Actually the strategy works perfectly. If anything it needs to be re-ignited.
For 40 years we Kashmiri's endured violence and oppression and hoped for a diplomatic solution. There was none. It is clear that we don't have support from the international community for our freedom struggle - other than lip service. As the years have gone by even lip service is disappearing.
Only in the 80's as a response to extreme violence by the Indian occupiers did Kashmiri's turn to violence. The violence was successful. It pushed Indian occupiers onto the back foot - instead of harming Kashmiri's they were busy looking to protect themselves from freedom fighters. At the turn of the century huge swathes of the Kashmir valley were actually no-go areas for the Indian army. India regularly would call for ceasefires to then sit down at the table and talk. It was only because Pervez Musharraf buckled under pressure that the freedom fighting operations were reduced in scale.
Conflicts around the world since then have shown how new militant tactics can defeat huge powerful occupying forces. In the past we saw Guerilla tactics successfully defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and Chechnya (even now they only had peace once they did a deal with the father of Ramzan Kadyrov). The same is true of the US defeat in Korea and Vietnam. In the post 911 evolved versions of these tactics have been equally effective in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria.
The Kashmiri freedom movement doesn't have a salafi flavour to it, you won't see the likes of Al Queda and ISIS attracted towards it, however there is no reason why the use of guerilla tactics cannot cause catastrophic damage to the Indian armed forces in Kashmir, forcing them to come to the negociating table.
Now those days will return. Why?
1. The US is defeated in Afghanistan and is no longer a threat to Pakistan
2. China is investing in Pakistan therefore an attack by the US or India against Pakistan increases the chance of directly harming Chinese interests, risking a wider conflict.
3. The Russians are wanting to get closer to Pakistan due to CPEC which will mean India is less likely to get political support from them in a conflict with Pakistan.
4. Indian proxies in Afghanistan are being routed, our western border is becoming safer than ever.
This means we have time and resource to focus on the east again.
To win big you need to risk big. 911 was unfortunate for the Kashmiri cause and it resulted in a roll back. That time is over. Tipu Sultan said a day as a lion is better than a life as a jackal, we Kashmiri's have the same mentality. We won't be happy living as second class citizens.
Militant tactics stand no chance against a military giant in the battlefield; occupation becomes a costly objective over time (on the other hand) due to non-stop flow of investment in logistics, operations and rebuilding effort in a region mired in internal strife and corruption.
In short, rebuilding effort does not succeeds in a state that is mired in corruption and internal strife. Militancy contributes to its destabilization and cultivates an environment of fear and projection, discouraging foreign investment in this manner. Eventually the occupation is called off.
Now, some history lessons:
War in Korea was conventional in nature; US lost in Korea due to full-scale Chinese military intervention at a later stage when US had almost conquered entire Korean peninusula. However, US was able to convert this defeat into a stalemate by pulling out of North Korea but holding its ground in South Korea. Chinese forces could not advance through the border. And contrary to popular belief, North Korea was a powerful state during this time with a highly disciplined and professional army. South Korea stood no chance against North Korea back then.
War in Vietnam is one of its kind. Terrain in Vietnam is largely unsuited for large-scale conventional thrusts and WW2 era technology was not netting good results there either. On top of this, bureaucratic hurdles, political instability and racial tensions at home had a trickle down effect on the cohesion of US military units. Mounting casualties were not helping the situation either. Conversely, Vietcong was a highly motivated, disciplined and organized resistance movement with full backing of China and USSR. This front against the Communist bloc turned out to be a disaster for the US.
Heck:
- France failed in Vietnam
- US failed in Vietnam
- China failed in Vietnam
Vietnam is an Asian tiger in true sense of the word in modern times.
However, US military is an entirely different beast now. It will soundly defeat Vietnam in a war today.
Finally, American (conventional) military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have always been success stories. However, occupations did not work out due to reasons cited above.
Highly organized militant forces like Mahdi Army in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan utterly failed to handle US forces in the battlefield and suffered tremendous losses in such campaigns. They simply switched their tactics to sabotaging American rebuilding effort; the regimes that propped up in both states, bore the brunt of such attacks. In this manner, Mahdi Army and Taliban gave the impression that war is far from over in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively and such propaganda convinced American people to push for de-escalation in these fronts.
