Did I denied that there were no death of soldiers? India has been quite open when it comes to accepting its casualties and it is reported as and when it happens.
On the other hand it is quite amusing to see that when an operation zarb-e-azab is still under way you are moving your soldiers from that front to another. Doesn't it means that you guys lack experienced soldiers or your training is not up to the mark which forces you to use the same set soldiers on two fronts thereby diluting your resolve at both fronts?
Running a anti-terrorism operation (Zarb-e-azb) should not be considered as a battle worthy, this mistake unfortunately both the sides are making (India as well as Pakistan)? I hope this is not the case with the uniformed ones on both sides of the border but rather to rabble rousing cheerleaders on this forum.
It is quite sickening to see that many of the forum contributors here cheer on the death of person who is simple doing his duty. That death of the soldier no matter is in Khaki's or olive greens should matter and many should see madness in celebrating the death or cheering of it on this forum.
This shows you're a layman who has no idea about how a military operates and what is the concept of COIN or what is low intensity conflict or any thing about the presently prevelent assymetric threat environment. I will answer your querry in parts.
1) Military units are rotated after certain time , not kept at a single place throughout their lives, it is stupidity to even assume that. They are rotated not only to LOC but other parts throughout the country and viceversa. This is common in every military including yours.
2) If troops are inexperienced why do Jordanians, Saudis, Iraqis, Nigerians and Srilankans send their troops to be trained at our Counter Terrorism Training centers. Or why do Americans, Russians or the Chinese train with us. The concept is to share the experience of real time warfare , since these countries experience similar situations i.e asymmetric threats.
3) Now lets see if Zarb-e-Azb qualifies which according to you it doesn't. Right across the border in Afghanistan , 28 country coalition of one of the world's most powerful militaries have failed to counter the growing insurgency since last 17 years. If assymetric warfare wasn't considered a serious threat in today's environment then Americans would have won in Afghanistan, there would have been no IS in Iraq or Syria and Russians and Americans wouldn't have been fighting in Middle East. These wars have costed thousands of lives for militaries of great powers and are the biggest challenge for today's world. Pakistan has defeated and pushed Uzbeks (IMU), TTP (part of which merged into IS in Afghanistan) across the border, thereby ensuring a full throttled Control, Hold and Build strategy. Major operations are over, now people are being rehabilitated and reconstruction is in full swing. It is the only country in the region perhaps other than Srilanka to have successfully defeated an insurgency. Your view of today's threat environment is absolutely naive. As a student of International relations I can tell you, had you been one, the way you dismissed the importance and experience of Post-Modern warfare, you would fail in the most basic test.
4) Human life no matter of which country is important. As I said again, in statecraft and the games nations play with each other , militaries and soliders are used as instruments of power projection. It is realpolitik which governs the relations, morality takes a back seat , these are different from induvidual one on one relations. While my sympathies are with families of those who lost their lives, national interests tend to be supreme. For that Pakistan resorts to reciprocity principle and that is what we are seeing at LOC.
