Kashmir: Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock...

Back on May 17, Winds of Change offered an in-depth briefing on the Kashmir conflict as part of our "Axis of Trouble" series. Looks like trouble is almost here, and with nuclear weapons on both sides, even level-headed guys like Instaman are getting anxiety attacks.

Here's the 30 second synopsis of the issues: India is afraid of giving in on Kashmir, because it isn't as monolithic as it looks and fears a wave of separatist movements ripping it apart. Pakistan has fought wars with India in 1965 and 1971, has made Kashmir an important part of its national identity, and has used Islamic terrorists as proxies to raise the cost of India's presence there. Those terrorists are no longer fully controllable, however, and by keeping up the pace of terrorism they can dictate a conflict between the two powers... a conflict that many of them want, because they hope it will polarize the Muslim world against the vast "infidel conspiracy" represented by the dar-al-harb.

Yes, I understand why folks are worried here. But, let's all take a very deep breath. Bloggers are throwing the words "nuclear war" around a lot.

Don't.

What Kind of War?

There's a lot afoot here, and here's the rub: just because states happen to have nuclear weapons, doesn't imply a high probability of their use... even in a war scenario. Not unless you have a dynamic wherein one side aims to completely destroy the other, in reckless disregard of what that attempt would mean.

We have that dynamic in Iran and among some Palestinian terrorists, with respect to Israel. We may have it in Iraq. We do not have it in India. Or in Pakistan.

On May 17, I wrote:

"This is a game of chicken in which neither party can afford to swerve... and neither can afford to crash. Don't expect miracles any time soon. Having said that, don't expect nuclear war either."

Which doesn't mean there won't be any war.

Defense Minister Fernandes is certainly sounding hawkish lately, and some command shifts have been made that usually only happen in conflict scenarios. In addition, the train volume, naval moves, making the Mig-21 interceptor fleet ready, and troop redeployments all suggest that the Indians are very serious. Plus, I'm seeing stuff in Indian papers reflecting their officials' mindset. Many seem to believe that targeting specific terrorist camps will result in little reaction by Pakistan beyond stepped-up shelling and skirmishing across the dividing line of control.

They may even be correct. Then again, they may not.

Terrorism Central has some good stuff about the history of the conflict, and the forces arrayed on each side.

The question is what those forces will be used for.

The general consensus I'm seeing among military experts is that India could be readying a limited strike against specific targets, and preparing to back it up if needed. Think it through. Destroying Pakistan is known to have unacceptable costs, but the Islamic terrorists must bleed, and must know that there is no sanctuary. Which means limited strikes.

If you're India, you also don't want Pakistan mauled so badly that it laves Waziristan and the many Al-Qaeda terrorists there wide open. That doesn't serve your long term interests, either, especially when the USA is working to clean up that issue itself. Why impede the Americans' efforts? For that matter, why seek full-scale war when US troops are based in Pakistan?

Symbolism aplenty can be had without going there. Remember: war is politics by other means (one day soon, I'll do the post explaining exactly why). If the goal is not destroying Pakistan, scenarios should reflect that.

Escalating Fears

Reasonable people may agree, then ask "in the confusion of war, could those goals change?" Maybe. Steven Den Beste notes, correctly, that limited strikes could trigger full-scale retaliation, and things could escalate from there.

"The whole place is a tinderbox. I'm not sure I believe that either side still has made the decision to go to fullscale war. What I'm afraid of is that both sides will find themselves fighting one anyway."

Changing the army's goal to fully destroying its enemy is not a mid-level officer decision. It's a High Command decision. Even if escalation happened after limited strikes, would India's goal become full destruction of the Pakistani army and a major drive into that country?

I say no, it would not.

Both sides of this equation have professional commanders who understand the stakes. If you're India, and you are in fact so militarily superior, why would you court Armageddon when you know that Pakistan's ability to seriously threaten you militarily is limited? Answer: you would not court Armageddon. There are many other options, even if we assume a war scenario.

Take this one: Having hit terrorist camps with air strikes and engaged in limited ground action or other skirmishes, India makes its point. "We're here, we're bad, we're pissed." From there, the Indian Army can go into a defensive posture that makes Pakistani attacks near-pointless, backed by air superiority. That deliberate stalemate is broken by air strikes, and by more skirmishes along the front that whittle away at Pakistan's strength. You punish the Pakistani Army in place along the border, maul their troops who engage you, and let it be a lesson to them.

Eventually the US and EU step in, bribe you to stop, and you can declare victory and leave. Pakistan declares victory too for a successful defense, but knows the truth and adjusts its actions accordingly.

If we're throwing around full-war scenarios, that's much more likely to be the one I'd pick as a prediction. It's certainly the kind of scenario that India is likely to aim for... and as I read Dawn, NNI, et. al. the Pakistani Generals are even more prudent about this.

No Nukes

So yes, the capabilities on both sides for a serious scrap are now in place and ready. But there's also another 3-pronged game afoot here, in which the US buys off India, India agrees to be bought to keep a lid on things, and the USA uses the bogeyman of an attack to pressure Pakistan into more anti-terrorism compliance.

That game won't go away, and will remain a brake on the conflict. It may even avert it, for a little while longer anyway.