Bill Roggio, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, joined "Forbes Newsroom" to discuss the latest in escalating tensions between India and Pakistan.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Hi, everybody. I'm Brittany Lewis, a breaking news reporter here at Forbes. Joining me now
00:06is Bill Vragio, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Bill, thank you so
00:11much for joining me. Thank you, Brittany. It's a pleasure to join you. I wanted today to talk
00:17about the escalating conflict we've seen between India and Pakistan. And this week has really
00:22reignited a decades-long conflict between the two countries. But India launched an airstrike
00:27this week on Pakistan and said the action was a retaliation for a terror attack last month.
00:32So to start off the conversation, can you talk to us about the impetus for the latest
00:36fries and hostilities? Yes. The strikes by India, which they said targeted terrorist training camps,
00:43which I give a lot of credence to. At least one case, it seems to be confirmed. It seems the
00:48brother of a senior terrorist leader, the group Jais Mohammed, was killed. He himself was a U.S.
00:54designated terrorist as well. And other locations are consistent with where Pakistan has run terrorist
01:01training camps. Now, on April 22nd, a group calls itself the Kashmir Resistance, which is a front group
01:11for another terrorist organization backed by the Pakistani state known as Lashri Taiba. It launched
01:18an attack in the Indian state of Jamal and Kashmir. The attack was much like the Mumbai, 2008 Mumbai
01:25attack. They infiltrated terrorists. They identified individuals as being Hindu. They didn't want to
01:32target Muslims. And they executed them on the spot. 26 people were killed. And I believe some over 40 were
01:39wounded in the attack. The Indians have traced this back unsurprisingly to Pakistan. The Pakistanis claim
01:46they have no hand in this, but everyone knows that Lashkari Taiba is a Pakistani-sponsored,
01:55supported, and funded terrorist organization. All of these attacks that occur in India,
02:01they're ultimately traced back to Pakistani terror groups that operate under the aegis of the
02:08Pakistani state. This is a new conflict between India and Pakistan. These countries have a long
02:17history of conflicts dating back to 1947. So is this latest clash similar to past conflicts?
02:25Yeah. So the history of it, right, the dispute over the Jammu and Kashmir region,
02:30which dates all the way back, as you noted, to the partition. Pakistan in the 1970s realized they
02:37couldn't get Jammu and Kashmir back militarily. So what it decided to do was it decided to use
02:45terrorism as a tool of statecraft to try to weaken the Indian government, to try to get the Indian
02:52government to just give up on maintaining this territory. And that's how it began backing these
02:57terrorist organizations. A lot of this, you know, stemmed out of the war in Afghanistan when Pakistan
03:03realized that it can use Islamic extremist organizations to further their goals. And it's
03:10only escalated over the last several decades. You know, I'd look at a couple of significant attacks
03:16that were somewhat similar to what we witnessed in April, the December 2001 attack on Indian
03:22parliament, which was launched by Lashkar-e-Kaiba and Jaish Muhammad. Two terror groups were targeted
03:27in this, in the other day's attack. You had the 2008 attack, November 2008 in Mumbai. That was when
03:35Lashkar-e-Kaiba terror assault teams killed almost 170 people and attacked this throughout, rampaged
03:43throughout the city for three days straight. Then you had an attack in Uri in Kashmir, where 17 Indian
03:49soldiers were killed in an attack on a base. So this is just of a piece really of the Pakistani
03:56supported terrorist organizations. These terror organizations, by the way, aren't just domestic
04:02terror organizations seeking the independence of Kashmir, but they're allied with Al Qaeda,
04:08with the Taliban. They train, they support. Lashkar-e-Kaiba was stood up with the help of an individual
04:16named Abdul Azam, who's known as the godfather of jihad. And Osama bin Laden encouraged Hafez
04:22Saeed, who is the head of Lashkar-e-Kaiba, to establish the terror group. So that's, so it's,
04:28it has a local component. And this is all what Al Qaeda does as a local component, and it links
04:33into the global component as well. I want to talk about what Pakistan said, because this is India's
04:39largest military attack on Pakistan since 2019. And the officials there said that the strikes
04:45were, quote, an unprovoked and blatant act of war, and they, quote, violated Pakistan's sovereignty.
