Winter Break WK #3: “India, Pakistan saber rattling raises war fear”
By Saeed Shah and Jonathan S. Landay / McClatchy
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan is moving some troops away from its border with Afghanistan, Pakistani officials said on Friday, sparking renewed fears that last month’s terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, could trigger a fourth war between the two countries, both of which are now armed with nuclear weapons.
Media reports in both countries, most unconfirmed and some false or exaggerated, have fueled rising war hysteria in India and Pakistan, and U.S. officials and independent analysts worry that any signs of preparation for war could trigger a conflict that neither country wants and that neither can afford.
The Bush administration has been trying to calm the situation, but U.S. officials worry that Pakistan’s weak civilian government can’t meet India’s demands for a crackdown on Islamic militant groups without sparking a backlash from the country’s powerful army and the directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, which have ties to some militant groups.
“We hope that both sides will avoid taking steps that will unnecessarily raise tensions during these already tense times,” said U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.
Stephen Cohen, a South Asia expert with the Washington-based, center-left policy research organization the Brookings Institution who returned on Monday from a visit to India, said the coalition government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh doesn’t want a confrontation, but is under considerable public pressure to retaliate against Pakistan for the Mumbai attacks.
“There is nothing (the Singh government) can do except make threatening noises toward Pakistan,” he said. “Both countries are rattling their sabers. These are two weak governments that are clearly trying to get the Americans nervous so they put pressure on the other country (to back down).”
He called the current atmosphere “a precursor to a crisis” that could erupt because of the high possibility of a misstep on either side.
“We are in a period of touch-and-go,” he said.
For U.S. and NATO troops battling the Taliban and al-Qaida, however, any Pakistani withdrawal from the frontier with Afghanistan could be disastrous. Pakistan has some 100,000 troops stationed along the Afghan border, and their departure would give the Taliban and other groups refuge and free rein in an area that sits astride America’s supply lines into Afghanistan.
It wasn’t clear Friday, however, how extensive the Pakistani move away from the Afghan border is.
A Pakistani defense official, who couldn’t be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, said, “Troops, in snowbound areas and places where operational commitments were less (in the west), have been pulled back.”
The official, however, denied reports that the soldiers had been redeployed to the Indian border, and he declined to say how many troops were involved. Media reports, quoting witnesses, spoke of long convoys of trucks carrying troops, passing through towns in western Pakistan, traveling eastward, but another security official, who lacked the authorization to speak and couldn’t be named, said that there’d been “no untoward troop movement.”
The objective and magnitude of the Pakistani troop movements are unclear, said a U.S. official, who requested anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.
He said, however, that Pakistan usually pulls troops out of mountainous northwestern areas bordering Afghanistan during the winter, when operations against militants allied with al-Qaida usually wind down.
Indian Prime Minister Singh met with his military chiefs on Friday, and there also have been unconfirmed reports in recent days that India has moved troops to Rajasthan, a region that borders Pakistan. Pakistan fears that India might launch an invasion from Rajasthan into Sindh province, aiming to sever the northern and southern halves of Pakistan.
Hasan Askari Rizvi, a military expert based in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore, said that India might be calculating that a move into Sindh wouldn’t trigger a nuclear response from Pakistan, unlike an invasion of Punjab province, the country’s heartland.
“Pakistan and India are at some distance from war, but when troops start moving, any misperception, or any miscalculation, can be dangerous,” Rizvi said.
Pakistan has canceled leave for all its soldiers, and India has told its citizens not to travel to Pakistan. Since the Mumbai attacks, there have been at least four air incursions into Pakistan by Indian fighter jets. Pakistani officials publicly acknowledged two cross-border flights, but dismissed them as inadvertent.
It would seem that India is in a similar position as we were after 9-11. We took military action. However, we didn’t military action against a nation with nuclear weapons. If either side strikes the other, things could get disastrous. I think that Pakistan needs an overhaul of its government. Its military appears to be too strong and needs to be weakened in favor of the civilian government. At this point in time, though, we need the Pakistani military to be strong. We need them to control the Hindu Kush and the Khyber Pass. It would be perfect if both India and Pakistan could suspend their war frenzy until things in the region have calmed down. But that’s a lot to ask of India. The people of India should be able to take revenge on the people who killed their own. We did. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to? The big problem is that it seems every day things get more complicated in the region. No matter what is done between India and Pakistan, whether it’s nothing, war, or us interceding on one nation’s behalf, it will enable potential catastrophes. I personally do not think we need to intercede. We are spread too thin as it is. The two nations can try to work it out, the UN can hinder them, and more problems will occur. I think it’s just inevitable.
Connection: Hearst claimed to have created the Spanish American War. “You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war.” Many of the sources in this article could not be named, or verified, or were called “false and exaggerated.” Tensions have run high in that region for time immemorial. Is this war really going to happen, or are people pretending to be Hearst and are just making it up?
