Stephen (no relation) Robinson at the Telegraph UK thinks a South Asia small war is all but certain. I'm still betting five to one against a major war -- but those odds shift to three in seven -- almost even -- if shooting really starts.
Artillery duels don't count. When men on the ground are taking and losing land, and taking and inflicting casualties, that's when the risk of a major war becomes real.
And the risk of nuclear becomes serious if India advances into Pakistan proper, and not just Kashmir.
Stephen -
Did you see this piece in the CSM last week? It indicates that there will be a small war, as India has draw up plans for a small-scale invasion of Kashmir (but not Pakistan proper). The idea being to invade for about ten days, then pull out when the international outcry gets loud enough, but be able to smash up enough terrorist infrastructure to have a real (and more importantly, symbolic) victory. And oh, yeah, hope that Pakistan is stable enough not to respond with nukes.
I blogged it a ways back, but never got much response... would welcome opinions from folks who know more than I...
Similar speculation on the Telegraph, which I've blogged recently.. in fact , very similar to N.Z. Bear's take on it.
I think the Indians are waiting for Rumsfeld to leave before launching an offensive.
Hey, there's the guy who knows more than I !
Glad to see you finally responded to that piece, Suman (slowpoke!). I just re-blogged it myself and pointed folks to your analysis...
-NZB
Stephen,
I'd agree that it's not war if regular, conventional forces don't cross the Line of Control. That being said, however, I have to question whether both sides would know that the other side is interested in only a "little war."
If Indian forces cross the LoC, they are not going to do so w/ advance warning to Islamabad, for all the obvious reasons (like valuing the lives of your own troops). And if the Indians blow bridges to China (as some analyses have suggested) or cut main road and rail links that allow the Pakistanis to maintain forces in Kashmir, it might well be interpreted as an Indian effort to solve the situation once-and-for-all----by occupying all or most of Kashmir.
Moreover, it is not clear that the Indians can undertake a "small war." As a democracy, it is an interesting question the extent to which, once a war has begun, they are able to engage in such realpolitik. There are some folks who theorize that democracies are less able to undertake realpolitik, because the energy required to mobilize the population to support a war cannot simply be turned off.
This is especially true if there are significant casualties. Then, there is a belief that the sacrifice of "our boys" was for victory, not for some kind of limited intervention which might or might not end the violence.
I've always been of the opinion that the only realistic fire-break is between going to war and not going to war (which guerilla tactics deliberately blur). But once you cross the threshold, anything goes.
