Very good thread. To me, the coddling of the Pakistani establishment and the abrupt pivot towards Iraq were the most baffling parts of the American response to 9/11.
Also, while everyone around me was gobsmacked by the loss of thousands of civilian lives, there was a noticeable undercurrent of "so-they-finally-realize-what-it-feels-like" to the effusive (and genuine) sympathy.
Because India had been bearing the brunt of terrorist/jihadist attacks for more than two decades before 9/11 happened. Thousands of innocent civilian lives were lost to these attacks. And every time, the reaction of 'the West' was, for want of a better expression, muted.
There was sympathy, but that sympathy was always drowned out by sanctimonious sermonizing and finger-wagging about human rights and the purported excesses by security forces in Kashmir and elsewhere.
All we got after an attack were patronizing lectures about the need for restraint and diplomacy and sensitivity to Pakistan's weak strategic position vis-a-vis India that made it go to such extreme lengths to restore parity.
Even the terrorists were not called 'terrorists'. They were 'militants', or 'gunmen' or 'armed men', or worse, 'freedom fighters'.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread on "Human Error" or "Pilot Error". These are widely misunderstood terms, and that lack of understanding is being used to float unhinged conspiracy theories. 🧵
People often see "human error" as an indictment of the pilot, an accusation that he or she made a mistake that could have been avoided. That is not so. It’s more about the limits of human interaction with fast-moving machines in high-pressure situations.
The human body has a natural sense of balance which ensures that people doing everyday activities don’t fall over. That sense hasn’t evolved to deal with high-speed flight in difficult conditions (say dense fog that blanks out all visual references). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_…
Patio furniture procured from Home Depot demonstrates how dependent the two countries are on the US for critical needs despite their professed independence.
Putin has his hands clasped tightly, while Modi's has cupped his palms together, demonstrating Russia's unwillingness/inability to provide what India wants despite Indian requests.
In short, the Russians treat indirect fires as the primary element, with maneuver forces only helping artillery get into position and seizing an objective after it has been devastated.
So the artillery footprint is very large, and the firepower is incredible, although imprecise.
Practically every great power has developed their own unique doctrines for war, and their equipment designs have flowed from that. Strange that a son-of-the-soil type gets it, but our intelligent, highly educated scholars don’t.
Assault Breaker is a prime example, but history is littered with several examples.
Maybe that right there is the bane of India. It has been run by too many Srinath Raghavans for too long 😶
The authors state that in confronting China, "The last option would, obviously, be to maintain the status quo — with 50,000-60,000 troops deployed at high altitudes..."
I want to argue that forcing a standoff along the land border should be India's *first* option, as this is where India's strengths lie.