Kargil: A Debacle or A Lost Opportunity?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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."

This is a valid argument, that provides justification for continued targeting of supply routes.

Can you locate a link to the withdrawal or "ceasing support" announcement? Haven't been able to find them.

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?

Are you suggesting that the PA had no communication whatsoever with these troops?

If the IA believed that there was no withdrawal (which I highly doubt, regardless of the official position taken, but thats besides the point, since the GoP gave them the excuse since they claimed it was Mujahideen), then there is justification to target supply routes and retreating troops.

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 am not sure why you guys have to keep making jingoistic arguments?

This is utterly flawed logic. Suppose an army surrenders, before it surrenders it has been killing the soldiers of the opposing army, so does this justify killing surrendering soldiers?

Your logic above indicates that it is justified to do so.

There is a certain conduct in war as well. You can say that the IA does not believe in it, but then say so, rather than making jingoistic arguments.

As I pointed out to IPF - even the US actions on the "Highway of Death" were criticized by some as "war crimes".

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

Not at all. I have pointed out above why yours doesn't make sense, and in my post I even made the arguments of why targeting the supply routes after a withdrawal would have been perfectly acceptable.

I would like to know why mu logic above is flawed, rather than just a statement that it is flawed.

You and Stealth have chosen to ignore most of the arguments I raised that would justify the continued targeting of troops, and keep making these shrill arguments of "they were killing Indian soldiers" - Of course they were - it was war. But there are rules of war as well.

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

I agree they should have. But we have news filtering out now.

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."

A certain number of troops did die fighting, and the poor planning related to logistic and supplies did indeed play a part in their being overrun, but it is also true that a large number of Pakistan's casualties occurred during withdrawal - whether the IA was aware of the withdrawal or not I have left open to question, since my first post.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So should we believe that Musharaff is lying about 357 PA casualties?

Typical loss ratio for attackers to defenders is 3 to 1 isn't it?

Given relative equality in the quality of troops, that ratio would have held in Kargil as well.

Whatever the Pakistani losses then, the Indian losses would have been approximately 3 times as much, given the nature of the conflict.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Cactuslilly:

IMO, there was a huge miscalculation on what India's response would be - perhaps this was supposed to be equivalent to India's actions in Siachin, and remain as localized.

Secondly the lack of planning that went into logistics.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

Thank you Salim.

A dispassionate analysis that makes sense. All I was looking for.

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

Salim,

From what I understand, it was not due to a lack of interest that the dead were not "claimed".

The inhospitableness of the terrain played a large role.

Given the terrain, was realistic for withdrawing troops to carry bodies with them?

I have also read that many of the bodies Indian troops came across were in an advanced stage of decomposition, resulting in immediate burial by the IA.

 

[vish]

This is a valid argument, that provides justification for continued targeting of supply routes.

Can you locate a link to the withdrawal or "ceasing support" announcement? Haven't been able to find them.

There was no clear and official statement by Pakistan. This is where the confusion lies. Even if Pakistan did issue a withdrawal notice, I’m unaware off, and in all likelihood, the people fighting in Kargil were too.

The closest content I could find with regard to an official Pakistani declaration is this: CNN - Agreement fails to halt Kashmir fighting - July 5, 1999

Note that the link does not mention “withdrawal” and only calls for the hostilities to be ceased. India rejected this idea on grounds that until and unless all occupied posts are cleared, the offensive would continue.

Are you suggesting that the PA had no communication whatsoever with these troops?

I’m not saying the PA had no communication with these troops; I’m saying when these troops were told to occupy those posts no thought was spared to consider their withdrawal. As there were no plans with regard to a withdrawal, the PA had no option left but to leave these troops on their own.

If the IA believed that there was no withdrawal (which I highly doubt, regardless of the official position taken), then there is justification to target supply routes and retreating troops.

I am not sure why you guys have to keep making jingoistic arguments?

This is utterly flawed logic. Suppose an army surrenders, before it surrenders it has been killing the soldiers of the opposing army, so does this justify killing surrendering soldiers?

Your logic above indicates that it is justified to do so.

There is a certain conduct in war as well. You can say that the IA does not believe in it, but then say so, rather than making jingoistic arguments.

As I pointed out to IPF - even the US actions on the "Highway of Death" were criticized by some as "war crimes".

I’m sorry if my statements sound jingoistic.

