What's new

Killing India’s hidden ‘Cold Start’ strategy

Xeric

RETIRED THINK TANK
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
8,297
Reaction score
42
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Some factual mistakes and a few assumtions but still makes a guud read, enjoy:

Killing India’s hidden ‘Cold Start’ strategy|Islamabad Globe


Killing India’s hidden ‘Cold Start’ strategy

The New York Times in a front page story tries to portray the impression that the Cold Start Strategy does not exist. It is amazing the Stephen Cohen one of the authors of “Cold Start Strategy” who has eulogized it on National Television now says that “Cold Start Strategy” does not exist. Many Bharati journals have been talking about it since Mumbai, and Bharat Verma has written multiple articles on it in the Indian Defense Journal.


* Senior American Military commanders have sought to press India to formally disavow a military doctrine called Cold Start
* Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, is among those who have warned internally about the dangers of Cold Start
* Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, share these fears.
* Pakistani officials have repeatedly stressed to the United States that worries about Cold Start are at the root of their refusal to redeploy forces away from the border with India
* That point was made most recently during a visit to Washington last month by Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kiyani.


Much of this so called “Cold Start Strategy” is based on the Israeli strategy which it tried to implement in Lebanon. Israel was unable to implement its objectives in Lebanon and had to withdraw even from the Litani River. Israel failed to achieve its goals in Lebanon. In Lebanon, Israel was unable to stop the barrage of missiles from Lebanon even on the last day. Many consider this Israel’s defeat.India’s Cold start war strategy and the Pakistani Nuclear response.

Gen Kapoor’s provocative doctrine: Pakistani countermeasures

* The essence of the Cold Start doctrine is reorganising the army’s offensive power that resides in the three strike corps into eight smaller division-sized integrated battle groups (IBGs) consisting of armour and mechanised infantry and artillery, closely supported by helicopter gunships, air force and airborne troops (parachute and heliborne).
* The IBGs are to be positioned close to the border so that three to five are launched into Pakistan along different axes within 72 to 96 hours from the time mobilisation is ordered.
* Cold Start thus envisages rapid thrusts even when the defensive corps’ deployment is yet to be completed, and high-speed operations conducted day and night until the designated objectives are achieved
* The probable objective areas for Cold Start could be (1) Ravi-Chenab corridor from two directions, an IBG along Jammu-Sialkot-Daska axis and another across the Ravi to link up with the first IBG, and (2) in the south against Reti-Rahim Yar Khan-Kashmore complex.
* To counter Cold Start, the Pakistan Army will have to create more armour-dominated brigade-sized reserves from the existing resources if possible, and a more flexible military system and structure.
* For Pakistan the dimensions of time and space assume paramount importance as it lacks territorial depth, is opposed by a larger adversary and lacks the resources to fight a protracted war.
* The strategy of pre-emption is thus imposed on Pakistan in the same way it was imposed on Israel prior to the 1967 war.
* The fact that the Pakistan Army can occupy their wartime locations earlier than the Indian army confers on it the ability to pre-empt Cold Start;
* failure to do so could lead to firing of low-yield tactical warheads at IBGs as they cross the start line or even earlier
* Pakistani countermeasures to Cold Start Strategy-battle-ready nuclear weapons
* India said on Monday it is monitoring the situation following media reports suggesting Pakistan is allegedly digging tunnels in Sargodha district
* “We are attempting to establish the purpose of digging up such large tunnels,” an intelligence official was quoted as saying in the reports. “These clearly cannot be meant for transport as is obvious from the images available; they don’t lead on to roads,” he added.
* Delhi’s Cold Start Strategy Frozen DOA (Dead On Arrival)

The US had taken up concerns by Pakistan on the perceived ‘Cold Start’ strategy of the Indian Army that envisages rapid deployment of troops on the western border to escalate to a full blown war within days but has been told that such a doctrine does not exist but is a term that has been fabricated by think tanks.

The matter was repeatedly taken up by senior US Defence delegations after Pakistan voiced concerns that diverting more troops to the Afghan border would not be feasible given the Indian ‘Cold Start’ strategy that could bring offensive elements of the Indian Army to its eastern border within four days.

While the US has been assured that no such doctrine exists, the Army has now come on record to say that ‘Cold Start’ is not part of its doctrine. Army Chief General V K Singh has told this newspaper that India’s basic military posture remains defensive.

NEW DELHI — Senior American military commanders have sought to press India to formally disavow a military doctrine that they contend is fueling tensions between India and Pakistan; hindering the American war effort in Afghanistan.

