Submitted By: Dilawar Rizwan Cheema

Submitted to: Sir Bisharat Ali

Roll No: BI-3356

Subject: DSS

Topic: Limited Warfare, AJK Line of Control

Date: 09 Dec, 2021

Dept of International Relations NUML University

Limited Warfare:

Limited war is a geographically confined conflict short of general war in which the political aim,
space, time and the weapons used are limited. According to André Biasfree, a French strategist,
“Limited wars are a sort of tough negotiations”. In limited war belligerents do not use all of
the resources at their disposal, whether they are human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural,
technological, or other resources. This may be to preserve those resources for other purposes, or
because it might be more difficult for the participants to use all of an area's resources rather than
part of them. Limited war is the opposite concept to total war. Conflict of unlimited scope in
which a belligerent engages in a mobilization of all available resources at their disposable
whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological or otherwise, in order to
entirely destroy of render beyond use their rivals capacity to continue resistance In total war
there is less or no differentiation between combatants and noncombatants (civilian), than in other
conflicts as nearly every person from a particular country or opposing area, civilians and soldiers
alike can be considered to be part of the war effort. The goal of the government has been to bring
about the surrender of the enemy. Objective military objective is to achieve the enemy’s
surrender at a minimal cost of resources/ national treasure. The term limited war implies regular
military operations by one nation-state against the regular military force of another nation-state
and excludes irregular operations by terrorist organizations against state or by other non-state
actors like warlords against a state or against other warlords.

Example:

Crimean War:

British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston decided to fight a limited war against Russia since

waging a total war would have required massive reform of the armed forces.

Vietnam War:

The concept of limited war was also used in the Vietnam War by the United States under
Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson as part of a strategy to contain the spread
of communism without provoking a wider confrontation with the Soviet Union. Richard Barnet,
who quit the State Department in 1963 after because he disagreed with Kennedy's incremental
Vietnam escalation, described his misgivings in 1968: "The President had rejected major military
intervention as a conscious policy, but he had set in force the bureaucratic momentum that would
make it a certainty.

War of Attrition:

The War of Attrition, fought between Israel and Egypt from 1967 to 1970, mostly consisted of

artillery shelling, aerial warfare, and small-scale raids.

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia:

The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, part of the Kosovo War, was a limited war for NATO,
[5]
 which predominantly used a large-scale air campaign to destroy Yugoslav military
infrastructure from high altitudes.

In 1981, John Garnett, one of the founders of modern strategic studies, wrote: “Only conflicts
which contain the potentiality for becoming total can be described as limited.”
Diplomat Robert McClintock wrote in 1967: “Limited war is a conflict short of general war to
achieve specific political objectives, using limited forces and limited force.”

In his classic 1957 work, the best-known theorist of limited war, political scientist Robert
Osgood, defined this kind of conflict in terms of the objective sought and (among other things)
by the fact that the combatants “do not demand the utmost military effort of which the
belligerents are capable.”

Limited War under the Nuclear Umbrella:

Since the creation of India and Pakistan, both countries have been involved in several conflicts
that continue to pose the risk of inadvertent war. These conflicts include the Kashmir dispute,
territorial disputes such as Siachen, a nuclear arms race, and water disputes. Unlike in the past
any future war between the two countries no matter how limited it might be will have the
potential to escalate into a full scale nuclear war in light of the changed strategic environment.
Pakistan’s future will remain in the shadows of crises with India, haunted by the specter of
nuclear war. Whether India attempts to exercise limited war options to settle its issues with
Pakistan, an action that may escalate to the level of mutual destruction. Security concerns limit
Pakistan’s policy options, but given a choice it would definitely focus internally on economic
revival and national integration aimed at realizing the vision of Pakistan as a liberal, tolerant,
progressive, dynamic, and strong but enlightened moderate Islamic state where theocracy will
have no place. The same formula for focusing on human development is equally applicable to
India as well. Stability which is a hallmark for attaining these objectives can be achieved
provided that both countries instantly take plausible steps based on ground realities. These steps
will prevent war otherwise both countries will engage in war and both countries are now nuclear
power. And nuclear power engages in current era means destruction of whole world or WWIII.
But nuclear weapon also plays a role of deterrence between the states and also lemmatize the war
because no country want to engage with nuclear power. For instance Pak and India both
countries caught in conflict of Kashmir and fought 3 wars on Kashmir but now both are nuclear
power India became nuclear power in 1974 and Pakistan became nuclear power in 1998. After
getting nuclear power both countries engage with each other in limit and no one dare to attack on
other state or announce war. But both countries engaging on LOC since 1972 but this is limited
war for short period of time and limited goal.