“These are two weak governments that are clearly trying to get the Americans nervous so they put pressure on the other country (to back down).” So it appears that the governments want to use America as a judge, a final deciding force as to who is right and who is wrong, more or less. But that is wrong! I would like to see the US not get involved in this at all, but it appears that that is not going to be an option. I personally think that it would be best to join with Pakistan and destroy India with them – after all, Pakistan was the one attacked. Furthermore, our alliance with Pakistan is allowing our invasion in Iraq/ Iran to be successful, as they protect our supply lines, on the most important military pieces. If we lose Pakistan as an ally, we could very well lose the war in the east, and all those lives will have been lost in vain. Either that, or we reinstate the draft to settle things out, so at least we could have a decent defense system protecting our supply lines. I just don’t really see any perks of allying with India.
If someone could please tell me what is beneficial about allying with India, please respond to me, thank you.
Connection: I believe that this future war could parallel that of the Second World War, with England, our great ally, under attack. America was drawn between two sides, to fight, and hopefully stop Hitler and his evil army, or to sit back in a policy of isolation, and hopefully never have to encounter Germany. Well America is now drawn between two sides once again, but either way, conflict is imminent. We must decide, and the country will most likely be divided, as it was in the 1930s.
It really is a shame I don’t understand foreign affairs very well; commenting on the situations would be a lot easier. However, I personally don’t think a war will happen. The article did state that neither country wanted a conflict, and that both countries have weak governments who really just want to put pressure on the U.S. Not to mention, both countriea have sort of taken precautions. The part of the article that really did sound scary was the fact that Indian troops have moved to Rajasthan and might decide to attack Sindh from there. It is logical. If this were to happen, and a war really did start I guess we could worry about the fact that both countries have nuclear weapons. If war does happen I think, if the U.S. gets involved at all, we should remain allies with Pakistan because of their troops bordering Afghanistan. Really, what would happen if the Taliban had their way with our supply lines. Besides any loss of troops in that region would seem devestating even if they were not protecting supply lines. I think we need all the help we can get. But as far as I’m concerned, I don’t think the U.S. really needs to get involved unless the situation escalates.
Connection: We have had many in class discussions about America as a super power. What should we be responsible for? This also reminds me of the isolationism felt by Americans prior to WWII. We might not want to get involved in this, but what if there ends up being no choice?
“These are two weak governments that are clearly trying to get the Americans nervous so they put pressure on the other country (to back down)” Well, the article definitely makes a point. If America sided with one country, it would give that country great advantage in whatever the situation. I don’t think that we can automatically side with Pakistan. They are extremely important ally with the issues in Afghanistan, however, encouraging war or any aggression whatsoever could “trigger a conflict that neither country wants and that neither can afford.” We need Pakistan to stay an ally and concentrated on the conflict that they are involved in with us. Another war in that area would be disastrous. As Alena mentioned, Pakistan needs an overhaul of its government. Its civilian government isn’t nearly strong enough to handle all the pressure that it’s being given. With unhappiness on just about all sides, what is the government to do? Especially when there is a great conflict of interests between the military and the demands being made by India. The statement in the article “…the current atmosphere ‘a precursor to a crisis’ that could erupt because of the high possibility of a misstep on either side.” Couldn’t be more true. It’s a dangerous and sensitive place between the two countries, and the best bet would be for Pakistan to find away to fix its internal problems.
Connection: Internal conflicts within a weak government along with general unhappiness are big ingredients to the fall of a government. It’s happened time and time again. Mostly during revolutionary times, but it’s easy to watch governments fall because of inefficiency. Pakistan will have to do something about the conflicts its facing before it’s current government ends up like any provisional government created or even our own Articles of Confederation that failed miserably. We need them in our own war.
To start with, this article plainly depressed me. War and suspicion just seem to be ingrained in every culture of the world. Why is it the solution to every countries’ problems? What ever happened to the peace keeping NATO committees? It sure seems to have lost any influence in keeping countries out of war. Furthermore, I thought it was sad that there were so many witnessess who couldn’t be named or didn’t want to be quoted simply because they were scared of professing the truth and starting the fire of war. Where has our free liberty of speech and our petition of grievances gone when we are scared to be named in an article. This also shows the power of the press. People wouldn’t be so scared to share their knowledge and witness if they were assured that the media wouldn’t turn their words around to start the war themselves. In a situation like India and Pakistan, the media has just added to the confusion and raw nerves. Finally, if there is the possibility of nuclear weapons in the equation, this almost certainly defines an American role in this potential war. As a superpower nation, America couldn’t just stand by and watch two countries blow each other up. Still involved in finishing our own war in Iraq, America would be hard pressed to intervene in another two nation’s war. Thus, for the sheer sanity of our people and country pray to God that the sabers of Pakistan and India would stop their rattling.
Connection: Firstly, the fact that the media could be the breaking point of this situation leading Pakistan and India to war. Just like Pulitzer and Hearst, the media is known to have started a war and with their exxagerations and twisted facts the press could tip these two countries over the edge. Secondly, refer back to the blog “From Pax Americana to slacker Americans.” Face it; the US is a superpower and if Pakistan and India go to war, then we will somehow be in it.
A response to Dave Marshall’s post.