But with Obama arriving in India on Saturday for a closely watched three-day visit, administration officials said they did not expect him to broach the subject of the doctrine, known informally as Cold Start. At the most, these officials predicted, Mr. Obama will forecfully encourage India’s leaders to do what they can to cool tensions between these nuclear-armed neighbors.

India now denies the very existence of Cold Start, a plan to deploy new ground forces that could strike inside Pakistan quickly in the event of a conflict. India has argued strenuously that the United States, if it wants a wide-ranging partnership of leading democracies, has to stop viewing it through the lens of Pakistan and the Afghanistan war.

Some in the administration who agree that the United States and India should focus on broader concerns, including commercial ties, military sales, climate change and regional security. However vital the Afghan war effort, officials said, it has lost out in the internal debate to priorities like American jobs and the rising role of China.

“There are people in the administration who want us to engage India positively,” said an administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations. “They don’t care about Afghanistan. Then there are people, like Petraeus, who have wars to fight.” NY Times.

Gen David Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, is among those who have warned internally about the dangers of Cold Start, according to American and Indian officials. Adm. Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Richard Holbrooke, the special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, share these fears.

The strategy calls for India to create fast-moving battle groups that could deliver a contained but sharp retaliatory ground strike inside Pakistan within three days of suffering a terrorist attack by militants based in Pakistan, yet not do enough damage to set off a nuclear confrontation.

Pakistani officials have repeatedly stressed to the United States that worries about Cold Start are at the root of their refusal to redeploy forces away from the border with India so that they can fight Islamic militants in the frontier region near Afghanistan. That point was made most recently during a visit to Washington last month by Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. NY Times.

India knows that it can never win a conventional warfare because of the Nuclear Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). However it still harbors notions of winning a sort of a mini war. India may think it has a Cold Start Strategy, but it may end as a hot nuclear war. Indian Defense planners cannot guarantee that a limited strike will not escalte into a full fledged war. A full fledged war witha nuclear armed labor may destroy both countries. Responding to the “Surgical Strikes”: Neutralizing Delhi’s Cold Start strategy:

While engaging the Kashmir question must be the priority, a much more serious problem is that in less than a decade India has twice threatened us with all-out war in less than a decade, in December 2002 and 2008, using terrorist action by non-state actors as a pretext both times. As the name suggests, the Indian “COLD START” strategy envisages moving Indian forces without any warning or mobilisation into unpredictable locations at high speeds against Pakistan (on the Israeli pattern of 1956 and 1967) seeking to defeat Pakistan by achieving total surprise at both the strategic and the operational levels (remember Pearl Harbour), striving for a decision before the US or China could intervene on Pakistan’s behalf. An unspoken assumption seems to be that “rapid operations would prevent India’s civilian leadership from halting military operations in progress, lest it have second thoughts or possess insufficient resolve”. Does this particular Indian military psyche conform to the so-called civilian control of the Indian military? Facing a foe having 3:1 superiority, and with such a history and such an offensive strategy, we may be forgiven for our “India fixation”.

The military challenges for Pakistan posed by COLD START derails any resolve for sustained peace with India, re-constituting Pakistan’s strategy to take on all five of India’s “Strike Corps” with all our three “Army Reserve” formations presently occupied in FATA, Dir and Swat. Please forgive also our suspicions as to what the many Indian consulates in Afghanistan are doing on our western borders! Ikram Sehgal. The News

The administration raised the issue of Cold Start last November when India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, visited Washington, Indian and American officials said. Indian officials told the United States that the strategy was not a government or military policy, and that India had no plans to attack Pakistan. Therefore, they added, it should have no place on Mr. Obama’s agenda in India.

For Mr. Obama, politically wounded by the midterm elections and high unemployment at home, such deals are also important to bolster his argument that the relationship between the United States and India can create American jobs rather than simply siphoning them away.

For all the talk of shared interests, India still lies at the nexus of America’s greatest foreign policy crisis. Its archrival, Pakistan, is a crucial American ally in the war in Afghanistan. The United States has struggled to find a way to mediate between them.

Some administration officials have argued that addressing Cold Start, developed in the aftermath of a failed attempt to mobilize troops in response to an attack on the Indian Parliament by Pakistani militants, could help break the logjam that has impeded talks between the countries.

But India has mostly declined to discuss the topic. “We don’t know what Cold Start is,” said India’s defense secretary, Pradeep Kumar, in an interview on Thursday. “Our prime minister has said that Pakistan has nothing to fear. Pakistan can move its troops from the eastern border.”

Indian officials and some analysts say Cold Start has taken on a nearly mythical status in the minds of Pakistani leaders, whom they suspect of inflating it as an excuse to avoid engaging militants on their own turf.

