I've been here a long time; you're the new guy on the block with the reputation to demonstrate. So humor me.
I find very little information on the internet about this guy but someone with the same name is listed on the internet as a MD in Punjab.
The report is about the officers and speculates about their possible motivations. The report does not cite India's activity or inactivity as motivation. I suppose that's because it's commonly accepted outside of Pakistan that if there is truth in what you say then Pakistan is the provacateur and India merely reactive: there would be no "both do it" issue if not for Pakistani initiatives. You might label this belief "imaginary" but that's how it is for now.
The 1965 war is not cited in the article.
True or not, it doesn't diminish the embarrassments of the incident: that OBL was found in Abbottabad, that the Americans got in and out so easily, and that aiding the capture/assassination of an internationally-known terrorists was treated as treason to the State rather than loyalty to the long-suffering populace of Pakistan. (This last highlighted the attitude Pakistani leaders have long expressed, that the more Pakistanis who die in conflicts directed by their leaders then the holier the cause is and the more other countries should support them, rather than being a failure due to leaders' policy decisions.)
It's a summary article. As such, it's an indication of the current conclusions of such research by the authors. For lengthy details you'd have to search elsewhere.
I appreciate your comment and yes, the pro-India tilt of the article is clear. But this was the best article available that I'd found. If you want to point to better, less-biased sources, then by all means do so.
-You cannot mention motivation without context --- rather, you
can if you want to be biased as hell; the motivation is due to a very real threat; it's like mentioning the Zionist obsession with Iran without mentioning any of Iran's activities around Israel; it's disingenuous and, simply put, bad reporting
-He holds a PhD in material science or a related field (his thesis at a US university did the rounds on Pakistani social media)
-The embarrassment stands and Gen Kayani will one day pay for his stupid decision to not publicly include Pakistan's role in it (being perceived as complicit with the Americans against Al Qaeda, he felt, was worse for the morale of the Armed Forces than being perceived as incompetent and unable to stop the raid --- terrible decision by a dubious guy who is apparently being investigated these days); I think we switched points --- again, mine was about providing context and allowing the reader to have a more complete picture. I think we can agree that the reader would perceive that paragraph a bit differently if he/she knew that there was a serious possibility that the Pakistan High Command and intel helped the Americans conduct the raid and cover things up.
-It mentions that the Pakistan Army has lost all of its wars
-Again, a sentence of context in every paragraph and the few factual fixes recommended would not suddenly turn this article from a summary to a "lengthy piece" --- rather, it would elevate it to the basic standards of journalism expected on such sensitive topics. In fact, the context I've mentioned would, I think, have a pretty strong impact on the reader's perception of the situation (a more balanced one) so it's not fair to brush it all aside as some in-depth details that don't belong in a summary article.
It would be better for a person of your intelligence to
not share articles that, as you confessed, have a strong tilt (of any direction.) Peace.
