What's new

Kargil: A Debacle or A Lost Opportunity?

You do realize that Pakistan was the aggressor rite?

In such circumstances, India was supposed to say "Oh...Pakistan is withdrawing....lets stop attacking and sit on our a*sses"

Be realistic dude. Its obvious that India wouldn't stop attacking till it was sure that the last Pakistani had left.
 
You do realize that Pakistan was the aggressor rite?

In such circumstances, India was supposed to say "Oh...Pakistan is withdrawing....lets stop attacking and sit on our a*sses"

Be realistic dude. Its obvious that India wouldn't stop attacking till it was sure that the last Pakistani had left.

Again, regardless of who the "aggressor" was, my question goes to whether there is a convention of attacking retreating troops, when a "withdrawal" has been officially announced.

Does "being an aggressor" mean that the other nation execute POW's?

Using the logic of your second sentence, does "being an aggressor" mean that surrendering troops can be gunned down?

Again, there are many logical, non jingoistic arguments than can be raised that would justify the continued targeting of supply routes after a withdrawal had been announced, but none of you has bothered to even explore them yet.

IPF:

The US actions in targeting that withdrawal were also criticized by some as "war crimes" and unjustified. I would imagine then that unless some other argument is advanced some of that criticism would be applicable to the Indian actions as well?
 
Again, regardless of who the "aggressor" was, my question goes to whether there is a convention of attacking retreating troops, when a "withdrawal" has been officially announced.

What I'm saying, is that how was India to trust that Pakistani troops were indeed withdrawing and sit on its a*ss? IT doesn't make sense.

There was no formal surrender.


Does "being an aggressor" mean that the other nation execute POW's?

Which POWs did India execute?

Using the logic of your second sentence, does "being an aggressor" mean that surrendering troops can be gunned down?

Pakistan never actually surrendered. There was no formal treaty.

They were being pushed back (or "withdrawing").

That is no reason for India to stop attacking.

Again, there are many logical, non jingoistic arguments than can be raised that would justify the continued targeting of supply routes after a withdrawal had been announced, but none of you has bothered to even explore them yet.

All my answers were pretty logical, if you ignore the crude language.
 
The US actions in targeting that withdrawal were also criticized by some as "war crimes" and unjustified. I would imagine then that unless some other argument is advanced some of that criticism would be applicable to the Indian actions as well?

Agno I am not saying it was entirely right , but when viewed from an Indian perspective, they were terrorists and why would they deserve the same treatment as PA regulars.
 
Kargil: A Debacle or A Lost Opportunity?

Monday June 02, 2008

Adnan Gill
gill_adnan@hotmail.com

Starting from the days of the Sir Creek dispute, all the way to the Kargil Conflict; you will find Indians remembering each and every armed-conflict as a glorious victory snatched out of teeth of defeat by the outnumbered brave Indian troops. Neutral observers could disagree and dispute all they want, but to Indians’ credit, they always remember their defeats as ‘victories’. Sadly, in a stark contrast, the self-defeating Pakistanis generously concede their victories to be “defeats”.

In their “Official 1965 War History” published by the Indian Ministry of Defense, Indian historians never acknowledged their humiliating defeats at the Sir Creek. In a slight of hand, when recording the tallies of the battle for the Sardar Post, Indians provided exact ranks and numbers of Pakistani casualties, but conveniently marked most of their own casualties as ‘missing’; not dead or POW (p. 25). However, the Pakistanis put the Indian losses around 250 dead. If one is to assume even 1/5 of Pakistani numbers to be accurate, the Indians must have suffered at least twice as many casualties as they marked as missing. Even though, Indians miserably lost on every battle front at Sir Creek front, including Jungle Post, Clump Post, Sardar Post, Chhad Bet, Sera Bat and Biar Bet, still one would be hard-pressed to find any Indian who would honorably admit their miserable defeats.

One could only wish, like Indians, Pakistanis would also take pride in their glorious victories, instead of disowning them. But then how can we blame such Pakistanis when it took only one letter from the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson for President Ayub Khan to obediently return every inch of land Pakistani soldiers won back with their sweat and blood! Pakistani historians are also to be blamed for leavening historical vacuums, which enemy filled with their exaggerated embellishments.

India first violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and illegally occupied its territory when they invaded and annexed the State of Junagarh and Hyderabad, and then Kashmir. Later, India set the precedence of brazenly violating the Line of Control (LOC). Between 1996 and 1999 alone, the UNMOGIP recorded around 3,500 Indian Violations of LOC. Since signing the Shimla Agreement in 1972, India not only invaded but still illegally occupies 3 sectors that used to be on the Pakistani side of the LOC; namely Siachin, Qamar and Turbat La.

