India and Pakistan have experienced numerous militarized engagements and three wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir. Of particular note is that India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear status has not resolved the security challenges of Kashmir; in fact, it has continued to be a flashpoint for open conflict between the two nuclear powers. New episodes of tension provide an opportunity for reflection on the risks of crisis escalation in South Asia.
The latest crisis episode between India and Pakistan over Kashmir emerged following months of significant unrest in the Kashmir Valley. On September 18, militants attacked an Indian Army base in the Uri sector of Kashmir, which resulted in the deaths of 19 soldiers. Arguing that the militants originated from Pakistan, India accused Pakistan of supporting cross-border terrorism. Amidst a cacophony of media voices and strategic analysts calling for an aggressive response, India began reviewing punitive diplomatic and economic options.
Then, on September 29, India surprised many by for the first time publicly claiming to have conducted surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads across the Line of Control (LoC) in parts of Pakistani-held territory. This move carried escalatory potential especially in an environment of poor information, compressed decision making, and strong incentives for action to appease domestic audiences. However, Pakistan appeared to deflect these pressures by denying that such surgical strikes ever occurred, choosing not to respond and allowing the potential crisis to subside.
American support for India’s position just before the publicizing of surgical strikes may imply at least tacit acceptance. However, it also urged restraint and likely worked behind the scenes to dissuade either side from making a “third move.”
Most American policymakers tend to neglect competitive dynamics in South Asia until a crisis erupts bringing the nuclear-armed rivals to the brink of war. Although American attention quickly returns to other priorities after the abatement of a crisis, there are always lessons to be gleaned before the next inevitable cycle. In this recent case, some features are encouraging for crisis stability, while others could prove troubling in the future.
Read the full article on The Cipher Brief here.
South Asia
India and Pakistan have experienced numerous militarized engagements and three wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir. Of particular note is that India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear status has not resolved the security challenges of Kashmir; in fact, it has continued to be a flashpoint for open conflict between the two nuclear powers. New episodes of tension provide an opportunity for reflection on the risks of crisis escalation in South Asia.
The latest crisis episode between India and Pakistan over Kashmir emerged following months of significant unrest in the Kashmir Valley. On September 18, militants attacked an Indian Army base in the Uri sector of Kashmir, which resulted in the deaths of 19 soldiers. Arguing that the militants originated from Pakistan, India accused Pakistan of supporting cross-border terrorism. Amidst a cacophony of media voices and strategic analysts calling for an aggressive response, India began reviewing punitive diplomatic and economic options.
Then, on September 29, India surprised many by for the first time publicly claiming to have conducted surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads across the Line of Control (LoC) in parts of Pakistani-held territory. This move carried escalatory potential especially in an environment of poor information, compressed decision making, and strong incentives for action to appease domestic audiences. However, Pakistan appeared to deflect these pressures by denying that such surgical strikes ever occurred, choosing not to respond and allowing the potential crisis to subside.
American support for India’s position just before the publicizing of surgical strikes may imply at least tacit acceptance. However, it also urged restraint and likely worked behind the scenes to dissuade either side from making a “third move.”
Most American policymakers tend to neglect competitive dynamics in South Asia until a crisis erupts bringing the nuclear-armed rivals to the brink of war. Although American attention quickly returns to other priorities after the abatement of a crisis, there are always lessons to be gleaned before the next inevitable cycle. In this recent case, some features are encouraging for crisis stability, while others could prove troubling in the future.
Read the full article on The Cipher Brief here.
Photo credit: NASA’s Earth Observatory via Flickr.
Recent & Related
The UN Annually Votes on Ending the US Embargo on Cuba. What Does it Mean for Unilateral Sanctions and Their Impact on Human Rights?
Experts React: The Midterms and America’s Place in the World
The Lame-Duck Period is Full of Peril in the War on Iran
Is Reforming the UNSC Realistic? Article 27(3) of the UN Charter Offers a Starting Point.
Beyond the Populist Zeitgeist
A New Transatlantic Equilibrium
Forging a European Foreign Policy
A Superpower in Decline
What Is Going on in Cybersecurity?
The Implications of Ukraine’s Starshield Access for the US Military
Egypt’s Parallel Inc. & the Myth of Sovereign Efficiency
Four Years to 2030: Can Member States Deliver Affordable and Clean Energy for All?
Find an Expert
Home to more than 100 scholars and global affiliates, the Stimson Center is proud to be a magnet for the world’s leading experts on the most pressing foreign policy and national security issues of our time. Explore our experts and their work.