Pakistan moves troops in preperation for attack

CNN:

Pakistan's military called back troops on leave and placed all personnel on active duty Friday, military sources said.

The country's armed forces have been on high alert in anticipation of a possible conflict with India following the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

"Pakistan has taken the minimum defensive measures," said a source in the military. He spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

When asked to explain what those defensive measures are, he declined to comment.

One military analyst said Pakistani troops have been deployed to border areas with India where ground incursions are likely.

In New Delhi on Friday, three military chiefs briefed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the security situation.

...


I think the recent discovery of another ISI plot in the Kashmir region triggered this latest move. Some of those caught in the new terror plot were supposedly Pakistan soldiers. If this was an ISI plot it appears to have achieved its strategic objective of pulling Pakistan army forces from the fight against the Taliban on the Afghan border.

The US response to this should be to increase pressure on the Taliban in the Pakistan sanctuaries and on those threatening our supply lines. I think the supply line attacks and the attacks on India are intended to relieve the pressure on the Taliban sanctuaries. They are all interrelated. The ISI double gamers are very active right now and it would be a good time to figure out who they are and deal with them.

AFP reports India has advised it citizens against travel to Pakistan. This may be tied to an report of an attack on a Lahore hotel that Pakistan sources blame on India.

Bill Roggio now reports that a Taliban commander has taken credit for the attack in Lahore that the government has blamed on India.

Comments

  1. Five reasons for and against Indo-Pak war
    I write this with no levity-- there is a strong case to be made against a war in the subcontinent. There is, however, also a case to be made in favor of one. I'd make the two, and hope to read your comments and views on the topic.

    The case against is indubitably fiercely strong and, long term interests given preeminence, a most incontrovertible one. I'd enunciate five "pillar" arguments in favor of Peace in the Indian subcontinent;
    The two nations are nuclear-armed.
    The countries are poor, and densely populated, making widespread misery inevitable.
    A war will make matters much worse
    External interference will increase after a war
    Multinational entities and capital will leave the region in droves, and development and commerce will be set back a century.

    However, as I said in the beginning, there is constrained logic that makes a hesitant case in favor of a war

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Russia attacking Iranian forces in Syria

Shortly after Nancy Pelosi visited Laredo, Texas and shook hands with mayor of Nuevo Laredo this happened