Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/19/2017 7:16:36 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: TigerLikesRooster; Jeff Head; Tainan; hedgetrimmer; Unam Sanctam; taxesareforever; Avenger; ...

P!


2 posted on 07/19/2017 7:17:12 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster (dead parakeet + lost fishing gear = freep all day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

India is not some island in the South China Sea for them to gobble up.


3 posted on 07/19/2017 7:20:45 PM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

6 posted on 07/19/2017 7:40:37 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster
"Defending China's western borders" is not what this is about. This is about Chinese aggression. Unfortunately, mounting an offensive in high mountain passes is a daunting task, unlike taking on the Tibetan plateau against a weak opponent. And all the hardware in the world will not amount to much when mountainsides can be made to tumble down on you. This is why Nazi Germany left Switzerland alone during WW II. No sense trying to defeat the Alps. Ditto the Himalayas
7 posted on 07/19/2017 7:47:04 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster

I think its time for Trump to talk to China about a nuclear South Korea, nuclear Japan and a very well armed Taiwan.


11 posted on 07/19/2017 8:07:43 PM PDT by fatez (Ya, well, you know, that's just your opinion man...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Apparently, the crisis started when China marched into an area that is part of Bhutan - a very small country between China and India. The Bhutanese could not stop the Chinese marching in to build a road, so they invoked a military treaty they have with India.

This Chinese incursion continues the practice China has of encroaching on the territory of their neighbors. They feel that the rest of the world will not do anything but talk, to avoid starting a war or angering China. After all they were able to take over all of Tibet and the world did not smack them down.

China feels that other countries are terrified of starting a war with China, so they will bully and intimidate with their large military and economic might, to force neighboring countries to concede their territory to China.

14 posted on 07/19/2017 9:04:04 PM PDT by Moorings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TigerLikesRooster
DILEMMA OF A TWO FRONT WAR

Jul 14, 2017 - 1:39 am EDT

By Maj Gen Ashok K Mehta (retd)

“Obsessed with Pakistan, India has grossly neglected the real adversary. In point-to-point skirmishes and standoffs, battle- hardened Indian soldiers will deter, if not defeat, the PLA. However, across a broad front spectrum in an unlikely all-out war, it is advantage China”, Says the author.

At a time when China is threatening to teach India another lesson and warning not to engage in a two-front conflict over the standoff in Doklam, our Service Chiefs, it seems, are not on the same page about fighting a two-front war especially as Beijing might try to emulate the New Delhi-Thimpu alliance in “disputed territory” with one with Islamabad in PoK. While General Bipin Rawat has more than once asserted the Army’s preparedness for a two-front war, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa has highlighted the critical shortfall in the number of fighter squadrons — 32 against the required 42 squadrons — to dominate a two-front conflict, saying: “It is akin to a cricket team playing with seven players instead of 11”. The deficiency in air assets has existed for decades but this is the first time an Air Chief has related it to a two-front war.

The Chief of Naval Staff, Sunil Lanba, when asked about the disparity in preparedness of the services, said: “The way national security is being handled is not commensurate with the security environment which is extremely serious at the moment”. Recently, Gen Rawat told a military audience that the military was not getting enough funds for modernization — repeated ad nauseum by every Chief — due to the perception that expenditure on defence is a burden on the economy. This set the cat among the pigeons as Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, a regular fill-in for Defence Minister, is believed to have told Gen Rawat: “Don’t worry about funds. When you run out, call me”. In the mid-1990s, when the Naval Shipyard order books had gone dry, CNS, admiral Vijay Shekhawat went public about the Navy’s operational deficiencies, prompting Defence Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav to invite him to discuss dwindling fleet numbers. Ad hocism has become the hallmark of modernization of the military.

Power differential

The Chinese are constantly reminding India about the power differential — military, economic and infrastructural — between them. Being obsessed with Pakistan, India has grossly neglected the real adversary. The reason for this is the institutionalized absence of strategic thinking and higher political direction of war and conflict in the face of growing threats and challenges to internal and external security. Prime Minister Modi’s boast about big defence reforms is hollow: had he been serious about defence, he would have named a full-time Defence Minister. The appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff has not overcome the hesitation of history — read bureaucracy. The country has never produced a “Defence White Paper” or done a “Strategic Defence and Security” review. Something called the “Raksha Mantri’s Directive” masquerades as higher political direction on deterrence and war. This bit of literature drafted by the military has its origin in 1983, with periodic face-lifts to make it contemporary.

The Parrikar doctrine covering surgical strikes was included in the Joint Military Doctrine, scripted by the Integrated Defence Staff, which attracted extraordinary flak from the defence community for being substandard. In its present organization, each service essentially fights single-service combat. In the last border skirmish at Kargil, the Army’s operation was called Vijay while the IAF campaign in support was named Safed Saagar. So much for jointness. So the Raksha Mantri’s Directive passes off as political guidance by the highest echelons of government. When I once asked a former Air Chief how he evolved his service’s span of responsibility, he replied: “Most of the time, from speeches made by the Prime Minister during the Combined Commanders’ Conferences.”

Are we surprised that while President Xi Jinping who heads the Central Military Commission, has personally ordered and supervised the reorganization of the combat formations facing India, reducing them from three commands to one command — a single Western Theatre Command headed by the powerful Gen Xhao Zongqi — the China front in India is managed by four Army and three Air commands deployed at seven locations.

Integrated command

A forward-looking proposal made by a defence committee recommending three integrated operational commands — North, West and South instead of 17 single service commands — was shot out of hand by (no guesses) the Air Force. The CDS and accompanying Joint Staff ordered by the UK in 1984 was a fait accompli. It was introduced by a political class which understood defence and strategic security. In India, countless defence reforms are languishing for want of decision making.

It is instructive to recall how the two-front strategy was formally enunciated in December 2009 by the Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor. It followed the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack, after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ordered the Service Chiefs to prepare for war. Defence Minister AK Antony then had “preparation for a two-front war” added in his Directive but did little to implement it. Both in 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan despite the collusive threat from China, there was no cross-border intervention by China though sizeable formations of the Eastern Command remained deployed against it and forces could not be switched to the west or east for fighting in East Pakistan in 1971. In a real two-front war, swing forces in east and west will not be able to reinforce either front and only dedicated formations will fight the war. Given the paucity in current force levels, inadequate sophistry of combat support and terrain and infrastructure handicaps, it will be an uphill task to match the PLA’s strength and versatility across a 3,488-km front of undefined borders.

In point-to-point skirmishes and standoffs, battle-hardened Indian soldiers will deter if not defeat the PLA. Across a broad front spectrum in an unlikely all-out war, it is advantage China unless India is prepared to rethink its “no first use” nuclear doctrine. As an offset in the western front, Gen Rawat has suggested creating a two-front situation for Pakistan: either in Afghanistan or Iran. Doklam may go the 1986 Sumdorong Chu way; the 10-month-long standoff challenging the Chinese intrusion at Thandrong, west of Tawang over the interpretation of watershed, without a shot being fired. India need not invoke its doubtful capacity to fight a two-front war; instead, speedily augment its deterrence against China. This may not win votes for Modi but it will prevent Chinese pinpricks that he famously called “toothache”.

(The author is a former Major General of the Indian Army, and a radio and television commentator, and a columnist on defence and security issues. He is founder-member of the Defence Planning Staff in the Ministry of Defence)
16 posted on 07/19/2017 9:10:40 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster (dead parakeet + lost fishing gear = freep all day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson