Guest guest Posted January 20, 2002 Report Share Posted January 20, 2002 www.nytimes.com > January 20, 2002 > As Threat Eases, U.S. Still Sees Peril in India-Pakistan Buildup > > By MICHAEL R. GORDON > > ASHINGTON, Jan. 19 — The recent flurry of diplomacy has reduced the > immediate risk of a major war between India and Pakistan, American > officials say. But the standoff is still fraught with danger and American > officials are still deeply worried by the mobilization along the tense > frontier. > > In his swing through South Asia, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has > tried to calm both sides by encouraging President Pervez Musharraf of > Pakistan to continue his crackdown on Islamic militants and by urging > India to accept General Musharraf's efforts as genuine. > > Behind the scenes, the Bush administration has also urged India not to > test its new Prithvi missile and has asked Israel to delay the delivery of > the Phalcon airborne command and control plane to India, according to > American officials. > > But India has so far rebuffed American calls for it to move its forces > away from the border. > > American intelligence agencies, in their latest estimate, do not consider > a major Indian attack on Pakistan imminent, senior American officials > said. But the agencies recognize that India's military posture is > dangerous. The fear is that relations remain on a hair trigger and that > any further attacks in India and its part of Kashmir, mounted by > terrorists beyond the Pakistani government's control, might yet spark a > war. > > "The United States thinks that Musharraf is for real and has undertaken > fundamental changes," a senior American defense official said. "We have > been trying to persuade the Indians to take `yes' for an answer, and that > the things that are happening in Pakistan are in their own interest." > > "We also knew that war would not break out when Colin Powell was in the > region and the Indian defense minister was visiting here," the official > said. "But the situation is still dangerous. It is still dangerous because > India still has a strict set of demands and because there is still a > mobilization. The situation is vulnerable to shock the next time there is > a terrorist attack." > > The crisis began in mid-December when a group of terrorists mounted a > suicide attack on the Indian Parliament. American officials do not believe > that General Musharraf had anything to do with the attack. > > But Indian officials asserted that Pakistani terrorists were responsible > and that Pakistani authorities were to blame for not cracking down on the > militants. After watching the United States repair relations with Pakistan > in order to prosecute its war in Afghanistan, India was hoping to put its > long-standing complaints about terrorism and cross-border raids in Kashmir > on the world's antiterrorism agenda. > > India began a major mobilization, shifting much of its army toward the > border with Pakistan, putting Air Force units on alert and readying its > Navy for possible war. > > A Pakistani official said India moved most of its forces into an offensive > configuration, adding two additional Indian divisions to the forces > normally deployed in Kashmir and deploying about six other divisions along > the rest of its border with Pakistan. Two potent strike forces, he said, > are stationed behind the front lines to exploit breakthroughs in the > Pakistani lines and additional divisions held in reserve. > > More than 80 percent of India's million-strong army is involved in the > mobilization, the Pakistani officials said, and some units have even > shifted from the border with China, India's long-standing rival. > > George Fernandes, the Indian defense minister, insisted that the account > of the Pakistani officials was incorrect, and said the Indian mobilization > was purely defensive. Many of India's forces, he insisted, had been > assigned to protect bridges and other important sites in the interior from > sabotage by terrorists. > > Mr. Fernandes said in an interview: "We need to guard every bridge. We > need to guard every industrial establishment. We need to guard just about > everything. Pakistan does not have this problem." > > In Washington, Pentagon officials say that each side routinely exaggerates > the other's abilities, raising the possibility of miscalculation. But the > Pentagon officials also say that India's troops began to move toward the > India-Pakistan frontier first and the Indian deployment is formidable. > > Many specialists believe that the Indian deployments were an exercise in > coercive diplomacy — a giant bluff to persuade General Musharraf to clamp > down on Pakistani terrorists and to frighten Washington into taking > India's demands seriously. But India's military preparations were so > extensive that the Pentagon found it difficult to tell if the Indians were > simply posturing or putting themselves in position to attack. > > By Christmas, some Bush administration officials were worried that India > was on a war footing and might strike as soon as its mobilization was > complete in January. The fear that two nuclear-armed adversaries might > come to blows alarmed Washington. So did the prospect that a confrontation > would lead Pakistan to pull some of its forces off the Afghan border, thus > hobbling Washington's campaign to trap Al Qaeda fighters. > > "There have been an extremely wide range of Indian preparations and > deployment toward Pakistan," one