AJK LOC:

Foreign Attaches visit LoC in AJK

Kashmir conflict start with the partition of India in 1947 both countries claimed  the entirety of
the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. India controls approximately 55% of the land
area of the region that includes Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, most of Ladakh, the Siachen
Glacier and 70% of its population. Pakistan controls approximately 35% of the land area that
includes Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan and China controls the remaining 20% of the land
area that includes the Aksai Chin region, the mostly uninhabited Trans-Karakoram Tract, and
part of the Demchok sector. The LOC is a 450 mile-long military control line which serves as a
frontier slicing the disputed Indian and Pakistani governed parts of Kashmir into two. Both
countries claim the region in full. The line is covered in most parts with heavy coils of barbed
wire a fence put in place by India and dotted with Indian and Pakistani check-posts. Still, people
manage to squeeze through undetected. Both states are in state of war from the start of the day on
Kashmir conflict. Both countries fought three wars and many other armed skirmishes. The
resulting Indo-Pakistani War ended with a UN-mediated ceasefire along a line that was
eventually named the Line of Control. After further fighting in the wars of 1965 and 1971,
the Simla Agreement formally established the Line of Control between the two nations
controlled territories. The LOC isn’t a legally recognized boundary because it was meant to be a
provisional international border which was agreed upon by both countries in the 1972 agreement.
The unsettled nature of the border has kept the conflict between India and Pakistan alive over 69
years since independence from British colonial rule.

A number of villages lie between the Indian fence and the zero. In the Tithwal area 13 villages
are in front of the Indian fence. The total number between the fence and zero line on the Indian
side is estimated to be 60 villages and at least one million people are spread over the districts
adjacent to the LoC from Rajouri to Bandipora. The Line of Control divided the Kashmir into
two and closed the Jhelum valley route, the only way in and out of the Kashmir
Valley from Pakistani Punjab. This ongoing territorial division severed many villages and
separated family members. Some families could see each other along the LoC in locations such
as the Neelum River, but were unable to meet. In certain locations women on the Pakistan side
on the LoC have been instrumental in influencing infiltration and ceasefire violations they have
approached nearby Pakistani Army camps directly and insisted infiltration stop, which reduces
India's cross LoC firing. Civilian population is highly affected with the violation of ceasefire.
Shelling and firing by both sides along the LoC has resulted in civilian deaths and damage of
infrastructure or property (Homes, animals, fields etc). Especially from the Pakistan side civilian
deaths ration is more because huge amount of population is living on the edge of LoC.  Bunkers
have been constructed for these civilian populations for protection during periods of CFV's.
Limited Warfare on LOC:

Both countries Pakistan and India fought limited warfare on LOC since 1972. UN play a role of
mediator between Pakistan and India and draw a control line between Kashmir to ceasefire. Both
countries deploy huge amount of forces in Kashmir and take the control of LOC. Now LOC is
under the control of troops from both sides. In 2018 two corps and a number of battalions of
the Border Security Force manned the Indian side of the LoC. The Rawalpindi Corps manned the
Pakistani side. Ceasefire violations (CFV's) are initiated and committed by both sides and show
symmetry. The response to a CFV at one location can lead to shooting at an entirely different
area. Weapons used on the LoC include small arms, rocket-propelled grenades, recoilless
rifles, mortars, automatic grenade launchers, rocket launchers and a number of other direct and
indirect weaponry. 
Military personnel on both sides risk being shot by snipers in moving vehicles, through bunker
peepholes and during meals. Civilian population is highly affected with the violation of
ceasefire. Shelling and firing by both sides along the LoC has resulted in civilian deaths and
damage of infrastructure or property (Homes, animals, fields etc). Especially from the Pakistan
side civilian deaths ration is more because huge amount of population is living on the edge of
LoC.  Bunkers have been constructed for these civilian populations for protection during periods
of CFV's.

Pak and India both countries are rivals with each others. Both engage in war many times on the
issue of Kashmir but this issue is not solved yet by UN. Because UN play a role of mediator after
1971 war and draw a Line of control in 1972 and both countries signed the Simla Agreement to
define what was previously called the “ceasefire line.” But both countries violate ceasefire on
line of control and attack on other checkpostes. But this war is limited war with limited time and
limited goals. Because not all resources are used in LOC clashes if they use all resources like
human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or other resources than this war
convert into total war. Both countries are not able to fought total war because both are nuclear
powers. 1n 1948 America nuclear attack on Japan whole world saw the destruction of nuclear
weapon and yet no other country bare to use Nuclear weapon. Nine countries in the world have
nuclear power Pakistan and India is one of them and both are neighbors both are caught in
Kashmir conflict but both are bound to attack on other. So their use limited war strategy to fulfill
their golas.