Kargil: A Debacle or A Lost Opportunity?

[vish]

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.

You jump the gun; you assume that me being an Indian would have trouble accepting that IA's jawans were killed by PA soldiers; you talk about logic: that my friend is a contradiction.

I said the probing parties were followed by massed infantry attacks; you assumed there were large probing parties.

I said the IA did suffer most of its casualities in these initial stages (both with probing operations and infantry attacks); you assume that I'll have trouble accepting IA's casualities.

The artillery and the IAF played a very significant role in the conflict; this has been acknowledged by one and all. In some places both artillery and airpower were ineffective; herein, the IA did the things the good old fashioned way.

Sources: 1999 Kargil Conflict

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?

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.

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

The reason we did not cross the LoC had nothing to do with our "fragile" (perhaps only according to you) international position. We did not want you to have any room; had we crossed the LoC the international goodwill would have been weakened. Pakistan was internationally isolated; even the PRC refused to "support" it.

Impailed by own rhetoric; glad to hear your generalization and personal slur.

I never said IA will roll over Pakistan and PA would do nothing about it; I said that had an all-out war broken out Pakistan would have lost much more; you assume something particularly contrary.

"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.

So, let me get this straight, "hahahaha" implies you have nothing to say. Thanks.

 

[TALWAR]

1. Why would the Pak Army withdraw if they were in a strong position ?
2. Do you think the Pak Army would have obeyed the withdrawal orders of the PM who was later thrown away ?

They withdrew because they had no other option. No arti , and no air-support. What will the Infentary do without cover ?

Do you think the attacker, defender casulty ratio holds true when the defender does not have air-support ? kargil was lost in the minds of the Pak Generals, even before it started, and not the Infantry men, cos the generals did not forsee the IA response.

 

[mujahideen]

1. Why would the Pak Army withdraw if they were in a strong position ?
2. Do you think the Pak Army would have obeyed the withdrawal orders of the PM who was later thrown away ?
They withdrew because they had no other option. No arti , and no air-support. What will the Infentary do without cover ?

They with drew because the political leadership offered them no support. An Army relies on its politicians to support it, which did not happen here.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

1. Why would the Pak Army withdraw if they were in a strong position ?

The Pakistan Military could not have maintained its position without escalating its own support to the level of the Indian Military. The extent of the response of the Indian Military was underestimated IMO (as I said, perhaps it was expected to remain localized like Siachen).

Escalating Pakistan's support would then have most likely meant full fledged war, and the isolation internationally at that point had also not been anticipated.

There were a variety of reasons that played into the withdrawal.

2. Do you think the Pak Army would have obeyed the withdrawal orders of the PM who was later thrown away ?

The orders were obeyed as far as I know.

Why do you think they weren't obeyed?

 

[TALWAR]

The Pakistan Military could not have maintained its position without escalating its own support to the level of the Indian Military. The extent of the response of the Indian Military was underestimated IMO (as I said, perhaps it was expected to remain localized like Siachen).

Escalating Pakistan's support would then have most likely meant full fledged war, and the isolation internationally at that point had also not been anticipated.

There were a variety of reasons that played into the withdrawal.


The orders were obeyed as far as I know.

Why do you think they weren't obeyed?

AM,
This is what I meant when I said, "In the minds of Pakistani generals". I meant the miscalculation.
Why would an army that supposedly did not keep the PM in the loop about the operation, obey the orders for withdrawal ? OR do you think that Nawaj gave the orders to cross LOC.

 

[blain2]

Everybody was on board! Anything contrary to is a lie.

 

[mujahideen]

AM,This is what I meant when I said, "In the minds of Pakistani generals". I meant the miscalculation.
Why would an army that supposedly did not keep the PM in the loop about the operation, obey the orders for withdrawal ? OR do you think that Nawaj gave the orders to cross LOC.

Which PM's will they keep informed. I mean governments were falling during this period like leaves from a tree. But any way the fact is Nawaz was well aware of this operation.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

AgNoStIc MuSliM
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.

AM in this regard I strongly believe that Pakistan shot its foot when they declared that those occupying the peaks were not PA regulars(Whether it was true or not or whether IA knew there were regulars does not matter) Most of these millitants according to India were terrorists, so how come conduct of war(if you are referring to geneva and other swiss conventions) apply to them?

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

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.

LET ME TAKE THIS POINT BY POINT

Had Mr. Sharif mustered little courage and waited another few weeks, snows would have returned to the area


And what would those occupying those snow peaked mountains eat? drink? The author conveniently forgets how harsh such winters are in such peak , the very reason why PA and IA withdrew every winter.