In 1998, India tested its nuclear weapons. Pakistan answered by testing their own. By doing so, Indians practically neutralized their 1/6 numerical and conventional superiority over Pakistan. By publicly going nuclear, Pakistanis gained confidence to calculate, that despite low intensity conflicts in the disputed Kashmir, India will not go to full fledge war. Arguably, Pakistanis were fairly accurate with their calculation; Kargil Conflict, and 2002 border standoff vindicated their calculations.

Following the Indian lead of numerous LOC incursions, Pakistan decided to return the favor. An ingenious tactical plan was pulled out of shelves and was set in motion. The plan called for occupying strategic peaks, on the Indian side of LOC, overlooking a long stretch of the Leh-Srinagar highway (NHA). The idea was to secure and hold vantage points overlooking the highway to direct Pakistani artillery fire for the purposes of intercepting and disrupting Indian logistical supply-lines. The highway was/is the lifeline of the Indian troops illegally occupying the Siachin Glacier. A suspension of supplies for few more weeks would have made it very difficult for the Indians troops in Siachin to have sustained the next winter.

It was a brilliant tactical plan, but it was a lousy strategic plan. It was missing vital components of support from the political leadership, Foreign Office, and private TV channels – for the PR purposes. The civilians alleged, the military left them out of loop till the last hour, which handicapped their performance. Supporters of military retorted, exclusion of the civilians from the planning phase was necessary to maintain absolute secrecy. While, the critics explained, Pakistani military never trusted the competence or professionalism of the civilians enough to entrust them with highest level of secrecy. The ferocity of Indian reaction, punctuated by the IAF close-support missions, must have caught the architects of the plan off guarded. Perhaps that’s why the component of air-cover for the rebels was also missing from the otherwise well conceived Pakistani plan. Critics also credit the Indian authorities for managing the dissemination of information with near perfection. Their PR management was credited for shoring up domestic and international support for the Indian reaction, declaration of -- supposed -- Indian victory; most importantly, for demonizing Pakistan for what India had done in the past.

To the eternal shame of Indian intelligence, the Pakistani advance went totally undetected till May 4, 1999, when some shepherds tipped off the Indians. According to The Washington Post reporter, Pamela Constable, initially Indians claimed there were only dozen or two intruders who were to be dislodged within a week from few peaks. By the end of the conflict, Indians were literally swearing there were at least 5,000 Pakistani rebels commanding the heights. After the conflict, the Indians revised the numbers to 20,000 Indian troops (in the theater) vs. 1,500 so-called infiltrators. However, in 2002, Brig. Shaukat Qadir (Pakistani) claimed, the total number of Pakistani rebels never exceeded 1,000 from all ranks. The ratio of combatants was 20:1 in India’s favor. However, according to Global Security, at conflict’s peak, Indian troop strength in Kashmir ballooned to 730,000. The buildup included a handsome deployment of Indian Air Force personnel who were supporting the operations of around 60 frontline Indian aircraft.

The nature of insurmountable odds faced by the Indians could be judged from the following stats compiled by the Global Security: “The Indian Artillery fired over 250,000 shells, bombs and rockets during the Kargil conflict… the Air Force carried out nearly 5,000 sorties of all types over 50-odd days of operations… The aircraft [were] required to fly at about 20,000 feet [or higher, where] the air density is 30% less than at sea level”. At such dizzying heights, where high winds unpredictably shift velocity every few second, fire-control algorithms simply do not work; neither do the other precision weapons. Very well masked rebel bunkers built on vertical heights were extremely difficult to detect, and notoriously difficult to score a direct hit. So one can safely postulate, the accuracy rate of Indian artillery shells and air-dropped weapons couldn’t have been over 3-5%.

Few reporters captured the enormity of incursion and the frustrating predicaments of the Indian troops. On May 18, the Times of India reported, “Painting a grim picture, the sources said the Pakistani intruders had come 6 km inside the LoC in Mushkoh Valley and the Drass sub-sector, 2 km in Kaksar and up to 7 km in the Batalik sub-sector. The Pakistanis, they said, were holding strategic peaks which gave them a dominating view of the areas around”.

