fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
The Road to War is Wide and Open
Published in Hilal English
Written By: Brian Cloughley
There are few areas of our globe that are not in a state of tension, and almost daily there is more erosion of what tranquillity continues to survive. The relentless military confrontation of Russia and China by the United States is the largest scale threat to world peace, but other discord, contrived or inadvertent, contributes to instability and increases the likelihood of wider wars than those being waged in a depressing number of countries.
The U.S.-declared global “war on terror” begun in 2001 has mutated into conflict throughout the world, and, according to The Costs of War Project has not only resulted in the deaths of over 6,800 members of the U.S. military but also “cost the lives of over 210,000 civilians.” It notes in October 2016 that “Americans continue to serve in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the U.S. has been regularly bombing targets in six Muslim-majority countries — Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.” In its analyses the Project does not include the US-NATO war in Muslim Libya, reduced to a catastrophic shambles in which fanatics of the Islamic State terrorist organisation are now based, as they are in every other country that has been subjected to U.S. military action.
Media cover in India was united in unqualified acceptance and approval of the “surgical strikes” story, and much reporting could be fairly described as overexcited to the point of being emotionally incontinent. This could be expected on some of the less responsible of the TV channels, and sections of the press, but extended to newspapers usually regarded as being objective.
The blow-back effects of such interference have included incalculable but obviously significant growth in anti-U.S. sentiment in the Muslim world and, of even more concern, a decrease in regional stability combined with a massive refugee problem which affects Europe but not the United States.
So far in this century the consequences of wars have been entirely negative. They have caused the deaths of countless innocent, destroyed national infrastructure to the extent that it may never be possible to restore it, and been disastrous in disruption to the lives of millions of ordinary people. It would therefore be most unwise of any country, with such examples in mind, to take any action that might lead to a conflict that could increase in intensity to the point of disaster.
Yet after the 18th September terrorist raid on an army camp at Uri in Indian-administered Kashmir, India appears to have taken a policy decision to confront Pakistan relentlessly and uncompromisingly, to the point of threatening major military action. The overwhelming national feeling in India is massively against Pakistan, and the government in Delhi has been under enormous pressure to actually go to war.
And one should therefore reflect on the findings of researchers from Rutgers University, the University of Colorado-Boulder and the University of California, Los Angeles, that after a nuclear exchange about 21 million people in the sub-continent would die within the first week from blast effects, burns and acute radiation. The final consequences are incalculable.
There have been many such instances in the past that have involved accusations by India that Pakistan has been actively involved in terrorist attacks in India, but although it is undoubtedly a fact that perpetrators of some of these had indeed been based in Pakistan, there is yet to be evidence produced that they had been sent to commit their outrages by anyone in authority in Pakistan.
Certainly the Indian media, fed by the usual “well-placed sources” which may or may not have had official blessing, convinced the country’s entire population that Pakistan as a nation is without doubt to blame for the atrocities. Following the Uri incident the media swung into top gear to highlight Prime Minister Modi’s comment that “I assure the nation that those behind this despicable attack will not go unpunished,” and make it clear that “those” referred solely to Pakistan.
It has all happened before, but what is illuminating and more disturbing about the current drumbeat of war is that Indian social media is playing a major part in the Delhi government’s boosting of support for movement down the road to war, which gathered impetus after reportage of what were claimed to be “surgical strikes” on the Pakistan side of the Line of Control.
It should be borne in mind that India’s contention is that the four Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorists (and there is no doubt that the word “terrorist” is apposite) who carried out the Uri attacks must have had their movement across the Line of Control officially facilitated by the Pakistan Army; but the notion that transit is impossible without sanction or assistance was made doubtful by Delhi’s official statement a few days later that “a soldier from 37 Rashtriya Rifles with weapons has inadvertently crossed over to the Pakistan side of the Line of Control.”
In any event, India claims there are bases on the Pakistan side in which hundreds of terrorists are poised to attack from “launch pads,” and that after the Uri assault “the Indian army conducted surgical strikes at several of these launch pads to pre-empt infiltration by terrorists.”
Given the tactics likely to be employed by India, there would almost inevitably be rapid escalation to release of nuclear weapons, and there is no possibility whatever that subsequent exchanges could in any way be restricted. Once begun, they would only intensify.
This assertion of military action was, to be kind, a trifle exaggerated. There were, indeed, intensive and prolonged artillery bombardments and small arms’ fire attacks by the Indian army, and even a couple of mild forays towards the Line in a remote area in which there is no physical barrier. But the claim that there were “surgical strikes” involving airborne troops and helicopters and bags of Bollywood Braveheart boldness is a little over the top. These didn’t happen, and there is no evidence whatever to support claims that these did.
