Xeric
RETIRED THINK TANK
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 8,297
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Like they say, intent can change over night, capability, on the other hand take years to build or reduce.
The capability that india retains (read cutting Pakistan into halves, limited offensive etc) took years to crystallize and mature - these cannot simply be ignored. We (and you know) that india has capacity to take on Pakistan at will, as demonstrated by the inventory of india forces (who need 3 Armour Divisions against mountainous terrain?), the peace time dispositions of the same, the recent exercises and the ones held in the past. Also, india has another unique capability of creating a situation whereby she can conceive a reason out of nowhere to justify its aggression (occupation of Kashmir, Junagarh, Parliament Attacks etc are a few instances). So asking us to lower our guards is not a sensible thought.
As for your 'phobia' concerning an initiative from the Pakistani side, i think if that had been true, the indian military should have been solely a defencive force rather then an offensive one. Now i can only hope that i dont have to lecture noobs regarding the differences between a defencive force and an offensive one.
Also, to take assistance from the 'horse's mouth', let's see what india's military doctrine states:
1.13 Role of the Indian Army. The Indian Army is the land component of the Indian Armed Forces which exist to uphold the ideals of the Constitution of India. As a major component of national power, along with the Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force, the roles of the Indian Army are as follows :-
Primary Role. Preserve national interests and safeguard sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of India against any external threats by deterrence or by waging war. ~ indian army doctrine. First Edition : October 2004, Published By: Headquarters Army Training Command (Lt Gen K Nagaraj, GOC-in-C ARTRAC) Internet Archive Wayback Machine
Now which 'defensive' military has a stated policy of 'wagging war'?
To quote US military's doctrine:
...This includes: Preserve the peace and security and provide for the defense of the United States, its territories and possessions, and any areas it occupies; Support national policies; Implement national objective; Overcome any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States.
See something in common?
Now this makes sense, doesnt it? It suite the US as it commands the 'mother of all militaries', but we also have india stating a 'similar' doctrine, which their citizens are not quite aware of.
No wonder it is guud to read before coming to an argument, or else, one lands up ranting, huffing and puffing.
Now, for your 'home work'.. go rummage through Pakistan's military doctrine.
---
i would also like to say something about the 'intent' part of the discussion. When the COAS said that he believes over ones capability rather then intent, his indication was towards the Cold Start Doctrine. Knowing that the indians 'intend' to bring up their 'capability' in order to have the capacity to execute maneuvers essential for a Cold Start, but at the same time appreciating that at that point of time the indians didnt posses the resources/equipment/officer lot etc (read capability) to undertake such adventure, the CSD was rubbished off!
Now, as we can see that india is (slowly) moving towards the direction of modernization to include inducting equipment and gadgetry (i'll not list it down) essentially required for a blitzkrieg kinda operation (read building upon its 'capability' to actually unfold such a maneuver), i think, we have all the right to 'fear' india.
P.S. i know this might fall heavy on some sensibilities, if so, please free to ignore both the post and the rants that would follow up in response.
The capability that india retains (read cutting Pakistan into halves, limited offensive etc) took years to crystallize and mature - these cannot simply be ignored. We (and you know) that india has capacity to take on Pakistan at will, as demonstrated by the inventory of india forces (who need 3 Armour Divisions against mountainous terrain?), the peace time dispositions of the same, the recent exercises and the ones held in the past. Also, india has another unique capability of creating a situation whereby she can conceive a reason out of nowhere to justify its aggression (occupation of Kashmir, Junagarh, Parliament Attacks etc are a few instances). So asking us to lower our guards is not a sensible thought.
As for your 'phobia' concerning an initiative from the Pakistani side, i think if that had been true, the indian military should have been solely a defencive force rather then an offensive one. Now i can only hope that i dont have to lecture noobs regarding the differences between a defencive force and an offensive one.
Also, to take assistance from the 'horse's mouth', let's see what india's military doctrine states:
1.13 Role of the Indian Army. The Indian Army is the land component of the Indian Armed Forces which exist to uphold the ideals of the Constitution of India. As a major component of national power, along with the Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force, the roles of the Indian Army are as follows :-
Primary Role. Preserve national interests and safeguard sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of India against any external threats by deterrence or by waging war. ~ indian army doctrine. First Edition : October 2004, Published By: Headquarters Army Training Command (Lt Gen K Nagaraj, GOC-in-C ARTRAC) Internet Archive Wayback Machine
Now which 'defensive' military has a stated policy of 'wagging war'?
To quote US military's doctrine:
...This includes: Preserve the peace and security and provide for the defense of the United States, its territories and possessions, and any areas it occupies; Support national policies; Implement national objective; Overcome any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States.
See something in common?
Now this makes sense, doesnt it? It suite the US as it commands the 'mother of all militaries', but we also have india stating a 'similar' doctrine, which their citizens are not quite aware of.
No wonder it is guud to read before coming to an argument, or else, one lands up ranting, huffing and puffing.
Now, for your 'home work'.. go rummage through Pakistan's military doctrine.
---
i would also like to say something about the 'intent' part of the discussion. When the COAS said that he believes over ones capability rather then intent, his indication was towards the Cold Start Doctrine. Knowing that the indians 'intend' to bring up their 'capability' in order to have the capacity to execute maneuvers essential for a Cold Start, but at the same time appreciating that at that point of time the indians didnt posses the resources/equipment/officer lot etc (read capability) to undertake such adventure, the CSD was rubbished off!
Now, as we can see that india is (slowly) moving towards the direction of modernization to include inducting equipment and gadgetry (i'll not list it down) essentially required for a blitzkrieg kinda operation (read building upon its 'capability' to actually unfold such a maneuver), i think, we have all the right to 'fear' india.
P.S. i know this might fall heavy on some sensibilities, if so, please free to ignore both the post and the rants that would follow up in response.