04:51They also added that India deployed the attack based on, quote, the false pretext of the presence
04:56of imaginary terrorist camps. What are your thoughts on this? Because I know that last part you already
05:00addressed, you said that there, you see good evidence that there were at least on one location
05:05and terrorist camp that was attacked. Yeah, Pakistan routinely denies that it supports
05:11terrorist organizations. There is ample evidence for the presence of terrorist organizations in
05:17Pakistan. And I'll use Lashkar-e-Kaiba, I keep going back to that, but it's the premier terrorist
05:21organization. Its leader, Hafez Saeed, he appears on television. He's a U.S. specially designated global
05:28terrorist. His organization is a foreign terrorist organization. It operates a, basically,
05:34think of it as a university outside of the town of, or city of Lahore in Maritke. It's called the
05:42Markhazi Taiba. It has recruiting centers. It has training camps. It has their own hospital. It has
05:50gymnasium. It has a swimming pool. It has, you know, again, I just likened it to, like, a university
05:56within a city. This is what you see. This is, and that's just one of these terrorist groups.
06:02Jaish Muhammad has a presence in a town. There was a strike where an individual who is, again,
06:09a U.S.-listed specially designated global terrorist, he is reported to have been killed. His brother
06:15is, you know, operates freely within Pakistan. I could go on and on, Brittany, with all the terror
06:20organizations that exist within Pakistan with the support of the state. That's a really interesting
06:27point. I want to dive a little deeper in there, because if they have such well-run terrorist camps,
06:32terrorist organizations, how does Pakistan's government involve themselves with that, if at
06:38all? I mean, how do they, do they work in tandem? What does that exactly look like?
06:42So, the reality is, in Pakistan, the military and its intelligence agency, the Inner Service
06:47Intelligence Directory, is really what calls the shots in Pakistan. The Pakistani government is merely a
06:54facade. It exists at the pleasure of the Pakistani state. So, if the, you know, at times, now, for
07:03instance, after Mumbai or after other terrorist attacks, for instance, Hafez Saeed, who's the head
07:08of Lashkar-e-Taiba, he was put under house arrest. He was put in supposedly in detention. But then it goes
07:16to court. The court says, oh, he's not guilty of anything, and he's set free. He's never really even put
07:22in jail. So, this is what Pakistan says. Look, we're doing everything we can, but, well, it's not our fault
07:28that the court system, you know, let Hafez Saeed. There is not a single individual, and the U.S. and India
07:36has directly linked individuals, and I'll just use Mumbai as an example, to that attack. Members, two members
07:42of the Pakistani military, no one in Pakistan has faced justice for the Mumbai attack almost two decades
07:48later. It's, Pakistan does what it needs to do to convince, you know, the people with short attention
07:57spans in our government and within the international community that it's doing something. It does just
08:03enough. Everyone turns around and looks at the next shiny object, the next big problem, and the next
08:07thing you know, Pakistan is right back at it. So, then where do we go from here, then? Does it look
08:13like India and Pakistan are going to go in all-out, full-out war? Because I want to read what each
08:19country said. Pakistan's defense minister said this, quote, if India attacks, we'll respond. If India
08:24backs down, we'll definitely wrap up. But the country did respond, said that they had the right to respond
08:29to the latest strikes. And an Indian official said this, quote, the Indian armed forces are fully
08:34prepared to respond to Pakistani misadventures, if any, that will escalate the situation. So, does either
08:40side want to go into war? What do you think? I don't think either side wants a full-blown war. They're
08:46both nuclear powers. A nuclear exchange would devastate each country. So, look, after the attack
08:53on parliament and the attack on Mumbai, India didn't respond, even though it had specific evidence,
08:59very clear evidence that linked both Pakistan and these terror groups to it. Only after 2016
09:06began, did India begin responding. So, it, in my opinion, has been far, far more patient than it
09:13should be. What we've seen since the India has responded since 2006 flow is that these conflicts
09:19got to a certain point. India would respond militarily. Pakistan may do something. There
09:24might be an exchange of fire. But ultimately, these conflicts have de-escalated. The, you know,
09:31cooler heads have prevailed. And also, the U.S. doesn't want a nuclear exchange. Europe,
09:36nobody in the region wants a nuclear exchange. And the Chinese, which share a border with both
09:41India and Pakistan, don't want nuclear fallout coming across the border. Even though the Chinese
09:46benefit by a weakened India, it's because their competitors or adversaries, whatever you want to,
09:54however you want to describe that, they don't want to see a nuclear exchange. So, the odds are very
09:58good that they'll both back down. But then again, you're dealing, and I was worried, I don't worry
10:03about India. I worry about Pakistan. Because Pakistan is a nuclear power that uses terrorism
10:09as a tool of statecraft. And that, in itself, is insane. But, you know, they used it to get the
10:16United States to leave Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban and other terrorist organizations there.