But social media doesn’t need evidence to support any statements that appear in, on, by or through it, and it is a troubling thought that an entire country can be moved towards supporting war by frenzied denizens of the Twittersphere.
The level of what can only be called hysteria was disquieting, and the BBC reported that “#ModiPunishesPak was trending top of Twitter in India, hours after the media first reported ‘the strikes.’ The other top trending hashtags included #SurgicalStrike and #IndianArmy. A Narendra Modi fan club account tweeted a clip from a Tom and Jerry cartoon film to show India spanking Pakistan. Government supporters gushed that this was a ‘proud moment for India,’ with one Bollywood actor thanking the army for doing what India ‘should have done 30 years ago.’ A clutch of news channels were waxing delirious on how India had taught Pakistan a lesson and speculated endlessly about the details of the operation. Things were much more serious between the two nuclear-armed rivals, they say, after the 2001 attack by Pakistan-based militants (as claimed) on the Indian parliament but there was no social media then, and the calls to escalate the conflict were more muted.”
Media cover in India was united in unqualified acceptance and approval of the “surgical strikes” story, and much reporting could be fairly described as overexcited to the point of being emotionally incontinent. This could be expected from some of the less responsible of the TV channels, and sections of the press, but extended to newspapers usually regarded as being objective.
It is enlightening but most disquieting to read the tweets and public online comments in Indian newspapers advocating war on Pakistan. Those who write such frenzied exhortations in the “#PunishPak” style have no concept — not the most basic notion — of what could result from war between the two countries.
Given the tactics likely to be employed by India, there would almost inevitably be rapid escalation to release of nuclear weapons, and there is no possibility whatever that subsequent exchanges could in any way be restricted. Once begun, they would only intensify.
And one should therefore reflect on the findings of researchers from Rutgers University, the University of Colorado-Boulder and the University of California, Los Angeles, that after a nuclear exchange about 21 million people in the sub-continent would die within the first week from blast effects, burns and acute radiation. The final consequences are incalculable.
The road to war between India and Pakistan is wide and open. And it is terrifying to realise that it has been made more likely by the hysterical Twittersphere. Surely sanity must prevail?
The writer is a France based retired officer of Australian Army and is an expert on South Asian affairs. He is also author of different books, and contributes extensively in international media.
E-mail: beecluff@gmail.com
Published in Hilal English
Written By: Brian Cloughley
There are few areas of our globe that are not in a state of tension, and almost daily there is more erosion of what tranquillity continues to survive. The relentless military confrontation of Russia and China by the United States is the largest scale threat to world peace, but other discord, contrived or inadvertent, contributes to instability and increases the likelihood of wider wars than those being waged in a depressing number of countries.
The U.S.-declared global “war on terror” begun in 2001 has mutated into conflict throughout the world, and, according to The Costs of War Project has not only resulted in the deaths of over 6,800 members of the U.S. military but also “cost the lives of over 210,000 civilians.” It notes in October 2016 that “Americans continue to serve in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the U.S. has been regularly bombing targets in six Muslim-majority countries — Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.” In its analyses the Project does not include the US-NATO war in Muslim Libya, reduced to a catastrophic shambles in which fanatics of the Islamic State terrorist organisation are now based, as they are in every other country that has been subjected to U.S. military action.
Media cover in India was united in unqualified acceptance and approval of the “surgical strikes” story, and much reporting could be fairly described as overexcited to the point of being emotionally incontinent. This could be expected on some of the less responsible of the TV channels, and sections of the press, but extended to newspapers usually regarded as being objective.
The blow-back effects of such interference have included incalculable but obviously significant growth in anti-U.S. sentiment in the Muslim world and, of even more concern, a decrease in regional stability combined with a massive refugee problem which affects Europe but not the United States.
So far in this century the consequences of wars have been entirely negative. They have caused the deaths of countless innocent, destroyed national infrastructure to the extent that it may never be possible to restore it, and been disastrous in disruption to the lives of millions of ordinary people. It would therefore be most unwise of any country, with such examples in mind, to take any action that might lead to a conflict that could increase in intensity to the point of disaster.
Yet after the 18th September terrorist raid on an army camp at Uri in Indian-administered Kashmir, India appears to have taken a policy decision to confront Pakistan relentlessly and uncompromisingly, to the point of threatening major military action. The overwhelming national feeling in India is massively against Pakistan, and the government in Delhi has been under enormous pressure to actually go to war.
And one should therefore reflect on the findings of researchers from Rutgers University, the University of Colorado-Boulder and the University of California, Los Angeles, that after a nuclear exchange about 21 million people in the sub-continent would die within the first week from blast effects, burns and acute radiation. The final consequences are incalculable.