About a week before the conflict ended, when the Indian media was splashing feel-good images of their brave commandos planting Indian flags on peak after peak; in Batalik sector, all the Indians were able to do was reoccupy 1 piddly ridge. Pamela Constable (The Washington Post) reported, “Singh and other military officials here admit their progress has been excruciatingly slow. About 15 miles northeast of here in the area of Batalik, for example, Singh acknowledged, only one of four occupied ridges has been ‘cleared of the enemy’ after weeks of fighting and shelling.” Then she went over the helplessness and embarrassment Indians had to face, “It is evident from the military buildup in this region that India is determined to flush out the infiltrators and make up for the embarrassment of allowing them to sneak in undetected and keep one of the world`s largest military establishments at bay for weeks.”

It was quite evident that Indians were over their heads and nowhere close to a victory. Contrary to what the Indian propaganda machine was showing to the world, on emergency bases, their government was silently importing 3,500 caskets for their fallen men. In reality, Indians were nowhere even close to dislodging more than handful so-called intruders. Ms. Constable also caught their farces, “The rebels penetrated nearly four miles inside Indian-held territory there and still control several ridges beyond [Drass].” She further reported, Indian “Military officials said more Pakistani troops are still lodged in the ridges. They said their positions are so high and fortified that two or three fighters can fend off literally hundreds of Indian troops trying to scale the ridges below and surround them. Indian warplanes periodically strafe the ridges, but officials said most are so steep and narrow that air attacks have only a limited effect.”

Impotency of IAF missions was also quite evident . They lost 1 helicopter and 2 IAF aircraft were shot down on the Pakistani side of LOC. One of their pilots was killed in action and the other was captured by the Pakistani troops. Latter on, he was released by the Pakistani in a goodwill gesture. The Hindustan Times quoted Indian military commanders voicing their frustrations, "Every time they hear our aircraft approach they retreat into the caves… No amount of shelling or rockets can prove effective in such a situation."

Apparently, not only the Indians were buying the scripted Indian propaganda, so were some of the Pakistanis. Nawaz Sharif’s July 4, panicky rush to Washington dumbfounded many Pakistanis. Clearly, Mr. Sharif was incognizant of the immense advantage the Pakistanis enjoyed in the theater. Instead of trusting his military advisors, when Indians bluffed he folded. In short, Indian bluff of expanding the conflict unnerved Mr. Sharif. When the time came to show spine, he begged Washington to save him. He sold Pakistan’s advantage and honor for President Clinton’s word that he will take "personal interest" in the Kashmir dispute. On July 11, the Pakistani Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz said, in response to Nawaz Sharif’s appeal, certain groups of Islamic militants have started to withdraw their forces from the mountains. And just like that, the ultimate sacrifices of many rebel volunteers were wasted.

Any statesman worth his salt would have immediately walked out on Mr. Clinton after telling him: Pakistani blood is not so cheap, it deserves at least status-quo in Kargil and Drass. Had Mr. Sharif mustered little courage and waited another few weeks, snows would have returned to the area and India would have been forced to cease military operations. The status-quo would have left the Indian troops sitting in Siachin without any supplies to survive through the next winter.

But unfortunately, Mr. Sharif decided to snatch the victory out of hands of brave warriors, like Capt. Karnal Sher Khan and Hav. Lalak Jan. He sold their blood cheaper than his nerves. Had he showed some spine, today Siachin issue would have been solved and India would have shown higher appreciation for the Pakistani stance on the disputed Kashmir. Most importantly, today most of Pakistanis would have prided themselves for the supreme sacrifices of their brothers.

Even Indian media was smarter than the defeatist Pakistani critics to have seen through Indian establishment’s lies. Arthur Max, New Delhi bureau chief of Associated Press questioned, "How is it possible that casualties on the Pakistani side were higher -- as India claims -- when they had all the advantage of higher ground?” He appropriately reasoned, “The Indians should have suffered higher casualties than the Pakistanis."

The self-doubting Pakistanis also do not understand that victors never switch their winning commanders in the middle of action; but the Indians did. According to the Hindustan Times, Brigadier Surendra Singh, brigade commander of 121 Independent Brigade, and Colonel Ajit Nair, deputy brigade commander, were transferred out of Kargil.

Eminent Indian columnist, Praful Bidwai berated Indian media for their unethical conduct throughout the conflict. He wrote, "The Indian media was on test as to how fairly it would report and interpret. But overall, it failed miserably," He further added, "The general style of reports was: ’50 Pakistanis killed and 11 gallant Indian soldiers laid down their lives’. So our boys became dedicated soldiers and Pakistanis barbarians; our leaders are mature politicians and theirs prisoners of dark forces. It is upto the government to say all that. Why should the media?"

