AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Deniability of what?Mate, the cultivation of these fighters in not for manpower needs. Its for deniability.
The claim is that they are being retained for some future conflict with India, but in case of an open conflict, there is no point to deniability.
If the argument is that they are being retained for 'insurgent activity in IaK', then that too makes no sense since the PA and ISI have steadfastly stuck to the policy initiated under Musharraf of controlling the insurgent movement across the LoC and assisting in ending the insurgency in IaK.
Yet Indians themselves argue that most of the fighters in kargil were PA regulars and/or NLI paramilitaries. So obviously Kargil, per Indian assessments, was not really an example of this 'strategy you speak of', not to mention my earlier point about the shift in Pakistan's approach since 2001, which is easily substantiated by facts on the ground - the ceasefire across the LoC continues to largely stay in place with minor incidents. Cross-LoC insurgent movement continues to remain at historical lows, and insurgent activity in IaK has dropped dramatically. Pakistan did not take any advantage of the civil unrest against India during the multiple protests in IaK over the last two years either.This allows Pakistan to try and hide its involvement if things go south. The same strategy was used in the 1948 attack on Kashmir, in 1965, in Kargil and in Kashmir insurgency. So really the logic that Pakistan is fighting terrorists on its soil, in no way, disproves the theory that Pakistan is/was cultivating similar terrorists as a fighting force against india
I am afraid there is very little to support this hypothesis of yours and the claims of this alleged 'militant leader'.