Some of the Pakistani officials who spoke of the redeployment said it was partly a response to new intelligence that suggested India could launch an attack inside Pakistan by early next week. All of them spoke on the condition of anonymity.
One senior Pakistani military official who said troops were being redeployed from the areas where government forces were engaging the Taliban, added that the soldiers who were leaving were “being pulled out of areas where no operations are being conducted,” or where winter weather had limited their ability to maneuver. He called the number of soldiers being moved “limited.”
He and another senior Pakistani military official interviewed Friday about the troop movements chose their words very carefully and offered few details. They said nothing harsh about India, even though they were speaking anonymously.
Pakistan Moves Troops as Tensions With India Rise
By RICHARD A. OPPEL JR. and SALMAN MASOOD
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan has begun moving some troops away from its western border with Afghanistan and has stopped soldiers from going on leave amid rising tensions with India, Pakistani officials said Friday.
Two of the officials said the troops were headed to the country’s border with India in the east.
The move is likely to frustrate the United States, which has been pressing Pakistan to battle militants in its lawless northwest territories and working hard to cool tempers in the two nuclear-armed countries, following terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, last month. Indian officials have blamed a Pakistani militant group for the attacks.
By late Friday there was little to indicate that the troop movements constituted a major redeployment.
One senior Pakistani military official said the decision to move forces and restrict furloughs was made “in view of the prevailing environment,” namely deteriorating relations with India since the terrorist attacks, which killed 163 victims. He added that the air force was “vigilant” and “alert” for the same reason.
With few details being presented, including how many soldiers were involved, it was unclear on Friday whether the troop movements reflected a serious fear of attack or were intended as a warning to India.
Several senior American officials said they had not seen evidence of major troop movements. Still, the developments prompted high-ranking Bush administration officials to call Pakistani officials to urge restraint.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Economic sanctions a possible response
The world's main option is to impose sanctions on Pakistan. Here is an anlysis of the options that leads to that conclusion ... (from http://businessandstate.blogspot.com/) 1. Do nothing (supporting assumption: Mumbai was a freak incident, and will not be repeated again) 2. Accelerate diplomacy with Pakistan (Assumption: They are willing, capable and ready to collaborate, and the all that is needed to facilitate such collaboration is greater exchange of information and views, and that further attacks will be prevented by this) 3. Work toward a diplomatic isolation of Pakistan (Assumption: Interests inimical to India can be weakened, and those likely to cooperate strengthened by such an isolation, and that further attacks will be prevented by this) 4. Work toward economic-sanctions against Pakistan (Assumption: The state is constitutionally opposed to India's weal, and the stress of economic isolation will drive reevaluation of institutional and national agenda, and that further attacks will be prevented by this) 5. Carry out surgical operations against terrorists on Pakistani soil (Assumption: The terrorists are well-identified, and isolated within Pakistani territory, that these attacka will deal a blow to their ability to reconstitute, and Pakistani government will not start supporting terrorists. Finally, that this will not lead to a disproportionate response from Pakistan, nor bring down civilian government, and that further Mumbai-like attacks will be prevented by this) 6. Carry out a full fledged invasion of Pakistan (Assumption: India will be able to permanently cripple Pakistan's ability to threaten India, and prevent Iraq-like instability in its aftermath. That a nuclear war would not ensue, nor will China opportnitstically make advances on Arunachal, etc. All this to prevent Mumbai-like attacks) (from http://businessandstate.blogspot.com/) In designing such options, and I admit myriad can be made up, we balance the fear that the response will be ineffective (numbers 1 and 2, for example) with the fear that they will be counterproductive (numbers 5 and six possibly) I think, given current threat level and India's limitations, options 3. and 4. cited above (diplomatic isolation OR economic sanctions) are the kinds we will want to choose from amongst. Combining them, we can either A. Go for maximum wattage, and seek economic sanctions against Pakistan, and demand clear, specific, time-based actions against them OR B. Build a case for economics sanctions, by allowing diplomatic isolation to fail My thinking in all this is that India is faced with a secular discontinuity here-- that Mumbai attacks we NOT a one-off incident, but the begining of what will be a sustained campaign against India. Do you agree? What options will you construct for India? (from http://businessandstate.blogspot.com/)
C: Let their mini-MAD scare
C: Let their mini-MAD scare both of them into detante, as it did the USofA and USSR.