There was no “withdrawal,” officially. Unofficially nobody knew what the PA and the GoP were up to. These troops did not surrender; they were scuttling back to the other side of the LoC after carrying out offensive operations in Indian territory. IA had every legal right to attack them if they did not surrender. Further, the IA decided to target the supply routes (which were also the withdrawal routes) so as to disrupt the infiltrator’s supply and logistics. Its primary intention was to lay a siege on the posts and force them to surrender or overrun them and not to annihilate the soldiers who were “withdrawing.” Since there was no official statement by Pakistan the IA’s action was perfectly legal. Unofficially too the waters were very murky.

Not at all. I have pointed out above why yours doesn't make sense, and in my post I even made the arguments of why targeting the supply routes after a withdrawal would have been perfectly acceptable.

I would like to know why mu logic above is flawed, rather than just a statement that it is flawed.

You and Stealth have chosen to ignore most of those, and keep making these shrill arguments of "they were killing Indian soldiers" - Of course they were - it was war. But there are rules of war as well.

The reason why your logic is flawed is that you are assuming that the IA took pot-shots at retreating PA troops, atleast that is what I understand. Law dictates that in such a position the retreating party has to surrender; this is exactly what did not happen. Hence, the IA had every right to attack them.

I agree they should have. But we have news filtering out now.

All we are hearing is opinions; there is no official Pakistani account of the Kargil conflict.

A certain number of troops did die fighting, and the poor planning related to logistic and supplies did indeed play a part in their being overrun, but it is also true that a large number of Pakistan's casualties occurred during withdrawal - whether the IA was aware of the withdrawal or not I have left open to question, since my first post.

True, majority of Pakistani casualties took place during “withdrawal.” Most of these causalities were a result of disruption of logistics and “relinquishing of support,” due to which the posts were overrun. You’re equating the two statements: “Pakistan’s casualties occurred during withdrawal” and “Pakistan’s troops killed while withdrawing.” This withdrawal was more of a “withdrawal of support.”

Typical loss ratio for attackers to defenders is 3 to 1 isn't it?

Given relative equality in the quality of troops, that ratio would have held in Kargil as well.

Whatever the Pakistani losses then, the Indian losses would have been approximately 3 times as much, given the nature of the conflict.

Official Indian losses are 522. I did post a link in one of my earlier posts.

I could not find any reliable Pakistani account of Kargil casualities; hence, I decided to stick to Musharraff's account (which states 357 dead).

 

[Bushroda]

Typical loss ratio for attackers to defenders is 3 to 1 isn't it?

Given relative equality in the quality of troops, that ratio would have held in Kargil as well.

Whatever the Pakistani losses then, the Indian losses would have been approximately 3 times as much, given the nature of the conflict.

There is no valid thumb rule of 3:1. I seriously doubt if there was a 3:1 loss for US armed forces during Op Desert Storm & Op Iraqi Freedom. These are mere assumptions and are made based on the data collected from the previous conflicts. It also depends on the kind of artillery used during the war by each side. Also, the knowledge of the terrain or battle zone matters a lot. Kargil is Indian controlled territory. Indian armed forces would know the terrain far better than any outsider. Also, I doubt if NLI had access to the heavy guns like Bofors. So no way that 3:1 principle holds true here.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vish,

Salim has explained the situation quite well.

The reason why your logic is flawed is that you are assuming that the IA took pot-shots at retreating PA troops. Law dictates that in such a position the retreating party has to surrender; this is exactly what did not happen. Hence, the IA had every right to attack them.

I never said the IA took "pot shots" at the retreating troops. I said that the majority of the casualties occurred when the retreating troops came under fire on those supply routes. That fire was probably a continuation of the artillery barrage to disrupt the supply lines of the PA troops and irregulars.

I also did not make an absolute statement that the IA was wrong in continuing to target the supply routes, in fact my first post was in the form of a question.

Some of you got a little too emotional about it and went of into tangents of "they were killing Indian troops". That particular logic is what I questioned.

But enough on this from me, Salim has responded to the original question I raised.

 

[vish]

AM:
I guess we were talking across each other.

Coming back to the topic, would anybody explain to me how exactly was Kargil a "Lost Opportunity?"

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM:
I guess we were talking across each other.

Coming back to the topic, would anybody explain to me how exactly was Kargil a "Lost Opportunity?"

No problem's Vish.

Happens all the time.

I think Kargil "lost us opportunities", rather than being a "lost opportunity".

 

[vish]

I think Kargil "lost us opportunities", rather than being a "lost opportunity".

