Hidden somewhere in the narrative are encouraging signs of offensive action - that the military objective is to surround, kill or capture the 300. In the terrain that prevails between Kargil and Drass, converting this objective into military action probably calls for placing troops behind the mercenaries with night-flying MI-17s and MI-26s. This presupposes an exact geographical knowledge of militant presence, a piece of intelligence that is more likely to be brought in by either heliborne infrared sensors, or by uavs (ultra-light aerial vehicles). This again presupposes that the army, the army aviation corps, the uavs (under the artillery) and the iaf are using the same maps, with the same accuracies provided by the global positioning system (gps). The iaf must certainly be 'brought in', but to a professional, dropping iron bombs and firing unguided rockets from Mig-21s, 23s, 27s and MI-17s on militants perched atop 10,000-foot peaks does not constitute a meaningful use of air power. It is clear that the air force is responding in the best manner possible to an sos received quite recently.But having done so, some serious and extremely urgent thinking is necessary. Of course, the Indian army will prevail in the end, it always has. But can't we induct the best technology and save hundreds of lives over a decade by raising the exchange ratio? Instead of our soldiers fighting an endless supply of international fundamentalists, wouldn't it make more sense to kill lots of stateless terrorists with impersonal technology? Some very hard questions need to be answered. Are the forces in Kashmir using digitised maps with gps lock-ins? This technology is available today in any bmw car, off the shelf for a few hundred dollars. Can the army and the air force pinpoint the presence of militants on the peaks on a digitised map, having located them with infrared/uav/high frequency radar? Can troops be landed to cut off the militants' retreat by night-flying helicopters? In the us, these question would probably be asked by a congressional committee; but our parliamentary committee on defence has been a toothless bunch of joyriders for decades, so only the press can raise these questions.