The reality proved, despite giving their best, except for reoccupying a handful of peaks in the immediate surroundings of Kargil and Drass, the Indians miserably failed in evicting the rebels. Regrettably, even now some self-loathing Pakistanis take Indian propaganda as a word of bible.

Victories are there to be owned. All we have to do is, have little pride in ourselves first, and the victories will standout like the rising sun.

Pakistan News Service - PakTribune

Alright now, let me take the bull by its horns...

Starting with the 1965 war,
The 1965 war revolves around the 'operation Gibraltar', whose main objective was to infiltrate the Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir by Pakistani Soldiers and guerrillas, disguised as locals, entered Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan with the intention of fomenting an insurgency among Kashmiri Muslims. However, the strategy went awry from the outset as it was not well-coordinated and the infiltrators were soon found. The debacle was followed by an Indian counterattack that resulted in the 1965 War.

The operation was a significant one as it sparked a large scale military engagement between the two neighbours, the first since the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Its success, as envisaged by its Pakistani planners, could have given Pakistan control over a unified Kashmir; something that Pakistan desired to achieve at the earliest opportunity.

The year is 1962, the Indian army faced a war with China in 1962, just 2 years earlier, were it was just recovering from its wounds.Following the First Kashmir War which saw India gaining the majority of the disputed area of Kashmir, Pakistan sought an opportunity to win back the areas lost. The opening came after the Sino-Indian War in 1962 where India lost to China and as a result the Indian Military was undergoing massive changes both in personnel and equipment. During this period, despite being numerically smaller than the Indian Military, Pakistan's armed forces had a qualitative edge in air power and armour over India,[4] which Pakistan sought to utilise before India completed its defence build-up.

Despite initial reservations by the President of Pakistan Ayub Khan, the operation was set in motion. In the first week of August 1965,Pakistani troops, members of the SSG commandos and irregulars began to cross the Cease Fire Line dividing Indian- and Pakistani-held Kashmir. Several columns were to occupy key heights around the Kashmir valley and encourage a general revolt, which would be followed by direct combat by Pakistani troops.
The plan was multi-pronged. Infiltrators would mingle with the local populace and incite them to rebellion. Meanwhile guerrilla warfare would commence, destroying bridges, tunnels and highways, harassing enemy communications, logistic installations and headquarters as well as attacking airfields,[16] with a view to create the conditions of an "armed insurrection" in Kashmir — leading to a national uprising against Indian rule. It was assumed that India would neither counter-attack nor involve itself in another full-scale war, and the liberation of Kashmir would rapidly follow.Despite such a well-planned operation, the intruders were detected by Indian forces in Kashmir. With the exception of four districts which did revolt, the local Kashmiris did not cooperate as expected. Instead, they conveyed news of the planned insurgency to the local authorities and turned the infiltrators in. The Mujahids attempted to artificially create a sense of revolt by carrying out guerilla attacks, but to no avail. Gibraltar Force was soon facing attacks from the Indian Army who moved in immediately to secure the border. The majority of the infiltrators were captured by the Indian troops, although some managed to escape. India accused the Pakistani government of sending and aiding the seditionists, and although Pakistan denied any complicity,it was soon proved that the foreigners were all of Pakistani origin. In fact several of them were found to be officers in the Pakistan Army, with the UNMOGIP Chief, General Nimmo also confirming Pakistan's involvement.

What did Pakistan win from 1965 war??
Pakistan Army was flushed out of Indian Kashmir, that was a victory, it was duely celebrated.
A De-classified US Document confirming infiltrators...




War of 1971...
What can be said about the 1971 war....it was an out and out victory, a part of Pakistan was liberated, giving rise to Bangladesh.
I can sum up all the war into one picture...


Lt. Gen A. A. K. Niazi signs the instrument of surrender on December 16, surrendering his forces to Lt. Gen Jagjit Singh Aurora.

The cost of the war for Pakistan in monetary and human resources was high. In the book Can Pakistan Survive? Pakistan based author Tariq Ali writes, "Pakistan lost half its navy, a quarter of its airforce and a third of its army." India took approximately 90,000 prisoners of war that included Pakistani soldiers as well as some of their East Pakistani allies. 79,676 of these prisoners were uniformed personnel, of which 55,692 were Army, 16,354 Paramilitary, 5,296 Police, 1000 Navy and 800 PAF.

This was India's biggest ever victory and it was duely celebrated.



