Nope I had read in detail regarding cold start and had a detailed debate in this forum. You can dig it up if you want to.
Also do you have the official memo of the doctrine.
Do you have the official objectives of Parakram from GOI.
Infact cold start is a perfect followup to Parakram. India had sent the message that it would not hesitate to use disproportionate force against Pakistan. Cold start is a perfect followup in that GOP will not buy the Indian bluff of Parkram next time.
Also even from open sources available regarding the objectives. Pray tell me what we did not achieve post Parakram that we would have achieved going to war. A war which was a non starter in the first place owing to US WOT.
IPF
PS: Icecold no need to get personal. Thanks
No one is getting personal here, you still failed to provide an answer for my question why was cold start doctrine initiated if everything according to you went smooth and Indian military achieved its goal? you may have had a detailed discussion, so did i and i think it was vinod who followed your logic but when i asked him what does india means when it says Musharraf out smart them, it took them more time then necessary to mobilize its forces, and by the time they were fully deployed, Pakistan was ready, he accepted that it was true indeed. So how come it becomes suddenly a success which otherwise is accepted as a failure? you see it did not achieve a damn thing, If you call Musharraf speech a victory, let me tell you that Pakistan was all along saying it was not involved in this all self created scenario or should i say drama same as now, his speech was no different either, he also said that we are ready to defend the country and for India to bring it on, i think you missed that part. Even now the GOP is saying that we are ready to act if shared with intelligence (although being criticized) but they have, now will you call that a victory also?
Let me say it again, the bases for cold start was the fact that the whole strategy of the Indian armed forces to strike on the so called terrorist cells inside Pakistan while not giving Pakistan the time to retaliate in 2002 were a failure and this has been accepted not by me but your very own people, now you want to take a different meaning out of it and call it a success, by all means you are most welcome, but i surely go for what the article says and what your defense analysis t says.
As for the objectives, they were very clear to attack Pakistan, the forces there were not deployed for a show only, it is however another thing that by the time Indian army fully mobilized, Pakistan was ready, and the operation had lost its true meaning(its mentioned in the article).