I disagree and feel that the US does need to get involved. The reason being is that a nuclear exchange will affect us at home, even if the bombs land far away. The radiation and other effects will reach the entire world, so we want to avoid a nuclear exchange at all costs. As for who to ally with, we don’t have to sever ties with Pakistan on the basis of this. The government may not be doing all the could against militant groups, but they can still be kept as an ally. However, despite siding with India being the humanitarian and sympathetic gesture, we stand to gain little militarily from India by maintaining ties this way, from what I understand. But why destroy India? That’s too strong of an action at this point, especially since this is a feud. I would say simply putting pressure on both to stand down would be prudent. Tempers are running too high here, so we want to avoid both governments feeling pressured into using their nuclear stockpiles. We may not gain anything from allying with India, but reinstating the draft and installing defense systems is far too premature. There isn’t a need to go to extremes in this, extremes are what we want to avoid in this situation.
In response to Kyle Hermens:
We can’t just take military action every time a country gets a little butt-hurt. I am pretty sure neither nation is about to launch a nuclear assault. Think about this logically, both nations have nuclear weapons, so why would one nation use nukes against the other knowing full well that they are going to be nuked right back. The Soviet Union and the United states managed not to completely destroy the earth for over 40 years so I imagine India and Pakistan will be fine. This is the fundamental issue with all Americans; we think it is our job to get in everyone’s business. Our government is not a mother for god’s sake, we are a nation, Pakistan is a nation, and India is a nation. Most countries are run by smart people so I’m assuming they are doing what they can to avoid nuclear fallout. In any case we won’t be number 1 for long so hopefully we will lose our misguided sense of duty to baby sit the earth. Look where it got us, we were so interested in Iraq and China we forgot about ourselves, and now we are in a terrible recession. Some people are upset we are losing our standing I say good riddance.
In response to Felicia,
I totally have to agree with you in your connection when you mentioned isolationism. Undeniably, our country has a right to feel some isolationism and not want to get involved in another war, especially when our war in Iraq isn’t even over. In any war, lives are taken and for those left at home lives are changed. Thus, when our nerves are already raw and left bleeding, it’s understandable that our nation wants to sit back, nurse our own wounds, and not pay attention to the rest of the world for a while. However, sadly that isn’t the case. If the situation in Pakistan and India worsens and nuclear weapons are involved we will have no option but to intervene. But who do we help? Of course to help our own situation, we would want to keep Pakistan as our ally in order to protect our own interests with the supply lines. However, Pakistan isn’t the shining white good guy in the fairy tales. As my mom always says, “It takes two to squabble.” So then there’s the other side where we could come to the rescue of India who has also felt the terror of terrorist attacks. As a fellow nation who has experienced that first hand we could make a stand against terrorism. So if the sabers start clashing instead of merely rattling, what is our nation going to do?
A response to Sam Fitterer’s Post.
I wasn’t advocating military action against either side in my post, what I was advocating was putting pressure on both Pakistan and India to avoid conflict. Specifically, diplomatic pressure would be best here, there’s no point in moving troops in when we have diplomatic relations with both countries. And the flaw in your argument of using the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. as an example of two nuclear bearing, is how close we did come to destroying each other. That Cold War was full of intense moments (Bay of Pigs, for example) that diplomacy was used to assuage the rising tempers between the two countries. The problem is that no matter how calm your leadership may be now, if things escalate you eventually hate the other guy more than you care what happens to you. The MAD doctrine has it’s critics, and for good reason. You can’t count on people to do the reasonable thing or what’s best for them, that’s why we’re human. You may have wanted to respond to Dave’s post, he’s the one who was advocating a more military viewpoint. And maybe we won’t be number one at some point, but what nation ever preserved it’s number one status by just sitting back and letting everyone else run around? We have enormous resources, and because we’re one of the most powerful countries, we have interests that need protecting. If India and Pakistan didn’t have nukes, we might not get as involved. But they do, and because they could sling nukes around at some point, we need to make sure that could becomes a won’t, because when nukes are launched, everyone loses.
In response to David Marshall:
The perks in allying with India would be that the United States has a vested interested in the growing economy of India. India and the United States have growing economic ties, primarily focused on investments and opening markets for each others goods. Also, as India’s technology is growing, the United States gets the benefits of the technology because we import so much of their goods. This is why this conflict has the United States in between a rock and a hard place. We need Pakistan’s military to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and we are heavily invested in India’s economy. Also, since Musharraf has stepped down, our relations with Pakistan have become increasingly frayed, while we still have strong, friendly ties with India. Also, we have had the stronger ties with India a good deal longer than we have with Pakistan. As a culture, Americans can also relate more to India than Pakistan because India is much more diverse and (or at least to my understanding) not as oppressive. So, overall, the United States is better connected with India than Pakistan. We’ve only been really friendly with Pakistan since the start of the War on Terror. However, as you wished, the United States probably won’t be getting involved unless things get really out of hand. America has a trend that after every global conflict we get involved in, like the World Wars, the United States becomes more isolationist. Because of Iraq, I think that we are headed towards another period of isolationism, so U.S. involvement in the Pakistan-India conflict will be strictly diplomatic, for now.