“The Pakistanis will use everything they can to delay or drag out doing a serious reorientation of their military,” said Stephen P. Cohen, an expert on South Asia at the Brookings Institution.

India’s ponderous strike forces, most of them based in the center of the country, took weeks to reach the border. By then Western diplomats had swooped in.

The military began devising a plan to respond to future attacks. The response would have to be swift to avoid the traffic jam of international diplomacy, but also carefully calibrated — shallow enough to be punitive and embarrassing, but not an existential threat that would provoke nuclear retaliation.

But American military officials and diplomats worry that even the existence of the strategy in any form could encourage Pakistan to make rapid improvements in its nuclear arsenal.

When Pakistani Military officials are asked to justify the huge investment in upgrading that arsenal, some respond that because Pakistan has no conventional means to deter Cold Start, nuclear weapons are its only option.

Still, many analysts are skeptical that Cold Start could be the key for the Obama administration to promote talks between India and Pakistan, which have been stalled since Pakistani militants attacked Mumbai in 2008. Agencies and NY Times Reports. Lydia Polgreen reported from New Delhi, and Mark Landler from Washington. David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington. Obama Is Not Likely to Push India Hard on Pakistan. Rajanish Kakade/Associated Press. A sign in Mumbai on Friday signaled preparations in India for President Obama’s visit. Mumbai is his first stop on Saturday. By LYDIA POLGREEN and MARK LANDLER. Published: November 5, 2010

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her campaign for the presidency of the United States mentioned “Pakistan’s paranoia” about India’s intentions about Pakistan. Pardon us Ms. Clinton but Bharat has threatened Pakistan will all out war, not once but twice in the past few years. Additionally, it was the Pakhtuns that liberated Azad Kashmir and it is Delhi that occupied Kashmir, Junagarh, Manvadar, Sir Creek and Siachin–not the Pakhtuns (aka Taliban).

Terrorism across the borders works for Bharat–in China, Sikkim Bhutan, Nepal, Lanka, and Pakistan. RAW is good at hiring and sending mercenaries to murder innocent civilians–as witnessed in Karachi last week.
 
Cold start is starting to make me think of the Loch Ness Monster.
People talk about it all the time, even a few people claim to have seen it but no one knows if it exists.

Consider the absolute best for India, cold start works, Pakistan is completley unprepared, India captures all its objectives destroys most of the Pakistan Army and Air force, it now has 170 million very pissed off people it is now responsible for.

At least in Iraq only half the population hated the Americans, even if India won the war the peace would be a disaster.
 
The Cold Start strategy and Sunderji Doctrine are History. India tried them in 2002 and failed miserably. The Pakistani peace time locations are too close to the border hence in 2002 when India tested Cold Start it was the Pakistanis who were able to deploy first. The Indian went to their parliment to get approval for building new peace time locations nearer to the border but the plan was shot down. It was only then that the Army Chief gave his famous statement about India primarily being defensive.

The main difference between India and Pakistan is that in Pakistan the government listens to the armed forces and in India the armed forces listen to the government
 
Major Pakistani formations can reach their war time positions in theatre within 24 hours, using excellent communication routes.
 
Why India don't just publicly, disavow the "Cold Start Doctrine" -- The Indian claims range from there is no such a thing to it does not work - what's clear is the US is not buying this -- and really, if it's a dog, why not just publicly disavow "Cold Start"?

Cold Start? Who dat? He my baby daddy -- kidding aside, I don't think I understand what the block is with disavowing it - what am I missing?
 
The Cold Start strategy and Sunderji Doctrine are History. India tried them in 2002 and failed miserably. The Pakistani peace time locations are too close to the border hence in 2002 when India tested Cold Start it was the Pakistanis who were able to deploy first. The Indian went to their parliment to get approval for building new peace time locations nearer to the border but the plan was shot down. It was only then that the Army Chief gave his famous statement about India primarily being defensive.

The main difference between India and Pakistan is that in Pakistan the government listens to the armed forces and in India the armed forces listen to the government

Actually so called cold-start came after 2003 stand off. As far as bolded part is concerned i would always want military to listen to political class....
 
The Cold Start strategy and Sunderji Doctrine are History. India tried them in 2002 and failed miserably. The Pakistani peace time locations are too close to the border hence in 2002 when India tested Cold Start it was the Pakistanis who were able to deploy first. The Indian went to their parliment to get approval for building new peace time locations nearer to the border but the plan was shot down. It was only then that the Army Chief gave his famous statement about India primarily being defensive.

The main difference between India and Pakistan is that in Pakistan the government listens to the armed forces and in India the armed forces listen to the government

Hmm..

