> Here is an article by Pakistani columnist Salim Mansur > dated 13 December 2008 > http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/salim_mansur/2008/12/13/7737521-sun.html
But he concludes with some fallacious arguments. And I quote extensively here. >In 1999 the Kargil fiasco revealed the extent to which >the Pakistani military was prepared to push India >into a war over Kashmir. It revealed one more thing. That pakistan will always get a bloody nose, no matter how many times it tries. >And while that war was averted by the urgent >diplomacy of the Clinton administration, the That war was averted? And by urgent diplomacy of the Clinton admin...? As we understood it, the pakis were being hammered in kargil and they wanted some face saving exit. So they were looking for someone, anyone to tell them to stop. >message was clear: Pakistan would not make peace >since tensions with India served well the domestic >needs of the military elite in a devil's pact >with fundamentalist religious parties and Islamist >groups linked with the network of al-Qaida. Earlier on, in this discussion, we veered round to the view that warmongering now, would only be futile, and - in the best intersts of pakistan. They will be able to pull out their troops from the area, - from where they *really* want to pull out. > New Delhi cannot afford to be lacking a military > response. India's failure to demonstrate her > military resolve undermines her security and > economic progress, and makes a mockery of her > claim as an emerging global actor deserving > permanent membership in the Security Council. Do you agree with this? Shiv? India, he says cannot be seen as being a strong state unless it attacks Pakistan. Even though I (personally) strongly feel like dismembering our neighbor (pak), we simply have no time for war. We are doing well economically and the logic is to make hay while the sun shines. We just cannot lose/shift focus from doing well economically and take a nose dive into a war we can ill afford. The whole point is that pakistan is spoiling for a fight so that it can unite itself. > economic progress, and makes a mockery of her > claim as an emerging global actor deserving > permanent membership in the Security Council. To deserve a permanent membership in the security council, India should wage war against pakistan? (who can then claim to be a victim) and that would be a sure shot way of losing support. >DIPLOMACY: Military option is not a substitute >for diplomacy but without it diplomacy is a >fig leaf of eventual surrender. What we can learn from china is that by being strong economically and financially, we can be, in an even more - enviable position. >Pakistan is unravelling along its Afghan >frontier. India can mount, with NATO members >including Canada, greater pressure on this >frontier by considering troop deployment in Afghanistan. Are the Americans facing any success there in Afghanistan? And even for a moment agreeing to send our troops there, where should India's supply lines be? Through pakistan? >India's willingness to militarily support a >democratically elected Afghan government will >alter the security map in southwest Asia. Assuming pakistan is going into self-destruct anyway, why dirty our hands in that mess. Let the americans do all the dirty work. After all they were the people who created it in the first place. >It also will make the Pakistani ruling elite >ponder hard if it wants to lose a country >while funding Islamist terrorists to wage war it cannot win. Going back to what he was saying earlier. The only thing that made sense was that we also resort to nuclear(war) blackmail and brinkmanship to further other interests. While it is in our interests to see an end to pakistan's support for the islamists, etc, etc, it is also in our interests to let them be. So that they can continue fighting amongst themselves and kill each other - rather than having to do this dirty work (of getting rid of them) ourselves. Lukhman
