Bull
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
An interesting idea. If it really came to a tussle with India than Bangladesh should not be a bit player. This proposition might be even more attractive if Sri Lanka was part of the deal. At least this would prevent any future expansionist tendencies on the part of India in the South Asian region.
Well what is Bangladesh's gain in allowing its land to be used to attack India?
No country has successfully won a war where it has split its forces in two theaters of battle with enemies of sufficient strength. Hitler made that mistake when he went after the USSR. The same outcome would happen today if the US went to war against Iran and North Korea simultaneously. Similarly if India had to divide its forces between the East and the West and also the North than it would be impossible for its forces to secure a victory.
You speak so sensibly on the fallacy of diverting assets on a two prong attack. Well wouldnt Pakistan also be diverting its assets in launching an attack from erstwhile East Paksitan. And moreover when India has to move its assets thru friendly land masses with good speed ( rail and road) , Pakistan has to move its assets from west to east thru hostile area( Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal) and that too rather slowly.
I think leaders of Bangladesh should seriously consider this proposition only if China was to guarantee the deal and have some military input in BD similar to your Jinnah and Gwadar ports otherwise it would be a waste of time.
Why would China get directly involved in this issue? China had a glorious chance to corner India during kargil. Foregt cornering India they just ignored their allweather ally during that crisis. That China which didnt help its closest ally would come and help a country which can provide abosulty zero value addition tot it.