Coming to Kargil war.....

Because of the extreme winter weather in Kashmir, it was common practice for the Indian and Pakistan Army to abandon forward posts and reoccupy them in the spring. That particular spring, the Pakistan Army reoccupied the forward posts before the scheduled time.
Infiltration and military build-up.
Infiltration and military build-up.

In early May 1999, the Pakistan Army decided to occupy the Kargil posts, numbering around 130, and thus control the area. Troops from the elite Special Services Group as well as four to seven battalions[19][20] of the Northern Light Infantry (a paramilitary regiment not part of the regular Pakistani army at that time) backed by Kashmiri guerrillas and Afghan mercenaries[21] covertly and overtly set up bases on the vantage points of the Indian-controlled region. Initially, these incursions were not spotted due to the heavy artillery fire by Pakistan across the Line of Control, which provided cover for the infiltrators. But by the second week of May, the ambushing of an Indian patrol team, acting on a tip-off by a local shepherd in the Batalik sector, led to the exposure of the infiltration. Initially with little knowledge of the nature or extent of the encroachment, the Indian troops in the area claimed that they would evict them within a few days. However, reports of infiltration elsewhere along the LoC made it clear that the entire plan of attack was on a much bigger scale. The total area seized by the ingress is generally accepted to between 130 km² - 200 km²;[18][22] Musharraf however, stated that 500 square miles (1,300 km²) of Indian territory was occupied.[19]

The Government of India responded with Operation Vijay, a mobilisation of 200,000 Indian troops. However, because of the nature of the terrain, division and corps operations could not be mounted; the scale of most fighting was at the regimental or battalion level. In effect, two divisions of the Indian Army,[23] numbering 20,000, plus several thousand from the Paramilitary forces of India and the air force were deployed in the conflict zone. The total number of Indian soldiers that were involved in the military operation on the Kargil-Drass sector was thus close to 30,000. The number of infiltrators, including those providing logistical backup, has been put at approximately 5,000 at the height of the conflict.[18][24][21] This figure includes troops from Pakistan-administered Kashmir that were involved in the war providing additional artillery support.




There were three major phases to the Kargil War. First, Pakistan captured several strategic high points in the Indian-controlled section of Kashmir. India responded by first capturing strategic transportation routes, then militarily pushing Pakistani forces back across the Line of Control.

What did Pakistan win in Kargil??

Pakistan was criticised by other countries for allowing its paramilitary forces and insurgents to cross the Line of Control.[36] Pakistan's primary diplomatic response, one of plausible deniability linking the incursion to what it officially termed as "Kashmiri freedom fighters", was in the end not successful. Veteran analysts argued that the battle was fought at heights where only seasoned troops could survive, so poorly equipped freedom fighters would neither have the ability nor the wherewithal to seize land and defend it. Moreover, while the army had initially denied the involvement of its troops in the intrusion, two soldiers were awarded the Nishan-E-Haider (Pakistan's highest military honour). Another 90 soldiers were also given gallantry awards, most of them posthumously, confirming Pakistan's role in the episode. India also released taped phone conversations between the Army Chief and a senior Pakistani general where the latter is recorded saying: "the scruff of [the militants] necks is in our hands,"[37] although Pakistan dismissed it as a "total fabrication". Concurrently, Pakistan made several contradicting statements, confirming its role in Kargil, when it defended the incursions saying that the LOC itself was disputed.[38] Pakistan also attempted to internationalize the Kashmir issue, by linking the crisis in Kargil to the larger Kashmir conflict but, such a diplomatic stance found few backers on the world stage.[39]

As the Indian counter-attacks picked up momentum, Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif flew to meet U.S. president Bill Clinton on July 4 to obtain support from the United States. Clinton rebuked Sharif, however, and asked him to use his contacts to rein in the militants and withdraw Pakistani soldiers from Indian territory. Clinton would later reveal in his autobiography that "Sharif’s moves were perplexing" since the Indian prime minister had travelled to Lahore to promote bilateral talks aimed at resolving the Kashmir problem and "by crossing the Line of Control, Pakistan had wrecked the [bilateral] talks." On the other hand, he applauded Indian restraint for not crossing the LoC and escalating the conflict into an all-out war. The other G8 nations, too, supported India and condemned the Pakistani violation of the LoC at the Cologne summit. The European Union was also opposed to the violation of the LoC. China, a long-time ally of Pakistan, did not intervene in Pakistan's favour, insisting on a pullout of forces to the LoC and settling border issues peacefully. Other organizations like the ASEAN Regional Forum too supported India's stand on the inviolability of the LOC. Faced with growing international pressure, Sharif managed to pull back the remaining soldiers from Indian territory. The joint statement issued by Clinton and Sharif conveyed the need to respect the Line of Control and resume bilateral talks as the best forum to resolve all disputes.