10:22They've learned, from their perspective, the right lessons, but from the world's perspective,
10:26all the wrong lessons. And that's dangerous and unpredictable. But I suspect enough pressure
10:32will be put on them, particularly by the Chinese, who do provide them weapons and other military
10:38material and do wield some influence within Pakistan. I mean, that's an interesting point,
10:43that both India and Pakistan have nuclear capabilities. So, that adds a lot here. What do
10:49you think specifically that adds to the rest of the world? Is the rest of the world more on guard,
10:54more paying attention to this conflict? Yeah, you know, there's conflicts between states
11:01throughout the world. The nuclear angle is what gets everyone's attention here. This is what
11:06nobody wants a nuclear exchange. You know, at that point, all bets are off. Can this bleed over
11:14into if India feels insecure, and there is a nuclear exchange? How does China react? Then how does the
11:20U.S. react? Once nuclear weapons are in the air and on target, all bets are off. And that's what
11:29terrifies, you know, all world leaders and should terrify every citizen of the globe. And this is why
11:35there'll be a lot of pressure put to bear on the Indians and the Pakistanis to deescalate here.
11:41Again, the Indians certainly, you know, they got much better things to do. They're a developing
11:46country that's, you know, they're growing. They don't want these problems. It's Pakistan
11:51is the instigator in all of these, in all of these incidents by using terrorism to further a goal
11:59that they're just not going to achieve. Does Pakistan know that it's not going to achieve this goal?
12:06I mean, why keep trying for decades and decades and decades? What is the impetus there? Do they
12:12think that one day that they'll win against India? I think the Pakistanis believe that they can wear
12:19the Indians down and regain control. Perhaps the Indians tire of this conflict. Perhaps a political
12:26party is elected that decides it doesn't want to deal with this problem anymore. But I don't see that
12:33happening. This is, you know, there's been different parties throughout the last 70 years,
12:39and all of them have stood firm on the issue of Jamal and Kashmir. But this is what makes
12:43what happened in Afghanistan so, so dangerous. The Pakistanis, by supporting the Taliban
12:48and other terrorist organizations, they forced the withdrawal of the U.S. and got their,
12:53got their guy in government in Afghanistan. They got the Taliban in power. So they smell blood in the
13:00water. They think, they think that they can achieve a victory. They saw that they achieved
13:04a victory in Afghanistan. Why not just stick it out longer? I think that's the way the Pakistanis
13:08think here. President Trump responded to the conflict. He said he gets along with both countries
13:14and that India and Pakistan have both, quote, gone tit for tat. And hopefully they can stop now. He also
13:20added, if I can do anything to help, I'll be there. What do you think, A, of that response? And B,
13:25the United States' position, what, if anything, does the United States need to do?
13:30Well, the United States should just be counseling the Indians to not escalate,
13:34first and foremost. As far as the response, it's somewhat disappointing, only in this sense. And
13:39look, I'm a person who followed Afghanistan very closely for the last two decades. The loss there,
13:45it was a unforced error by the United States. We did not have to lose that war. We abandoned an ally.
13:52And everyone knows that Pakistan is the main driver for this. Without Pakistan's support of giving the
14:00Taliban safe haven weapons, cash, all of the support that it gave to the Taliban, the Taliban would have
14:08been a shell of itself. Then you would have had an imperfect but functioning government within
14:15Afghanistan that would have been an American ally. So to say that the U.S. has good relations with
14:22Pakistan, it's disappointing to me. But maybe I'm a little too close to that issue.
14:29I know that the big question on the world's lips is, are these two countries on the brink of war
14:34here? And you're saying they don't seem to want to go out into a full-out war. The rest of the world
14:39certainly doesn't want to see two nuclear-capable countries in a full all-out war. So what specifically
14:45are you looking out for next?
14:47Yeah, I'm waiting for... The Pakistanis haven't launched a retaliatory attack against India at
14:54this moment. So that to me is the real question. What I've seen in the Pakistani press and statements
15:00from Pakistani leaders is a lot of bluster that they've shot down Indian jets and they've foiled
15:06this and they've stopped that. They're putting the pressure on the Indians. But what I haven't seen
15:10them do is launch a full-scale attack on India. To me, what I'm looking for is the first country to
15:16blink. Will it be India? Will it be Pakistan? The last round in 2019, India launched some strikes
15:23against Pakistan. Pakistan did a minimal response and it de-escalated from there. The question for
15:29me is, will the Indians allow the Pakistanis to get the last word here? So I do believe that this
15:37will de-escalate. I'm just more interested in how this de-escalates. I suspect the Indians
15:42will want to have the last word, will want to launch the last rocket or the last artillery shell
15:48into Pakistan because, frankly, this government is quite tired of the antics of the Pakistani state.
15:57Well, there's certainly a lot to look out for. And as this situation continues to develop,
16:01I hope you come back on and join me and break it down. Bill Raggio, thank you for coming on.
16:06Always a pleasure. Thanks for having me.