crap like old KH-11 satellite was staggering) and now we should see the return in iinvestment,right? Wrong…the best sort of intelligence is still produced by what military types call HUMINT. Remember that little nuclar bomb facility example? What would be the best thing in that situation is to have a man…a small little man…a janitor,perhaps, who would KNOW what was in a truck. Nad maybe it jsut so happens he was recruited by CIA operative in the early 90-s…Guess what? Getting those “janitors” where you need them is the part where US intelligence really sucks. After all, why bother when we eave those high-tech satellites…
Tamerlane: You might be right, and I’m trying to follow the new wires more closely to get a better sense of what India’s position might be. There’s two points I’d raise right now, though:
(1) Saying that India simply doesn’t care what happens if radical Islam widens its grip in the region–to me, this doesn’t jibe with what some frothy-mouthed poster pointed out early in the thread: “Are you aware that India counts some 138 million Muslims among its own population?!? Are you aware that there are actually more Muslims in India than in Pakistan?!?” Sorry, that flying spittle was his, not mine. I still think India has more to lose from a nuclear-armed fundamentalist regime in Pakistan, and all the more so if the US is defeated in its current war. I guess it’s a question of whether New Delhi recognizes this.
(2) My general sense in turn is this: India craves recognition as a great power, and the US’s patronizing treatment and efforts to counterbalance India up to now (through support for Pakistan) account for New Delhi’s cool attitude toward Washington. That’s why I think the scenario calls for some at least semi-official recognition of India as an ally and regional power, perhaps culminating in the offer of a permanent UN Security Council seat. I guess that’s what I meant by “unleashing” India: stop opposing its designs to be the unquestioned regional power. Would this be incentive enough for India to play ball?
timothy98765: You’re dredging up a minor side point on which I modified my stance several posts back. I think you have some faulty assumptions, but I’m not going to spend time on it; it would only derail the conversation now that we’ve finally got it going.