We have large scale aggression by China/Pakistan contained by Nuclear Deterrent.
No, I beg to differ, we have not. There is no reduction in the scope of aggression nor of effort by the enemy states in this scenario. On the contrary, it has allowed the incremental usage of unconventional methods of furthering own interests, as evident from various examples in our own case.
We have merely shifted the scope of conflict from full spectrum to unconventional/covert thereby rendering our conflicts into the arena of 'plausible deniability' and allowing for a pretence of normal diplomatic and political relationships which can be 'managed' if at either time any party is caught in an awkward position.
Incursions can be dealt with by -
Preventive measures like intelligence outposts and regular patrolling by BSF and Army
Large section of army based in fwd bases.
Let's take a look at the Chinese border. ITBP and in case required, regular infantry units are involved in the border management in these areas. As long as the boundary remains unsettled politically, you are left with only two options:
a. Either accept the transgression of your areas by the opposite forces like is prevalent and continue with a tit for tat approach wherein you counter every such move with a move of your own
or
b. You take decisive action to check the enemy.
These are the only two available routes to check the moves of the enemy. You may puts hundreds of troops, but if they are told not to fight, there is nothing much you can do with the enemy
The policy is being amended as till date the remote areas of the border with China did not have any Indian settlements, which is a long term plan that is doing the rounds.
This begs the question -
Are we extracting any strategic gains from the presence of aircrafts, navy, armor outside of deterrence?
My point is not that we should use them and bombard others senselessly but we have seen how agressive positioning and posturing can yield dividends.
If your aim is to fight a war, then yes. There are more points that need to be dealt with on that.
Say we can move couple divisions to XYZ from UP or MP. If that is too much then how about couple of companies as "advisers/trainers"? How about one squadron for air support?
Indian military advisors have been ingrained where strategic objective required them. In Afghanistan, Ahmed Shah Masood got Indian military help right from the takeover of Kabul by Taliban.
Cost of such maneuvers is small but benefits are manifold
Again, intangibles. There is no tangible gain. Intangible loss in terms of diplomatic currency and potential negative fallouts are a plenty.
- Could provide much needed A2G experience to our Air-force outside of practice sorties. Last they were used was in Kargil.
Simulators can be set up. C-17s has been set up now in Gurgaon. On the other hand, the costs for logistics (not to mention diplomatic costs) of any combat engagement will be much greater than setting up multiple simulators for training of different troops and organising regular participation in exercises like RED FLAG.
- Could be used to expend ageing ammunition like US did GW
Clearly, you are unaware of how we deal with ageing ammunition. The same is downgraded and converted into training ammunition. Same is for the Individual Protective Equipment (IPE) or the CBRN suits.
- Officers as advisers can test the efficacy of their tactics on how to deal with large scale armed insurgencies/armies
We have the largest pool of combat trained officers in the world along with US and now Pakistan is joining the ranks.
- If we are a part of coalition then it further pays dividends in training.
That is being changed slowly. In Iraq, we had prepared to send our NBC reconnaissance teams just as there was a huge hue and cry in India over impending Indian intervention.
The domestic costs are always high for any government especially the present government which is under flak every day even for taking a hard stand on national security.
I know we are at the middle of the stack when it comes to certain aspects of Modern Warfare. This would be good idea to correct our limitations/flaws in low risk foreign environment instead of getting surprises like in Kargil/65
1965, the political failure of preceding years. Kargil, the failure of the commanders on ground. No other way out of that.
Can you unequivocally say that we can't spare this much?
We don't want to spare this much. Not a question of can't.
But what stops India from providing air support to ANA to kill some talis? You do know it is imperative that not only Afghan Govt survives but consolidates and expands to protect Indian investments. You also know that it better to fight them in Afghanistan than in Kashmir. You also know that we will gain immense goodwill & achieve tangible dividends from Iran and US along with logistical support. All this not for IPKF like venture which was doomed because they were fighting against Tamils hence had negative connotations for internal audience as well leading to sabotage and worse but to fight those who are our "natural enemies"
Direct intervention = direct propaganda for recruitment of cadres for Jihad in Kashmir. Best to stay away. Let them fight their own battles, we must increase our advisory and equipment role to match the threat and work to improve the socio-economic indices over the long haul.
IPKF doomed because of lack of political directives.
They enforced negotiations and elections and cleared Jaffna, as per the only mandates given to them.
There was a lack of clarity whether to enforce bifurcation of the country, integrate the Tamil portion into Indian Tamil Nadu or merely to do peace keeping. The result was RAW was training and arming LTTE and we ended up putting our troops against them
You will agree, till as such time India did not go back on perceived 'promises', LTTE cadre would simply surrender to an IPKF column without firing a bullet?
PS: Only preliminary cursory post. Will keep more.
@Spectre A great topic indeed. Lets thrash it out