There have been many such instances in the past that have involved accusations by India that Pakistan has been actively involved in terrorist attacks in India, but although it is undoubtedly a fact that perpetrators of some of these had indeed been based in Pakistan, there is yet to be evidence produced that they had been sent to commit their outrages by anyone in authority in Pakistan.
Certainly the Indian media, fed by the usual “well-placed sources” which may or may not have had official blessing, convinced the country’s entire population that Pakistan as a nation is without doubt to blame for the atrocities. Following the Uri incident the media swung into top gear to highlight Prime Minister Modi’s comment that “I assure the nation that those behind this despicable attack will not go unpunished,” and make it clear that “those” referred solely to Pakistan.
It has all happened before, but what is illuminating and more disturbing about the current drumbeat of war is that Indian social media is playing a major part in the Delhi government’s boosting of support for movement down the road to war, which gathered impetus after reportage of what were claimed to be “surgical strikes” on the Pakistan side of the Line of Control.
It should be borne in mind that India’s contention is that the four Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorists (and there is no doubt that the word “terrorist” is apposite) who carried out the Uri attacks must have had their movement across the Line of Control officially facilitated by the Pakistan Army; but the notion that transit is impossible without sanction or assistance was made doubtful by Delhi’s official statement a few days later that “a soldier from 37 Rashtriya Rifles with weapons has inadvertently crossed over to the Pakistan side of the Line of Control.”
In any event, India claims there are bases on the Pakistan side in which hundreds of terrorists are poised to attack from “launch pads,” and that after the Uri assault “the Indian army conducted surgical strikes at several of these launch pads to pre-empt infiltration by terrorists.”
Given the tactics likely to be employed by India, there would almost inevitably be rapid escalation to release of nuclear weapons, and there is no possibility whatever that subsequent exchanges could in any way be restricted. Once begun, they would only intensify.
This assertion of military action was, to be kind, a trifle exaggerated. There were, indeed, intensive and prolonged artillery bombardments and small arms’ fire attacks by the Indian army, and even a couple of mild forays towards the Line in a remote area in which there is no physical barrier. But the claim that there were “surgical strikes” involving airborne troops and helicopters and bags of Bollywood Braveheart boldness is a little over the top. These didn’t happen, and there is no evidence whatever to support claims that these did.
But social media doesn’t need evidence to support any statements that appear in, on, by or through it, and it is a troubling thought that an entire country can be moved towards supporting war by frenzied denizens of the Twittersphere.
The level of what can only be called hysteria was disquieting, and the BBC reported that “#ModiPunishesPak was trending top of Twitter in India, hours after the media first reported ‘the strikes.’ The other top trending hashtags included #SurgicalStrike and #IndianArmy. A Narendra Modi fan club account tweeted a clip from a Tom and Jerry cartoon film to show India spanking Pakistan. Government supporters gushed that this was a ‘proud moment for India,’ with one Bollywood actor thanking the army for doing what India ‘should have done 30 years ago.’ A clutch of news channels were waxing delirious on how India had taught Pakistan a lesson and speculated endlessly about the details of the operation. Things were much more serious between the two nuclear-armed rivals, they say, after the 2001 attack by Pakistan-based militants (as claimed) on the Indian parliament but there was no social media then, and the calls to escalate the conflict were more muted.”
Media cover in India was united in unqualified acceptance and approval of the “surgical strikes” story, and much reporting could be fairly described as overexcited to the point of being emotionally incontinent. This could be expected from some of the less responsible of the TV channels, and sections of the press, but extended to newspapers usually regarded as being objective.
It is enlightening but most disquieting to read the tweets and public online comments in Indian newspapers advocating war on Pakistan. Those who write such frenzied exhortations in the “#PunishPak” style have no concept — not the most basic notion — of what could result from war between the two countries.
Given the tactics likely to be employed by India, there would almost inevitably be rapid escalation to release of nuclear weapons, and there is no possibility whatever that subsequent exchanges could in any way be restricted. Once begun, they would only intensify.
And one should therefore reflect on the findings of researchers from Rutgers University, the University of Colorado-Boulder and the University of California, Los Angeles, that after a nuclear exchange about 21 million people in the sub-continent would die within the first week from blast effects, burns and acute radiation. The final consequences are incalculable.
The road to war between India and Pakistan is wide and open. And it is terrifying to realise that it has been made more likely by the hysterical Twittersphere. Surely sanity must prevail?
The writer is a France based retired officer of Australian Army and is an expert on South Asian affairs. He is also author of different books, and contributes extensively in international media.
E-mail: beecluff@gmail.com
