Posted on 05/31/2002 9:11:00 AM PDT by swarthyguy
A respected American scholar says on the evening network news that the situation between India and Pakistan is so dangerous it makes the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 look like [children's games?] - your editor does not hear so well, so the metaphor may not be entirely accurate, but the scholar's intent was clear.
Had the Cuban Missile Crisis escalated to nuclear war, North America, Europe, and the Soviet Union would have been devastated. The US may well have attacked Chinese targets, to ensure these fellow communists did not provide a recovery base for the Soviets. US and allied bases around the world would have been attacked as well, so a good proportion of the world would have been reduced to radioactive ash, or taken from days to years dying of the residual radioactivity: the bombs of those days were big and dirty.
The world's population was about half of what it was today, and anywhere between 100- and 300-million people would have died, perhaps more. Most of them would have been bystanders to the American-Soviet dispute. The US DIA, using a highly inflated set of assumptions, says up to 12 million would die in an Indo-Pakistan nuclear exchange. Very few of these will be bystanders. Unless your editor is mistaken, the Indo-Pakistan crisis is child's play compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis, not the other way around.
Now, of course, what may underlie the scholar's statement is a racist assumption: India and Pakistan could spin out of control because after all, they are just plain ignorant brown natives. Washington-Moscow had the whole show under control, presumably because they were run by wise white men.
Your editor would like to ask this scholar some questions.
Suppose that to America's north lies not Canada, but the Soviet Union, circa 1970. The Soviets have been supporting a ruthless insurgency in New England for 15 years, and both sides daily exchange small arms fire, and on most days, mortar and artillery fire. Yet for 15 years the situation has not escalated into conventional war, leave alone nuclear war. Is this a plausible assumption? Three years ago, the Soviets quietly seize American controlled territory in Maine. The Americans fight back, taking heavy losses, but never cross the border, limiting themselves to fighting entirely on their own territory. Is this a plausible assumption? Including 1999, America and the Soviet Union have fought four wars. Yet never has either deliberately targeted any civilian facility - no command centers in a populated area, no power plants, no water facility, no arms factory, no telecommunications node. They have attacked only rail and road choke points that are directly related to the movement of enemy forces at the front. Is this a plausible assumption? If the American scholar can answer yes to all, then your editor would have to concede that there are some analogies between Cuba 1962 and South Asia 2002. If he answers no, then your editor has a favor to ask of him.
Please don't condescend to the South Asians. They have shown greater restraint and greater humanity to civilians than your country has in times of peril. Maybe one reason neither India or Pakistan seems overly concerned about the dangers of a nuclear war is that both understand the daily nuclear threats made by President Musharraf are just bluster. Indian and Pakistani generals could conceivably loose nuclear weapons at each other's advancing armies if faced with a massive defeat - it's a remote possibility, but it is a possibility. To suggest or to imply either country would deliberately aim at civilian centers is a belief that grows out of your mindset. It has no bearing on South Asia.
Now, your editor has little hope that the American scholar will understand any of this. These are old debates. Those Americans who know something about India and Pakistan do not need to be convinced. Those that know nothing will not be convinced. Nonetheless, there are other people more open-minded, and for them your editor will discuss tomorrow why conventional Americans notions of war fighting, strategy, crisis management and the like have absolutely no relevance to the present situation in South Asia.
But if it has come to what you say should happen, then waiting around will only give terrorists more time to do more attacks. Like I said, crap or get off the pot. Stand up and make the decision.
We should get a better picture of things after Rumsfeld is done with his trip.
On the one hand, you buy the nuclear blackmail and then you say waiting gives the terrorists more time.
Musharraf will let us hunt terrorists in his territory but India won't. How many pakistanis have been killed by indian terrorists?
Make a decision; india has. Respect for the US has caused it to not retaliate since DEC12 2001. Mush has to show results; what's he been doing since 9/11.
More like protocol. You have a set of options on the table and you try the best option first. One: Force Musharraf to fight the terrorist. Second: Ignore Musharraf and do it ourselves. And these options do take time, allowing terrorists to careout their plans. I won't blame India for taking action if the terrorist incursions continue while we are doing these things.
But regardless of Musharraf, the Pakistanis will never allow India to perform military operations in their territory. That's just the reality of it. You act as if the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons is irrelevent. Indeed, it is the reason why there is such a huge mess over there now.
Option 2 is is what the US should be doing to wipe out the vermin. OPtion 3 is for India to conduct its own campaign; its called WAR, incursions to another country's territory without their consent.
Well, nuclear blackmail is a recipe for inertia. We'll see what happens. Of course, India, historically is all bark and no bite. Take out the terrorist camps in Kashmir; if the nuclear jihadis escalate, its a risk India has to take. Do you think there's any difference between the taliban, alqaeda, LeT, JeM - they've all been spawned by the ISI and financed by the Saudis.
If war is what you want, then be prepared for the consequences. Conducting a "limited war" in this region in this situation now is going to be darn near impossible. I just dont like the idea for parts of SE asia becoming quiet neighborhoods for the next 2500 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.