MOD EDIT: Watch the Instigation.
 
The reason the losses of the IA as compared to the "infiltrators" were higher (though I doubt it would be in the ratio of 10:1) is that the terrain where the action took place heavily favors defensive operations. Offensive operations in those mountains is any soldier's real test of character.

Official Indian losses: 522

Source: PARLIAMENT QUESTIONS ,LOK SABHA

So, if your argument is correct, Pakistani losses would number only 53.

The real picture is slightly different.

Official Pakistani losses: None exist.

Musharraff claims that 357 Pakistani soldiers lost their lives in Kargil.

Link: IndianExpress.com :: Musharraf now has Pak’s Kargil toll: 357

According to the above link, the then Army Chief V P Malik has mentioned in his book on Kargil that 270 Pakistani soldiers are burried in India.

So much for 10:1.

The less said the better about official losses.
 
I am not referring to the targeting of the supply routes during the course of the combat - those casualties would fall in the category of casualties incurred during the active control of the heights. Targeting of the supply routes would be legitimate.

My question was related to the targeting of the supply routes after the withdrawal was announced.


I am saying that the casualties were incurred when the withdrawal was announced and the troops were not attempting to control the heights any more and leaving - from the Pakistani side atleast (from the withdrawing troops) then there would not be any "combat".

I am not certain if Pakistani artillery was still targeting Indian positions, which resulted in India continuing to target the supply routes.

I tried a cursory search for the actual withdrawal announcement, but was unable to find it.

Again, this goes to my question in my first post, was it wrong of the IA to target withdrawing troops? Was the IA not convinced that there would be a withdrawal, and hence continued targeting supply routes? There are various ways to answer this.

Firstly, there was no "withdrawal." Pakistan never stated anything with regard to a ceasefire or withdrawal. All that the Pakistani government said was "we are relinquishing our support to the freedom fighters."

Further, no one knows whether the troops on those positions were ever even told anything, let alone an order to withdraw.

If this is the case then those Pakistani troops were officially in Indian territory carrying out hostile activities. These troops were not withdrawing; further, even if they were aren't they supposed to surrender, if they encounter Indian troops, rather than start walking back toward the LoC?

Give me a break. A few weeks ago these troops were killing Indian soldiers and now you expect the IA to let them go because they are "withdrawing?"

I'm sorry to say this but your argument is very flawed.

The biggest blunder is that the Pakistani government never bothered clearing the air then.

I've also mentioned that if you are thinking that these troops were walking back to the LoC and the IA was taking pot shots at these helpless souls, then you are mistaken.

The IA cut their logistics supplies and then ran over their positions. These troops died fighting and not while "withdrawing."
 
The less said the better about official losses.

Do you mean to say that there have been more losses?

These official figures are what the defense minister has given inside a parliament session, and have been universally accepted as credible.

522 Indian soldiers died, the link also directs one to webpages where the names of these 522 martyrs are provided.
 
The Pakistani were not withdrawing.

If there was any withdrawal, then it would have been announced.

Therefore, the issue does not really arise.

It must be understood that military operations basically encompass Advance, Attack, Defence and Withdrawal. Withdrawal is not a rout. It is a planned movement and very military like.

In attack, when the enemy is withdrawing, there is a sub head called Pursuit. The aim is to ensure that the enemy does not have the time or resources to hold another defence line with the troops withdrawing and press on so as to make the withdrawal a rout!

As far as the Kargil Operations is concerned, while the Pakistani soldiers did their best as one could, they were handicapped by poor logistics, which even their helicopter could not sustain

As far as the casualties are concerned, they did not claim their heroic dead and the Indian Army had to bury them.

This would be of intrest:

Sharif kept in dark on Kargil: Ex-general

Islamabad, June 3 (PTI): Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was kept in the dark on the Pakistan army’s Kargil operation, a former aide of President Pervez Musharraf said during an interview last night.

Lieutenant General (Retired) Jamshed Gulzar Kayani, who served in the ISI and commanded the crucial Rawalpindi-based 10 Corps, said he believed Sharif was “not carried on board” during the initial stages of the Kargil intrusion by Pakistani troops in early 1999.

