All i can say on your response is that you are as baffled as Adam was on Mothers Day. Nevertheless, i would like to respond to a few points of yours...
Good that you think so.
On how Pakistan viewed the kargil War and the nuclear response even though you feel it was not great shakes, you may mull over this from a Pakistani newspaper:
and
Now if it was just another fun and games then why should Pakistan warn on the use of nuclear weapons?
See, there's a difference in hinting upon a move and actually being ready to execute the move. During Kargil it was the former case, during any misadventure involving Cold Start it would be the latter.
So, this brings us one step nearer to the fact that Kargil and Cold Start are indeed incomparable, so you were wrong when you countered my argument by quotes the Kargil instance.
As far as the Doctrine of Cold Start, it was not in vogue at that time.
This further strengthens my stance. As CSD not in effect during Kargil how would you view the both cases with a single eyepiece that's to say, the nuclear one.
The Doctrine was a fallout of the tardy mobilisation observed in Op Parikrama.
No doubt about that.
Since I do have a professional tag, while I can accept unprofessional comments, yet comments meant to inflame and embitter the already hostile opinions and cause further bad blood, does upset me. Wars are not the answer. Having seen quite a few of them, I presume it equips me to realise the horrors that accompany war and the distress it causes thereafter.
i have been trying to add the following to my signature, but couldnt as the text exceed the signature limitations:
Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war. ~Otto Von Bismark
i say so because i have also seen 'quite a few of them' (as if there were hundreds. But then speaking frankly the way i have seen you advocating CSD, i dont see that in consonance with your declared stance. Anyone who favors the possibility of a Limited War via the execution of CSD (that too under a nuclear umbrella) is nothing but someone who itches for war.
Further, Pakistan is going through a horrid time. There are the Drones. Its territorial integrity and sovereignty is being violated at will, and without even caring for the population's sentiments. The sectarian violence has reached a zenith where Pakistanis are killing Pakistanis in the name of religion. Where law and order is merely in deep slumber in the statute books. Where the economy is in such dire straits that a Central Minister has to visit Saudi Arabia for assistance for Pakistan's national budget. Where people are so fed up that they are in dharna to wake up the Administration including the military to protect Pakistan's pride. In that scenario, it is time for calm nerves, not only within Pakistan, but also in the neighbourhood. Whipping passions with half baked ideas is hardly the way ahead. If one believes that India revels in Pakistan's discomfort, then that is being shortsighted, for an implosion in Pakistan would hardly be in India's interest.
What this has to do with the topic? Refer to the opening statement of this post of mine.
Kargil, from the Pakistan point of view, may have been just another pinprick to India.
Cold Start would not be the same for Pakistan.
Now, see it from the Indian point of view and which one who analyse wars or plans war must take into consideration.
It is not Kargil that was important, it was the concept of Kashmir.
Let me give a Pakistani example to what is anguish of a symbolic issue:
Now, what is Saichen. A mere wasteland to many.
But is it to this Pakistan officer who claims 'my roots are in my boots'?
Powerful emotions.
The same emotions that spurred Musharraf who wanted to restore his military reputation having lost the Qaid Post - the name of the Post itself should give the importance that Pakistan assigned to the Post!!
How about if i tell you that i have been around the post lately?
Likewise, Kashmir is powerful emotions for Indians.
A loss in Kashmir is as if the world has collapsed.
Therefore, Kargil touched the Indian nerve, but good sense prevailed is all I can say. Many Indians dispute that such good sense should not have prevailed and India should have gone gung ho, but then they are history. A good thing that such wild ones were not charting the Indian response. It is not the worry over the nuclear war that makes me say so, it is just that after a full scale war, nuclear or conventional, both countries would have become economically backward and it would take a long time to recover. And who would suffer? Not the politicians, but you and me or should I say the common man.
Our COAS had to say what the politicians had decided and they had decided that there was no need to escalate the war or cross the LC to do the same.
i agree as regards to the emotions. But my question still begs an answer. For you Kashmir/Kargil and the concept of it thereof was very important, but how do you forget that Kashmir and its concept is also equally important to Pakistanis? You claim that 'sense prevailed' back then, but who is going to guarantee the same when the theater where Cold Start would be unfolded would not be limited to Kashmir only? Here i say, if you can synonymize Kargil with Kashmir (which is right though), we on the other hand synonymize every part of the LoC, Working Boundary and IB to include the deserts in the South and the marshes in the very South to Kashmir. Do you guarantee that that touching our nerve this time (by executing CS) would not let our sense to prevail? Can you? What calculus do you have to measure the threshold levels this time, since the world has become a more dangerous place ever since Kargil?
i reiterate, most importantly, that Kargil (which dwindled you concept of Kashmir) is no where near what Cold Start would dwindle this time when the theater would not be Kashmir alone, but the remainder of Pakistan!
You guarantee me this, i'll be happy to improve upon Cold Start alone with you. Until then, i dont buy your pasifistic stance, whatsoever.
