Opinion

War-gaming Cold Start
By Ahmad Faruqui, PhD
Dansville, CA

The war of words between India and Pakistan continues to escalate. During the past two weeks, the advantage has shifted to New Delhi .
Pranab Mukherjee, India ’s foreign minister, said that his government was keeping all options open. Vikram Sood, the former top spy, provided the translation.
Sood called for tough action to prevent the Pakistani army from “Balkanizing” India . In his view, the army’s quest dates back to 1971, when India dismembered Pakistan .
Arundhati Ghose, India’s former UN representative, opined undiplomatically, “If there is another attack, we should go in and bomb the daylights out of them.” Pradeep Kaushiva, a retired vice-admiral, said that every Indian in uniform feels “that the country has been attacked and someone must pay for it.”
BJP parliamentarian Arun Shourie called for covert actions to be carried out in Balochistan, Gilgit and Baltistan. He declared, “Not an eye for an eye; but for an eye, both eyes.” This mantra is a far cry from Mahatma Gandhi’s who was even opposed to the Biblical injunction.
Should India attack? It can destroy a few camps and claim that it has “demolished” the infrastructure of terror. But that claim would simply invite derision. The Israeli experience shows the futility of using military force against those who seek martyrdom.
Furthermore, an IAF bombing run would sow the seeds of hatred among secular Pakistanis. The GHQ’s theory that India is an existential threat would take hold and they would enlist in large numbers to fight the invaders tooth and nail.
The military’s position in Pakistan’s strategic culture will be strengthened irrevocably. In the end, India would lose both strategically and tactically.
A century earlier, Norman Angell wrote a tract, The Great Illusion. Angell, who later became a Member of Parliament, a Knight of the Realm and a Nobel Laureate, argued that in an age of economic interdependence, war destroyed both the victor and the loser.
His advice fell on deaf ears. In less than five years, the European powers were engaged in The Great War, sparked by the assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo .
The danger of war in the sub-continent hangs in the air as the hotheads in South Block consider putting their Cold Start doctrine to the test (for a description of the doctrine, see (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3203_pp158-190.pdf). While the operational details are a closely guarded secret, it is possible to lay out four scenarios of how the attack may unfold.
First, the IAF carries out a “surgical” strike on camps located along the Line of Control (LoC).   Second, the air strike is followed up with a helicopter-borne assault by Indian commandoes. Third, an IAF strike takes place at several key locations in Pakistan. Fourth, a ground assault by the Indian rapid deployment force is mounted along the entire border to seize territory.
Should Pakistan respond? In a Newtonian world, every action elicits an equal and opposite reaction.
In the South Asian world, laced as it is with the detritus of history and wrapped as it is in the magic of myth, every action elicits an opposite but greater reaction.
Pakistan’s army chief, General Ashfaq Kiyani, a patient and quiet man, has said that Pakistan would react “within minutes” of any Indian strike. He has the full support of the National Assembly with him. It has stated unanimously that the nation and its armed forces “shall together defend Pakistan’s security at all costs”.
What exactly would Pakistan target? Since there are no camps to take out in India, presumably the PAF would mount sorties against the IAF bases from which the intruders were launched.
This would up the ante and invite retaliatory Indian attacks against PAF bases. Pakistani formations, especially in Azad Kashmir, may be annihilated.
The port at Karachi may be blockaded and clogged with sunken naval ships. At some point, economic facilities, such as power plants, dams, and factories may be hit. Load-shedding would become even more unbearable.
If the Pakistani military begins to crumble under the weight of an Indian counter-response, and significant territory is lost, the generals in Rawalpindi may think of going ballistic.
As they ponder whether the red line has been crossed, a brigadier in some isolated outpost may take the decision to weaponize the missiles in his battery.
What will happen next? In a recent column, Shuja Nawaz, author of Crossed Swords, cites a 2002 study by the Natural Defence Resources Council which found that a limited nuclear exchange would kill 2.8 million people and a more intense exchange would kill 22.1 million people.
Ten times that many would be injured and possibly crippled for life. Eventually, the fallout from an Indo-Pakistani nuclear war would hit the population of neighboring countries.
Is there a way to stop this rush to madness? The US, in concert with the EU, should apply strong diplomatic pressure on both countries to resolve the matter through negotiations.
If India has solid evidence of Pakistani complicity in the Mumbai attacks, it should present this information immediately to Pakistan. If that does not result in a satisfactory response from Pakistan, India should move the UN Security Council to apply sanctions on Pakistan .
At the same time, Pakistan should go the extra mile and shut down all militant organizations and dismantle – once and for all — those toxic campgrounds where tolerance is snuffed out from the human DNA and replaced with hatred.
As Brookings’s Stephen Cohen noted recently, the ship of state in Pakistan, like the S.S. Titanic, is heading toward a giant iceberg. Unless it changes course, and soon, its fate is sealed.
Can this war of words be put to an end? One is reminded of how General Zia used cricket diplomacy to defuse a military stand-off with India back in the 1980s.
In that spirit, President Asif Zardari should find an excuse to fly over to New Delhi and confer with Prime Minister Singh and his cabinet. He should take Generals Kiyani and Pasha with him to convince the Indians he means business when it comes to fighting terror.
As the New Year begins, the leaders of both countries have a chance to honor the conventions of international law. They should seize it. Let that be their New Year’s gift to those who elected them.
(The author is an associate of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of Bradford . Faruqui@pacbell.net)

------------------------------------------------------------------------