I need an explanation for that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no valid thumb rule of 3:1. I seriously doubt if there was a 3:1 loss for US armed forces during Op Desert Storm & Op Iraqi Freedom. These are mere assumptions and are made based on the data collected from the previous conflicts. It also depends on the kind of artillery used during the war by each side. Also, the knowledge of the terrain or battle zone matters a lot. Kargil is Indian controlled territory. Indian armed forces would know the terrain far better than any outsider. Also, I doubt if NLI had access to the heavy guns like Bofors. So no way that 3:1 principle holds true here.

If artillery could do the majority of the job, then there would have been no need for Indian troops to suffer casualties while retaking the peaks.

Remember that unlike Desert Storm, this was not a battle in plains, but mountain warfare, and involved retaking heights. Desert Strom also involved a vastly superior military (technological and qualitative), and was a war that allowed the application of that superiority.

In Kargil there was no such overwhelming advantage held by either side. For the most part the peaks had to be taken the old fashioned way, hence my reference to the ratio.

Artillery helped I am sure, though.

 

[Bushroda]

If artillery could do the majority of the job, then there would have been no need for Indian troops to suffer casualties while retaking the peaks.

Remember that unlike Desert Storm, this was not a battle in plains, but mountain warfare, and involved retaking heights. Artillery helped I am sure, though.

You said it yourself. This was a mountain warfare. The terrain would favour the troops stationed at the top of the peaks. They get a clear shot at the incoming troops. While troops stationed at the bottom of the peak need to probably put themselves at harm's length in order to get a visible shot at the enemy. Also, while firing upwards you need an acute calculation of the ballistic of the projectile(bullet, bomb whatever). So, ofcourse no doubt the terrain heavily favoured troops at the top. But still a roaring heavy mobile gun at the bottom of the peak is far lethal than an SMG at the top of the peak.

Also, I said that Kargil is Indian controlled territory & armed forces would know the terrain far better than any outsider.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I need an explanation for that.

Loss of trust (if one believes there was a movement in that direction), a setback to the peace process and hence a setback to the normalization of a relationship between the two countries.

 

[vish]

Loss of trust (if one believes there was a movement in that direction), a setback to the peace process and hence a setback to the normalization of a relationship between the two countries.

Oh... Ok... I initially thought you said "loss of opportunities" and took it the other way; sorry, my bad.

Regards

 

[Kasrkin]

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.

And thats exactly why IA did not 'stop' taking casualties anymore than they took those positions. I agree, your mass infantry attacks were stupid and they didnt work which would OBVIOUSLY mean that they took casualties. And as far as I'm concerned, "mass infantry attacks" are hardly ever used as 'probing parties' meant to 'examine and analyse the enemy's positions', they tend to come after that. So you have contradicted yourself and proved my point, I know many of your probing parties were wiped off, that doesnt mean those who followed did much better. And as far as artillery and the IAF is concerned, that wasnt much help either given the terrain and fortifications; that much has been confirmed by members of your own military as well as foriegn observers, so I wont bother going into it.
But feel free to refute all this, I'm sure it must be hard acknowledging you took casualties at the hands of Pakistanis in a head on fight. Surely, most of your dead were scouts just 'checking out' our positions, not those assaulting it, is what keeps you comforted. So 'spoting' one of your own bunkers from a far is much more dangerous than storming it eh? The writer of the article got this aspect of the Indian mind-frame right atleast.

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.

So you yourself have agreed your international standing was fragile enough to be undermind by tactical attacks across the LoC. And on the other hand you seem to think India can just walk over Pakistan in a full scale war and the world wont say anything? But surely if Pakistan was so 'internationaly isolated' you would have had nothing to worry about here? Impailed by your own rhetoric eh?

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.

You are free to dream all you want, but the fact is there is no way you can know that. Pakistan was not nearly as isolated as you like to hope, no more than we were in the last couple of wars for that matter. It is useless arguing with some one like you on this point, feel free to think what you want, but dont expect us to fall for it because we know something about war too. And more so about our country and its defences than you ever will.

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

Again thanks, actually I do regularly(wish I could same the thing about you though)

"hahaha" would mean I am laughing, which I was at your friends feinted confidence despite not knowing Kargil happened 10 years from now. Lecturing us(like you) about what this military analysis has to say is nonsense...was and is pretty funny seeing the amount of credibility you have to back it up, but surely you didnt need me to spill all that out for you? Hope that answered your question, so perhaps you can find it in youself to forgive my amusement.