Kayani, who was then in the ISI, subsequently briefed the former Prime Minister on the Kargil issue at a meeting on May 17, 1999. Sharif told Musharraf, who was then the army chief, that he would support the operation “as long as you succeed”.

However, Sharif also told Musharraf that it would be very difficult for him to back the operation “if there were reverses”, Kayani said in an interview aired on the Geo TV channel last night.

“In my individual opinion, he (Sharif) was not carried on board. If you go in for such an operation, you have to bring the chief executive on board. You have to give him comprehensive briefings on each and every step (as the Kargil operation) could have opened out into an all out war,” said Kayani who is now part of a group of retired military officers pressing for Musharraf’s ouster from office.

Reacting to Kayani’s comments, Sharif today demanded that Musharraf be tried for “treason”. “I have been asking for a commission to probe the Kargil issue for a very long time.... Kargil was a very big blunder committed by Musharraf. It was a misadventure that was a major failure,” Sharif told reporters at Lahore airport before departing for London.

Kayani also said that those who planned the Kargil operation did not anticipate a strong response from the Indian army, including the use of air power.

Despite the “gallantry of troops and young officers”, Pakistan suffered “reverses due to India’s intense response” , he said.

During the May 17, 1999, briefing, Sharif was “uncertain” and asked the “high-profile” personalities present if it would “be correct to give the green signal for the Kargil operation”, Kayani said.

He quoted former foreign minister Sartaj Aziz as saying: “Sir, I will not be able to support it on the diplomatic milieu.”

Certain generals present at the meeting also raised questions as to whether the Pakistan army could logistically support the operation.

After consulting all those present, Sharif gave Musharraf the “green signal” and said the Kargil operation could go on “as long as you succeed”.

Kayani added: “But in cases of reverses, Nawaz Sharif said it will be very difficult for me to support the operation.”

The bodies of some dead Pakistani soldiers were never found and Sharif finally went to the US to work out an understanding to end the conflict, the former Musharraf aide added.

The Telegraph - Archives

The some is an understatement!
 
Here it is from ARABNEWS:

harif Blasts Kargil Operation
Azhar Masood, Arab News


ISLAMABAD, 4 June 2008 — Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said yesterday that then Chief of Army Staff Gen. Pervez Musharraf misled his government before launching the “Kargil Operation” in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Sharif was commenting on a TV interview of former 10 Corps Commander Lt. Gen. Jamshed Gulzar Kayani who had alleged that Musharraf had kept his Kargil Operation a secret even from his senior commanders. Only a few officers — Kayani himself, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, Gen. Aziz Khan and former Force Commander Northern Areas Lt. Gen. Javed Hasan — had the knowledge of various aspects of the Kargil Operation.

While talking to reporters in Lahore, Sharif branded the Kargil Operation as a misadventure of Musharraf that brought two nuclear-armed South Asian nations on the brink of a full-scale war.

Sharif said: “When India retaliated to get certain hills which the Pakistan Army had captured during the winter of 1998-1999, there were confirmed reports that India planned major offensives at Bhimber, Sialkot and Reti in Rahim Yar Khan.”

“At that stage Musharraf almost begged me to work out a peace formula with the help of former US President Bill Clinton. On July 4, which is a holiday, I met President Clinton in Washington D.C. and sought his good offices to prevent India from launching its major offensive against Pakistan.”

Sharif also called Musharraf’s strategy strange. “He never informed chief of air and naval staff about the operation. When India started pounding Pakistan’s posts in Kargil with its air force, our air chief was taken by surprise.”

Sharif, who heads Pakistan Muslim League (N), has demanded that Musharraf be tried for treason for his Nov. 3 action, the Kargil adventure and Jamia Hafsa carnage. Sharif said Lt. Gen Kayani’s interview with Geo News vindicated his stand that he was not informed about the Kargil Operation.

He said Musharraf made false accusations against him in his book. Sharif said time has proved that Kargil was a misadventure but he (Sharif) left no stone unturned to protect national prestige. He said he had demanded constitution of a commission to investigate the issue.

About Pakistan People’s Party’s constitutional package, he said his party opinion about it would be communicated to PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari.

He dispelled the impression that his party and Mohajir Qaumi Movement were in contact.

In the Geo TV interview, Lt Gen Kayani stressed the need for making an example of President Musharraf to block the emergence of future dictators in the country.

Talking to Shahid Masood in the Meray Mutabiq program, he said Gen. Musharraf had committed such vital mistakes as launching the Kargil Operation, surrendering to the US threat of pushing Pakistan into the Stone Age and destroying the Lal Masjid in Islamabad.

