Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Hot Pursuit?

After every terrorist attack, the most gung-ho statement that is made is, pursue the terrorists to their dens and finish them off. Another variant of this is, launch missiles/air strikes against the camps in PoK. And I find, the repeated comparison with Israel.

Fine, agreed that hot pursuit and butchering of the militants is the best way to take revenge, but in that process one cannot skip over the status of the neighbouring country's arsenal. Lets analyse the situation in both cases:

Israel has been adopting this policy right from its formative years. It also ensured that future generations would not have to deal with neighbours armed to the teeth by subduing the enemy completely. See how Syria is still struggling to get Israel out of the Golan; see how Egypt and Jordan went in for a peace treaty; see how toothless Lebanon and Palestine are...

Contrast this with India which had the opportunity to finish off Pakistan in 1971, but didn't and instead went for the Shimla Agreement. Bangladesh is small but a significant thorn in the flesh. Out of these two, Pakistan has gone all the way to become nuclear too, and their army is not a pushover.

So, my dear GI Joes who want 'hot pursuit', how do we go about solving this problem? Back to square 1 aren't we???

1 comment:

Sharath Rao said...

I agree very much DK....parthasarathy's article was not ofcourse advocating hot pursuit....the least govt. can do is not to convey the impression that minorities will be pampered to preserve 'secularism' at any cost.