How victory is defined depends on clear definition of the war's objectives. For the victory to have international legitimacy, both the war and the objectives should be supported by resolutions of the UN Security Council. Saddam Hussein's victory over Kuwait was overturned because it did not have such international legitimacy.

Of course, it is best if the enemy surrenders just because of the threat of war. If, instead, the enemy proposes half measures then the war must take place until the surrender is secured. Otherwise, the threat of war will not be credible ever again.

That is why war should not be threatened based on anger, pride, or to win an election. Remember George Bush, the father, and Winston Churchill who were both voted out of office despite resounding victories in legitimate wars.

It is well to recall the lessons of the 40-year Cold War. Despite its bitter enmity with the Soviet bloc, the US never once threatened real war although it was far superior in military strength and strategic depth than India is compared with Pakistan. Instead, it continually talked to the enemy to reduce the risk of war. Finally, it won because it proved that its values and system of governance are superior to those of totalitarian communism.

India is doing the opposite. Instead of demonstrating the superiority of its secular values and systems to Pakistanis and Kashmiris, India is threatening a war it cannot win. In fact, the government in Delhi might fall while Pakistan's regime becomes stronger. Pakistan's rulers do not need to win the war to strengthen their hold on power. They simply need to avoid a crushing defeat. That is easy because they have nuclear weapons and guided missiles that can devastate Delhi.

Securing the arrest and handover of a few terrorists is not a valid objective for war. The only valid objective must be to completely crush those who nurture and train terrorists. That means crushing all those in Pakistan's intelligence services (ISI) and army who hate India or want revenge for the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. To achieve that, India would have to replace Pervez Musharraf, the architect of the Kargil war, many members of his government and his army's top brass and many of its lower ranks. Those are impossible objectives for India.

If the threat of war is designed to pressure the US to force Pakistan to dismantle terrorism against India, the moment is badly chosen. This is not a time to create obstacles in the path of America's efforts to capture Usama Bin Laden and his cronies. It certainly is not the way to win the competition with Pakistan for the hearts and minds of the White House.

Patient diplomacy is the only way to go at this time. There is no doubt that the US will never tolerate access by radical Islamists to Pakistan's nuclear and conventional missiles. Once it has achieved its immediate war objectives, Washington will ensure the removal of such Islamists from all elements of power in Pakistan in the shortest possible time. That will automatically put an end to Pakistan's proxy war in India.

To keep Pakistan under its thumb, Washington will inevitably have to maintain friendly relationships with malleable Pakistani regimes. That is in India's interest and should not ring alarm bells in Delhi. Instead, India should try to profit from another certainty, namely, that Washington prefers India as its regional partner because Delhi will never export nuclear and missile capabilities to an Islamic regime. India's economy also has the strategic depth necessary for the war against terrorism, which is likely to continue for some decades.

It is true that fighting an all-out war with Pakistan is probably cheaper than another 20 years of fighting Pakistani-sponsored terrorism in India. However, it is equally true that any Indian victory will not be crushing enough to force the profound political and military changes required for India's security. Only America's power can achieve that for India.

Those who counsel against trusting the US should remember that no American government ever let down an ally during the Cold War. There is no reason to expect that the US will betray India by allowing Pakistan to sponsor terrorism against India, if Delhi is a loyal ally in America's war against terrorism.

Of course, India should go ahead with the war with Pakistan if it is sure of victory, but let it not run to the US or Europe for face-saving devices if it fails. Delhi will also do well to remember that the war will be fought during a global economic recession and a $130 billion default on foreign debt by Argentina. Those are sure to place intolerable tax burdens on business and the middle class, while causing ordinary Indians to fall further into poverty. The shortest route for governments to win elections is by providing economic and social progress to people. There is no recent example of a democratic government being returned to power because of the macho celebrations caused by a military victory in war.