American official said. "When you see the > great amount of movement the Indian Army has made in moving out of its > garrisons, it is truly impressive." > > Pakistan, American officials say, was initially slow to respond and > somewhat handicapped by its new alliance with Washington in its campaign > in Afghanistan. Pakistan has deployed troops along its frontier with > Afghanistan to catch fleeing Al Qaeda fighters, and it has been helping to > guard Pakistan bases where American aircraft are stationed and sharing > fuel with the United States military. > > Soon a major arms race was under way. India deployed its Prithvi short- > range ballistic missile and Pakistan dispersed its Chinese-designed Hatf > short-range missiles, asserting that it was a defensive measure to avoid > attack. Pakistan also moved artillery and other heavy equipment away from > its border with Afghanistan, a Pentagon official said, but eventually > yielded to American entreaties that it maintain a border presence there. > > There is no question that the Indian military has the edge in the size of > its forces, and Pentagon officials said some of the Indian weapons were > superior as well. India, for example, has more than 4,000 tanks, more than > twice the number of Pakistan. The Soviet-designed T-72 in India's arsenal > is more capable than Pakistan's Chinese Type 59 tanks, Pentagon officials > say. > > India has twice as many combat aircraft as Pakistan. India's SU-30's, > MiG-29s and Mirage 2000's are more capable than Pakistan's warplanes. At > sea, India has a respectable navy, including an aircraft carrier. Pakistan > put its ships to sea, both to guard its coast and disperse its vessels. > But Pakistan's navy is small and hardly a match for India. > > Neither side's force is a match for a Western army. One Pentagon official > described India's military as a 1950's-style army that is mostly outfitted > with 1970's equipment, though it has some important newer systems, > including Swedish-made artillery. But their officer corps is well trained. > > "India's military is superior in size and important capabilities," a > Pentagon official said. "They have got equipment shortage and maintenance > problems like any army, but it is still a pretty impressive force for what > it has to do." > > Military equipment, however, does not tell the whole story. Terrain and > logistics were also important factors. So is the fact that both India and > Pakistan are nuclear-armed states. > > India's generals have devoted considerable energy to devising strategies > for fighting a limited war, one that would enable New Delhi to put an end > to cross-border attacks in Kashmir and punish Pakistan without provoking > it to brandish its nuclear arsenal. The purpose of India's nuclear arsenal > is to deter Pakistan from launching a nuclear strike while India exploits > its conventional advantage. > > "To say there is scope for a limited conventional war is a truism," Gen. > Sunderajan Padmanabhan, the chief of the Indian Army, said earlier this > month. "Yes it is there. It all depends on the circumstance." > > Pakistan, in contrast, has gone out of its way to warn that any limited > Indian attack could quickly turn into a major war. That position is > intended to keep the Indians off balance and to keep the United States > worrying that there will be a major war between the two nuclear-armed > adversaries in South Asia if Washington does not stay India's hand. > > "We all know that once a conflict starts it is difficult to confine it," a > Pakistani official said. "They can try to confine it but it is the other > side's decision about how to respond." > > President Bush and top administration officials made repeated phone calls > to Pakistani and Indian leaders urging them to avoid yet another war. > General Musharraf's speech earlier this month, vowing to crack down on > militants at home, was seen as a major step forward. > > Much of Washington's effort since then has focused on urging the Indians > to recognize the significance of the move. The Americans' argument has > been that General Musharraf is serious about charting a new course for > Pakistan and that it will be undermined at home if he is seen to be > buckling to Indian pressure. American officials have also told the Indians > that they will be undermining the United States war against terrorism if > India's military mobilization leads Pakistan to remove forces from the > Afghan border. > > "We have been telling India we are being affected by this, that there has > to be a political solution," a senior defense official said. > > After meeting with top Bush administration officials here this week, Mr. > Fernandes said India favored a diplomatic solution. Pakistan wants both > sides to begin withdrawing troops from the border. > > But Mr. Fernandes said India would not begin to withdraw its forces from > the border until there was an end to "cross-border terrorism" and Pakistan > turned over suspected Indian terrorists. > > Pentagon officials say the risk of conflict remains unless India takes > steps to reduce its forces and unless further diplomatic progress is made. > > "I think from the beginning this has been a massive exercise in coercive > diplomacy," said Stephen P. Cohen, an expert on South Asia at the > Brookings Institution. "The Indians used the threat of war to force > Pakistan to back down. They have come out ahead — as long as nobody makes > a mistake." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.