Can Pakistan’s strategic doctrine withstand Indian sabre-rattling?

Can Pakistan’s strategic doctrine withstand Indian sabre-rattling?
by Shahid Mehmood

March 15, 2019



As an economist, my written pieces are usually centred around the economy. However, there is a lot more going on in the country and the world that makes one contemplate. Today, I am going share my thoughts on the Pulwama incident, which brought Pakistan and India to the brink of war. There are some aspects that have not been discussed.

To start: did any of you read the communique of former US ambassador to Pakistan, Ann Patterson? The document, dated around 2004, centres on the question whether the Block 50/52 F-16s should be provided to Pakistan. Miss Patterson supports the provision of these warplanes, and her argument is this: India’s military superiority over Pakistan is unquestionable and it already has such systems (like SU-30 warplanes) that have completely tilted the scales in India’s favour. Pakistan has to be provided Block 50/52s since it will buy them a couple of days to resist the Indian juggernaut. By that time, the ‘big boys’ will step in to calm things down and stop Pakistan from using nuclear weapons. Unless Pakistan has these F-16s, it will be forced to go straight to the nuclear button since its conventional forces stood little chance.

Miss Patterson’s communique is not the first of its kind and it reflects the longstanding American belief that Pakistan stands little chance against India in a military conflict. The antecedents of this belief can be traced to the traumatic events of December 1971, when Pakistan was dismembered. India, smelling blood, was about to roll its armoury into western Pakistan where a demoralized nation was expected to put up little (if any) resistance. God bless Richard Nixon though, who warned Indira Gandhi to back off. India resisted the temptation to annoy Uncle Sam and backed off. Thus, it was Nixon’s intervention which saved present day Pakistan (by the way, the story about non-arrival of American naval fleet is wrong. The American fleet did arrive near **** shores).

Pakistan’s military planners have realized that if they were to resort to only defence, they will ultimately be overwhelmed

Since then, Americans have taken it to heart that Pakistan has little chance to stave off an Indian military thrust. The same belief was in action during the Kargil conflict, when General Anthony Zinni told General Musharraf that Pakistan won’t withstand Indian assault for long. This was stated in General Zinni’s autobiography.

Pakistan’s forces and their strategic doctrine, though, has evolved since then. Pakistan’s military planners have realized that if they were to resort to only defence, they will ultimately be overwhelmed. Aside from the nuclear program, there arose the concept of ‘offensive defence.’ In layman’s terms, it is the concept of landing blows while defending at the same time, rather than trying to wear out the opponent through defence only. The two strike corps of the Pakistan Army (Mangla and Multan), for example, are there to carry out offensive manoeuvres in line with this concept. Exercises like Zarb-i-Momin and High-Mark have been used to practice this concept. After 1971, there came several occasions for Pakistan to put the concept into action. Brass Tacks (1984), Kargil (1999), Operation Sentinel (2001-02) and the border tensions in 2008 were a few occasions.

Pulwama’s aftermath was the first time that Pakistan practically executed offensive defence. What changed this time? Two factors: India crossed the LoC, and Pakistan had the means to carry out an offensive operation. Egged on by overconfidence and Bollywood glitz, an overzealous, war-mongering media and a dangerous zealot at the helm, Indian military planes crossed the LoC. The country erupted into a war and victory frenzy as the imaginative figure of 350 dead terrorists was splashed on TV screens to remind its people of Pakistan’s meekness and India’s might.

Yet Pakistan’s response took everybody by surprise. Nobody expected such a swift and daring response. The will from the Pakistani side was always there, but what they lacked was quality weaponry. During peak of the Kargil conflict, for example, Pakistan Air Force (PAF) was hampered by lack of quality aircraft. F-16s were only allowed to be flown in emergency since spares were not being supplied by the US which put PAF in a precarious position. This time around, though, Pakistan’s forces had quality at its disposal. Swedish Erieye AWACS, JF-17 and F-16 Block 50/52s with BVR missiles, NASR short range and BABUR cruise missile, all gave Pakistan enough options and confidence to step across the LoC. And so they did, shooting down Indian warplanes in the process.

This shattered the first myth: that Pakistan would remain coy and apprehensive in daring to venture across the LoC. The second myth that was shattered related to Chinese military technology. Majority of military analysis tends to look down upon Chinese military technology, regarding it as cheap, ineffective copies of Russian technology. It is true that till the early 1990s, most of the Chinese military hardware was indeed reverse engineered military tech (mainly Soviet). But the present paints an altogether different picture, one where China is leapfrogging from a copier to an innovator of military hardware.

By mid-2018, China’s total spending on research and development had jumped to a mammoth 1.76 trillion Yuan ($255 billion). Nobody with a sound mind can argue that Chinese spend this much just on copying. Although the level of sophistication achieved by, say, USA would still take years to equal, certain Chinese military developments are equivalent, if not better, to the best that the leading military powers can offer. Quantum communication, hypersonic weapons and anti-satellite missiles are examples that corroborate this fact. Pulwama provided the first opportunity to put Chinese technology to test in the form of JF-17s. It is not top-of-the-line Chinese tech, but in the hands of skilful PAF pilots, it was used to shoot down Indian warplanes, proving that Chinese technology is no joke.

Here, a clarification is in order. Many analysts, smarting from this embarrassment, tried to put a spin by pointing that MIG-21s are very old aircraft and thus easy pickings! While MIG-21s may be old, Indian MIGs are fitted with top-notch, sophisticated Israeli military sensors. The same MIGs gave America’s leading jet fighter, the F-15, a run for its money in COPE India exercises, where it either jammed or confused its radar to evade detection. That is no mean feat. Therefore, shooting down this kind of an aircraft not only speaks highly of the skills of PAF pilots but also the effectiveness of Chinese technology.

Then, there is the unmistakable change in global mindset. Long attuned to India’s successful propaganda machine, the world is having second thoughts. I would have never imagined, for example, that New York Times would carry a leading piece that questions Indian military’s quality and its efficacy. Neither did I ever imagine that voices from within India would also start to openly question the quality of Vayu Sena. Similarly, who would have thought that questions would be raised in international media over cornering Pakistan only and letting India go scot-free?

Overall, Pulwama proved a blessing for Pakistan. The military operation was complemented by a masterstroke of foreign policy in the form of releasing the captured Indian pilot. Indian planners confidently stepped across the border, only to get embarrassed. Pakistani planners took a leap of faith and it worked tremendously.

But let us not let our guard down and work effortlessly towards consolidating these gains. This positive development has come at a heavy cost and Pakistan’s finances being in a precarious position, the need for reforms is more urgent than ever.

Time, therefore, to act and consolidate rather than sit on laurels.

The writer is an economist

 

Confirmed.

 

I don't care whether they agree or not.
It is confirmed.

 

The hole in the Mi 17 suggests it was a BVR.