Which is better ?
 
Hmm..

Which is better ?

In our case, the government listening to the military when it comes to dealing with India. Unfortunately our political leaders are a bunch of morons when it comes to dealing with India, so as a Pakistani i have 100% faith in my Army and believe they can protect our interests better than any politicians.
 
Hmm..

Which is better ?

Government listening to Armed Forces.

Take the 2003 Iraq war for an example. The U.S. Generals in Iraq warned the Bush administration to not dismantle the Iraqi Armed Forces, because there was not enough security on the ground as this would essentially open Pandora's Box. Bush didn't listen. (Most of the Generals in Iraq quit after this) After Bush ordered L. Paul Bremer to dismantle Iraq's Armed forces within a few months all hell broke lose and the nation rapidly deteriorated and it took 5-6 years to improve the security situation there.
 
The Cold Start strategy and Sunderji Doctrine are History. India tried them in 2002 and failed miserably. The Pakistani peace time locations are too close to the border hence in 2002 when India tested Cold Start it was the Pakistanis who were able to deploy first. The Indian went to their parliment to get approval for building new peace time locations nearer to the border but the plan was shot down. It was only then that the Army Chief gave his famous statement about India primarily being defensive.

The main difference between India and Pakistan is that in Pakistan the government listens to the armed forces and in India the armed forces listen to the government

This is also the same procedure should be worked in Pakistan as per the constitution but as you said its military doesn't listen to the govt. And cold start came into sight after India-Pakistan stand off.

---------- Post added at 08:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 AM ----------

striving for a decision before the US or China could intervene on Pakistan’s behalf. An unspoken assumption seems to be that “rapid operations would prevent India’s civilian leadership from halting military operations in progress, lest it have second thoughts or possess insufficient resolve”. Does this particular Indian military psyche conform to the so-called civilian control of the Indian military? Facing a foe having 3:1 superiority, and with such a history and such an offensive strategy, we may be forgiven for our “India fixation”.

rupeenews. lol

He is as always 180 degree away from the truth and happy to bring US-China on behalf of Pakistan and even 3:1 ratio!!!! Thus came to conclusion of "India fixation". lol
 
Government listening to Armed Forces.

Take the 2003 Iraq war for an example. The U.S. Generals in Iraq warned the Bush administration to not dismantle the Iraqi Armed Forces, because there was not enough security on the ground as this would essentially open Pandora's Box. Bush didn't listen. (Most of the Generals in Iraq quit after this) After Bush ordered L. Paul Bremer to dismantle Iraq's Armed forces within a few months all hell broke lose and the nation rapidly deteriorated and it took 5-6 years to improve the security situation there.

That is very wrong way of looking at it...Of course one should listen to the Army however the final authority should be in the hands of Civilian govt.

If we go by what Armed forces say then US will not pull out from AF for another 10 years. Do you think that is right decision???As per news around Kargil, that plan was rejected by then PM Mrs Bhutto but the moment Army got its say a blunder like Kargil was tried. how much damage it caused the little we talk better it is....In short Army way of dealing with issue is by Iron hand which may or may not be right. Thus final authority should lie with democratic set-up where there are many check and balances
 
A headnumbing article with same old Pakistani agenda to paint india as aggressive to jeopardize it's on going relationship with US. The timing of this article is too late to attract attention of others since india has already checkmate Pakistani paranoia by proactively denouncing cold start to it's American counterparts. Still I would like to give credit to author; how cunningly he has given reference of American think tanks concerned about cold start without disclosing the context in which those concerns were made.
 
For Cold start,India need extensive superiority in Air...though IAF looking stronger than PAF,there is no way by which IAF would cripple PAF in less than 20/25 days...and by then,Indian cold-start would be resting in peace..!!
Right now,India is in no position to practice so called cold-start doctrine..!! IAF atleast need 10 more squadrons for implementing cold-start on Pakistan..!!

:wave:
 
Actually there was a report last year that the Cold Start Strategy was leaked before it even became a final document.
 
For Cold start,India need extensive superiority in Air...though IAF looking stronger than PAF,there is no way by which IAF would cripple PAF in less than 20/25 days...and by then,Indian cold-start would be resting in peace..!!
Right now,India is in no position to practice so called cold-start doctrine..!! IAF atleast need 10 more squadrons for implementing cold-start on Pakistan..!!

:wave:

By that time all F-16s will be operational, there will be 72+ JF-17s, FC-20s, plus the exiting Mirages and F-7s.

Plus the financial toll the Indian economy will take on a daily basis will impact India more than Pakistan.
 

Back
Top Bottom