One hears such inanities on newschannels. There was this anchor who tried very hard to convince everyone that any strike at the terror training camps in POK would be disastrous all round. REASON ?
If India attacks Pakistan from the east, it would withdraw its troops from the Northwest to cope with the invasion.
Didn't they have a large enough army for both fronts, when they can afford to export units of their army to other countries?
The net result, it was argued, would be that Taliban/AlQuaida would walk into Pakistan with impunity.
Aren't they there already,in any case?
So India must sit on its hands while Pakistani "non state players' strike at will anywhere in the country?
Condoleeza Rice was brought in to bolster the no-strike theory: that she came to specifically advise against any IAF strike againt the terror training camps in POK. So what's new? Is that not what the US has been doing for decades since Paksitan became its client state? Holding back India to protect its human and other assets embedded all over Pakistan and POK, even when it has no guarantee against those assets falling into rogue elements, Pakistani/Taliban/Quaida.
So how long do we continue to sit on our hands?