What's new

Shabqadar: 87 killed, dozen injured in twin explosions

Bilal bhai what you are terming as India's strategic depth is India's strategy not geopolitical depth. Strategic depth for Pakistan is that in a war India will capture large land masses of Pakistan, so in order to mount a counter offensive the Pakistani corps will move backwards into Afghanistan and consolidate their position. The idea was started by General Mirza Aslam Baig. The main reason being the slim baseline of Pakistan. In order to counter this India's strategy is to make Afghanistan stable and insulate its sovereignity from Pakistan. India cannot have strategic depth even if it wants because of geography.

Bhai, the article clearly talks about strategic depth:

Strategic Depth, Strategic Assets and the Changing Dynamics of Pakistan’s Kashmir Game Plan

Please refer to the heading of the article, & the definition of strategic depth they used for Pakistan in the article. By the same token, a similar definition for India's strategic depth can also be established.
 
^ Eyes only read what the eyes want to read, which is why you decided to ignore some very solid points mentioned by T-Faz. The day you become accepting of reality, of facts, and of admittance, from that day brother, life will become much easier for you. And I hope, that day arrives soon.

No one is denying the negative role Pakistan played in training the Mujahideen at the time, due to which both Pakistan & Afghanistan are suffering today. But at the time, it seemed like the right thing to do, as most of the world (US, China, Europe, Saudi Arabia) wanted to get it done.
 
Bilal and T-faz you boht are right. There are some Ignorant Mullahs who are preaching hate ideologies and violence and its also true that USA and Pakistani Government used these ignorant extremely religious peoples for their own political interests. It is an open secret that US financed the Afghanistan's war against the Soviets through the help of Pakistan and its spy agency ISI. America funded Pakistan to support the taliban's both militarily and ideologically. Apart from supplying ammunition, US also overhauled the curriculum of Pakistan to its needs and introduced the jihadi literature which motivated some religious minded peoples to stand against the Soviets and fight for their brothers in Afghanistan.

Talibaans are still getting the ammunition and funding to carry on its activities. It is also believed that countries hostile to Pakistan such as India or Israel are also involved in this to destabilise the nuclear armed Pakistan. The terrorism in Pakistan is not because of Pakistan but it is the interests of other countries which time to time changes and thus results in destability and violence. Pakistan is still lending its troops for someone other's cause and paying the penalty itself. They got dead osama and we got death of many innocent Pakistani because of suicide attacks which were committed to take the revenge of killing of osama.
 
Bhai, the article clearly talks about strategic depth:

Strategic Depth, Strategic Assets and the Changing Dynamics of Pakistan’s Kashmir Game Plan

Please refer to the heading of the article, & the definition of strategic depth they used for Pakistan in the article. By the same token, a similar definition for India's strategic depth can also be established.
I am amazed at your comprehension skills regarding the Strategic depth theory even after reading through the article. The article states
Mirza Aslam Beg, General Zia-ul-Haq’s high profile army chief, is credited with the authorship of Strategic Depth in the early eighties. Theoretically stated, it was a proactive defensive strategy of securing ‘Islamic Depth’ in the west to counterbalance the conventionally superior ‘Hindu India’ by strengthening diplomatic and military relations with Afghanistan and the Arab world to the extent that in the worst-case scenario of India invading and overrunning Pakistan, the Army High Command could relocate westwards and use Afghanistan as a frontline ally from which to roll back Indian ‘expansionism’. Practically though, Zia’s regime was well aware that India respected the sanctity of the Line of Control and that in every war since 1948 India has resisted the temptation of crossing the de facto border. No responsible Indian decision-maker has ever stated overrunning Pakistan as an objective either in war or peacetime (in sharp contrast to quixotic assertions by Nawaz Sharif’s foreign minister, Gohar Ayub Khan, that Pakistan could “overrun India in three days”!). That India is the status quoist power in the dispute was well known to the creators of Strategic Depth. In this context, Thomas Thornton’s phrase to describe Pakistan’s life as “fifty years of insecurity” is misleading because India has never militarily contemplated or attempted to forcibly occupy its smaller neighbor.
Now this was a strategic policy before Pakistan turned nuclear ; What it means is that such a policy existed in spirit, though Musharraf and you may deny it once the country has its oft-mentioned first strike policy to fallback.

Nowhere in the article was it mentioned about India's intentions that its Strategic depth policy was to have a favorable government in Afghanistan. India has no such policies and you cannot apply any QED to label it as India's foreign policy. Please do not argue for the sake of arguing, and instead provide a white-paper or a policy document regarding India's mentioned "strategic depth".
 
I am amazed at your comprehension skills regarding the Strategic depth theory even after reading through the article. The article states
Now this was a strategic policy before Pakistan turned nuclear ; What it means is that such a policy existed in spirit, though Musharraf and you may deny it once the country has its oft-mentioned first strike policy to fallback.

Nowhere in the article was it mentioned about India's intentions that its Strategic depth policy was to have a favorable government in Afghanistan. India has no such policies and you cannot apply any QED to label it as India's foreign policy. Please do not argue for the sake of arguing, and instead provide a white-paper or a policy document regarding India's mentioned "strategic depth".

It didn't say anywhere in that article, but you clearly don't understand that strategic depth is about expansionism & influence, which I showed you in the link above. The Pakistan Army has never relocated westwards, Pakistani troops have never stepped on Afghan soil, so your whole point is moot. it's not about the relocation, but it's about using the territory of Afghanistan to scale back the influence of Pakistan in India's J&K.
 
Have you ever heard of something called.. probability.. ?

Please do not use probabilities as developed facts.. did India interfered in "sakoot-e-dhaka" so that when Pakistan occupies their territories, they can go back to BD??..

I did not state probablity as a fact. This theory was started by the PA itself and India did not do 1971 for strategic depth. In case of Pakistani offensive on Indian soil states like UP, MP are enough for strategic depth.
 
Bhai, the article clearly talks about strategic depth:

Strategic Depth, Strategic Assets and the Changing Dynamics of Pakistan’s Kashmir Game Plan

Please refer to the heading of the article, & the definition of strategic depth they used for Pakistan in the article. By the same token, a similar definition for India's strategic depth can also be established.

Afghanistan can be our strategic asset not strategic depth. Its just not possible. By strategic depth in Indian terms can be achieved through states like UP and MP if Pakistan occupies large areas of border states. That is the whole concept of such depth.
 
Afghanistan can be our strategic asset not strategic depth. Its just not possible. By strategic depth in Indian terms can be achieved through states like UP and MP if Pakistan occupies large areas of border states. That is the whole concept of such depth.

Then how would Afghanistan be Pakistan's strategic depth when not even one Pakistani troop in Pakistan's entire history has stepped foot inside Pakistan?
 
Bilal, you are still at it.

Living up to your new senior member status I see, being more resistance you are too.
 
Then how would Afghanistan be Pakistan's strategic depth when not even one Pakistani troop in Pakistan's entire history has stepped foot inside Pakistan?

This was just an idea started by the General considering the gap between the defence capablities of India and Pakistan and the slim geographic baseline of Pakistan. This has never been used but considered as a strategy.
 
Back
Top Bottom