He said no power could withstand pressure from people power. Kayani said he had seen the period of Ayub Khan, who could not face the wrath of the people. When asked whether the army was with Musharraf, he said the army officers and soldiers would never say anything about it and such things were never discussed in the army.

He ruled out the imposition of martial law, saying the president could not use Article 58-2(b).

Kayani said the president should not have given in to the US threat in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy. He said the Pakistan Army was the best professional army in the world. He said Musharraf had options at that time and he should have held a referendum to ascertain the will of the people.
Sharif Blasts Kargil Operation
 
A quick warning. Keep this civil, and analytical, or posts will be deleted without warning.

If someone says something you consider offensive, or out of place, use the report post feature and the Mods will make a decision.

Do not respond and start a flame war that gets the thread closed and users banned.

Well said & seconded.
 
Any statesman worth his salt would have immediately walked out on Mr. Clinton after telling him: Pakistani blood is not so cheap, it deserves at least status-quo in Kargil and Drass. Had Mr. Sharif mustered little courage and waited another few weeks, snows would have returned to the area and India would have been forced to cease military operations. The status-quo would have left the Indian troops sitting in Siachin without any supplies to survive through the next winter.

Ref permalink # 1.

1. Does the author of the above mentioned remark actually believe what he has written ?

2. Does he not realise the enormity of the retaliation India was about to & prepared to inflict if the withdrawl did not take place?

3.Does he feel that India would still still if troops in Siachen were cut off ?

4. Was Pakistan prepared for the retaliation epically when its "strategic depth" in form of Afghanistan does not exist anymore ?

If for some reason the answers to the questions above are yes, then quite obviously some has to go & re learn strategy & warfare. These sort of remarks may sound good to convince a civilian audience ,any military mind would reject it outright. It is something like Nasser nationalizing the Suez or Saddam annexing Kuwait & expecting to get away with it.

Pakistani military thought from their hearts & not their heads. While things like 'gut reaction" & " go for it" are ok at platoon & Company level at national level things have to thought & war gamed to the last nut - bolt. If not, then such embarrassing with drawls will continue.
 
1. Does the author of the above mentioned remark actually believe what he has written ?
Yup
2. Does he not realise the enormity of the retaliation India was about to & prepared to inflict if the withdrawl did not take place?
He does, more than you by the looks of it. And we all saw how much this "enormous retaliation" worked. And as far as full scale war; you would be hard pressed to argue that Indian forces were not off-balanced, to say the least...(probably why they waited this long dispite mounting losses)
3.Does he feel that India would still still if troops in Siachen were cut off ?
Nope, he knows they would have made a lot of noise, but other than that what else could they do, had the situation developed like that?
4. Was Pakistan prepared for the retaliation epically when its "strategic depth" in form of Afghanistan does not exist anymore ?
hahahaha, but it existed back then if you would remember...
If for some reason the answers to the questions above are yes, then quite obviously some has to go & re learn strategy & warfare.
Alright, thanks I'll get right to it....hahaha....cheers!
 

Mr. Gill's anti-India bias is well known. His knowledge of military and strategic affairs is universally politely regarded as not good.

He does, more than you by the looks of it. And we all saw how much this "enormous retaliation" worked. And as far as full scale war; you would be hard pressed to argue that Indian forces were not off-balanced, to say the least...(probably why they waited this long dispite mounting losses)

Most of India's losses were during the intitial stage when probing parties were regularly launched to examine and analyse the enemy's positions. The initial mass-infantry attacks were unsuccessful, and frankly stupid. Things changed the moment IA bought in the artillery and the IAF. Indian casualties were relatively low afterwards. Did the IA outnumber the infiltrators; yes. But do not forget that the terrain there heavily favors the defenders. We could not cut the supply lines of these infiltrators because our government did not want to cross the LoC so as to maintain our international standing; a very nice move wheen when one looks back at it now.

Nope, he knows they would have made a lot of noise, but other than that what else could they do, had the situation developed like that?

Had the conflict prolonged, there was a possibility of a full scale war, with Pakistan being isolated on the global arena. The truth was, had a war broken out, you would have lost far more than us.

hahahaha, but it existed back then if you would remember...

Alright, thanks I'll get right to it....hahaha....cheers!

You're right on that one, Cactus did mention the fact wrongly.

You're also right, you ought to study strategic affairs.

What's with the "hahahaha..."?
 
Back
Top Bottom