India would have been forced to cease military operations

Here the author assumes India does not have the capability to wage winter wars.
India would have ceased operations and simply shelled their supply routes and let them die or withdraw.

The status-quo would have left the Indian troops sitting in Siachin without any supplies to survive through the next winter.

I think many of us in this forum could qualify as strategic analysts if Mr Gill is taken to be the standard.

How does he plan to cut off supply to siachin? Does he not know that suplies to Siachin takes place through air and not through land routes. Here again he contradicts himself, if troops at Siachin who are well supplied through air are not able to survive the winter, then how on earth would those occupying the peaks be able to survive without any supplies.

It is also prudent to understand that there is a limit to how much those who occupied could to have carried by themselves and mules, there is a limit to how much ammo, weapons, comm equip and add to that food, water , tents , winter clothing they could have carried.

The author lives in a world of denial deluding himself and in the process deceiving his readers

Logistics 101 and 102 anybody?

Cheers

 

[cactuslily58]

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.

This is exactly the point I was making, how can anyone ingress across any border & not be prepred for the resultant retaliation ?

The whole thing was not thought out to the last detail. This reminds me of the bold yet foolish attempt in '71 of the attempt in the desert which stopped at Laungewala due to no / poor logistics & lack of air support.

The best a soldier can do is to give his life, its for the generals to extract the best value for it.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

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.

A statesman is a person who is worth his salt if he gets what he wants without going to war.

It must be remembered that no war can be fought without logistics. Kargil Heights was not conducive to logistics in an attack. Therefore, it was a most risky gamble not worth taking. One takes calculated gamble in war and cannot be foolhardy or gung ho! Lives of men are involved and not the chinagraph pencil impressions on a map that looks impressive!

If the war escalated, then it would be a full scale war.

The Kargil Highway was not the only way Siachen was supplied. It was just one way.So, no one would have starved. Then there are stocks at various levels for just this situation.

Snows would come in November and so it was a long time to go from May!

And that would hardly be statesman like.

It is easy to pass judgement, but remember, uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.

See the bind the PPP is in right now.

 

[TALWAR]

AM,

Also Kargil cannot be compaired to Siachen.

Siachen- was in the northen areas where LoC was not defined. So it was virtually a race between India and Pakistan to reach the top of Siachen. India captured some peaks and Pakistan managed to keep some.

But Kargil is different- the LoC is clearly defined, and do you expect country the size of India, will "race" to reach the top of kargil. Its is our land, and LoC is mutually agreed. India will flex its full strength to defend it.
This is a common mans thinking, don't know why the Pak Generals missed it.

Regd Nawaz, agreed he was on board. But the question is, did he order the Army to cross Loc. Because the Army is suppose to do what the Govt orders. I sure he would not have given such orders. I would not even entirely blame mushraf. Its the army top brass that commited the bluder. All Indian soldiers who died have been cremated with full honour - there name is in Army website and a war memorial would be raised for them.
But some pak generals played with the life and blood of some loyal soldiers. I also heard that there were some protests in Pakistan from famalies who could not get the bodies of the soldiers and was angry at govt calling them terrorists who have infilterated.

There has to be some gain from any military operation. Either territory, or diplomatic support or patriotic feelings in Nation.

No one gained any territory - both lost blood- the exact numbers will be never known - India won diplomatic support the world over - while pakistan lost its stand in Kashmir - Chaos in Pakistan after that - military coup was easy because people hated Nawaj. While patriotic feeling were very high in India - millions were given to Army in the form of donations from public - I even remember kids in school putting coins in donation and giving it to school authorities.

 

[cactuslily58]

They with drew because the political leadership offered them no support. An Army relies on its politicians to support it, which did not happen here.

Since when has the Pakistani Army relied on support from Politicians to wage war or anyother thing for that matter ??

The Pakistani troops withdrew simply coz they realised that this was a ' no go & no win' situation.The consquences of escalation were too severe. Musharraf had simply shot himself in the foot ( & put the other foot in his mouth).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Its is our land, and LoC is mutually agreed.

The LoC is mutually agreed, but the very fact that it is called the LoC, and not the International Border, means that it is not Indian territory.

India claims all of JK, so Siachen would fall under that category as well.

That said, Pakistan believes that India has infringed upon territory on its side of the LoC in Siachen, so while as an Indian the argument that "Siachen is not clearly demarcated" is plausible, for Pakistanis it is not, and hence the incursion into Kargil may have been viewed in the same light as India's incursion into Siachen.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Since when has the Pakistani Army relied on support from Politicians to wage war or anyother thing for that matter ??

When has the PA waged war without the government supporting it or government leadership signing off on it? Including kargil- NS was on board.