Kargil: A Debacle or A Lost Opportunity?

[Xeric]

^^^^It sure was one heck of an expensive message.

Ask your senior military leadership...havent they started peeing in their pants since Kargil... lets see if now india has the guts to attack Pakistan.....except making their soldiers to lay eggs on the borders and LoC as done in 2001-02 escalation between indian and Pakistan.

 

[vish]

People quite often ask me what would happen in case of Indo-Pak war...I usaully reply them by saying that imagine a 55-lb dude wrestling with a 230-lb big dude and not leting the big dude beat him, that would be the case if we fought again.
Kargil was never meant to be "won." It was just there to give the indians a message that we no more are a defence loving nation..we too are now capable of no bullshit offensive at our own choosing of time and space, and I am sure and the world says that the message was amply understood by the other side.
Had Nawaz not screwed up today the things should have been diffrent.

You may like to go through this thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-military-history/11832-kargil-debacle-lost-opportunity.html

Kargil was a blunder; the people who planned it never took into account that India would actually react with a "heavy hand." The planners also miscalculated the international community's reaction.

If internationalizing the Kashmir issue was the sole objective of the Kargil "operation" (something which I find hard to believe) then it did succeed but resulted in re-affirming the LoC as the de facto border.

If Kargil was never meant to be "won," why waste young lives conducting it?

"too are now capable of no bullshit offensive at our own choosing of time and space" that is mired with grave geo-political risks and international isolation.

"the message was amply understood by the other side" and the international community that Pakistan can behave very recklessly.

Further, what resort did Pakistan have besides backing off?

 

[vish]

Ask your senior military leadership...havent they started peeing in their pants since Kargil... lets see if now india has the guts to attack Pakistan.....except making their soldiers to lay eggs on the borders and LoC as done in 2001-02 escalation between indian and Pakistan.

Why should we attack Pakistan? Attacking Pakistan is the least of our concerns.

We are more than happy with the status quo if your "moral support" to the "freedom fighters" ceases.

Operation Parakram was never meant to go live.

 

[Flintlock]

Ask your senior military leadership...havent they started peeing in their pants since Kargil... lets see if now india has the guts to attack Pakistan.....except making their soldiers to lay eggs on the borders and LoC as done in 2001-02 escalation between indian and Pakistan.

I think India got the wrong message.

The new doctrine ("Cold Start") talks about preemptive strikes against Pakistan, something that was unheard of earlier.

 

[EagleEyes]

Kargil was a blunder; the people who planned it never took into account that India would actually react with a "heavy hand." The planners also miscalculated the international community's reaction.

Please... how do you know that people who planned it never thought of a military response from India even with very "severe casualties"?

What you dont know. Dont speak of. Simple as that.

 

[vish]

Please... how do you know that people who planned it never thought of a military response from India even with very "severe casualties"?

What you dont know. Dont speak of. Simple as that.

Then would you please care to explain the actions of Pakistan and the PA?

So let us assume that the planners were aware of the extent of the Indian reaction.

Then, why is it that the "withdrawal" of those troops was so chaotic and unplanned?

If the Indian response was anticipated, isn't it foolish of the "planners" to not formulate an effective exit strategy? Or is it that the "planners" believe that cannon fodder is aplenty in Pakistan?

 

[cactuslily58]

The answer to the question about who won can be answered by doing a check on which of the two belligerents achieved their aim ?

Pakistan
a) Was the Pakistani aim to merely occupy real estate & return ?
b) Did they intend ( & hope) to remain there forever & thereby "choke" Siachen or whatever ?
c) Did the Pak army intend ( & hope ) to alter the LC forever ?
d) Was it the intention to draw attention of the world to something ? If so did it have the desired effect & how ? More so coz when 9/11 came everything came tumbling down on the military machine who made U turn upon U turn.

India

a) Did India intend to do anything other than to kick out the intruders ?
b) Was the intention to send a strong , clear & unequivocal message to muddle headed Generals to stop behaving like school boys.
c) Was it the intention to expose the machinations of a junta where two power centers ran , each with its own agenda ?

Without going on endlessly, I leave it to the reader to draw his own infrences to suit himself/ herself depending on which side of the border you are.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/docs-temp/66-pandy.pdf

 

[Flintlock]

http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/docs-temp/66-pandy.pdf

Great find, Salim!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think India got the wrong message.

The new doctrine ("Cold Start") talks about preemptive strikes against Pakistan, something that was unheard of earlier.

That would be in the aftermath of the Parakram Op. - to address that failures vis a vis Pakistan's conventional deterrent, not Kargil.

I think the article posted by Blain raises some very valid points about the strategic and tactical calculations Pakistan made that would ensure India would not be able to escalate the conflict into a broader war, though I think there were miscalculations made regarding the diplomatic isolation and pressure Pakistan would suffer.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Threads merged.

No point having two on the same issue.

 

[Flintlock]

That would be in the aftermath of the Parakram Op. - to address that failures vis a vis Pakistan's conventional deterrent, not Kargil.

I was responding to his assertion about Indian Generals "pissing their pants ever since" which implied that the pissing is still going on.

Obviously, if the pissing ever happened, it has stopped ever since the new doctorine was envisaged.

I think the article posted by Blain raises some very valid points about the strategic and tactical calculations Pakistan made that would ensure India would not be able to escalate the conflict into a broader war, though I think there were miscalculations made regarding the diplomatic isolation and pressure Pakistan would suffer.

In that case Pakistan shot itself in its diplomatic foot.

The non-escalation of the conflict, and Indian's (forced or unforced ) decision not to cross the LOC instantly earned respect all over the world.

It resulted in a general tilting of world opinion towards India's position on Kashmir, and a recognition of India as a responsible nation.

It also confirmed Pakistan as an aggressor and won it many enemies, especially in the EU.

Personally, based on the sources I consider to be credible (Indian ones and western ones), India's decision not to escalate the war or cross the LOC was a wise and unilateral one.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In that case Pakistan shot itself in its diplomatic foot.

The non-escalation of the conflict, and Indian's (forced or unforced ) decision not to cross the LOC instantly earned respect all over the world.

It resulted in a general tilting of world opinion towards India's position on Kashmir, and a recognition of India as a responsible nation.

It also confirmed Pakistan as an aggressor and won it many enemies, especially in the EU.

Personally, based on the sources I consider to be credible (Indian ones and western ones), India's decision not to escalate the war or cross the LOC was a wise and unilateral one.

Thats what I mean by "miscalculated the diplomatic repercussions".

However the authors arguments regarding tying down the Indian military to where it could not escalate remain valid ones. The fact that India did not escalate (was not able to escalate) led to an earning of respect is a retrospective position.

It couldn't have worked out better (for India), since the very thing that Pakistan tied India down with, contributed to the diplomatic pressure to withdraw and an increase in India's stature.

A strategy that turned out to be too successful perhaps.

 

[Flintlock]

Thats what I mean by "miscalculated the diplomatic repercussions".

However the authors arguments regarding tying down the Indian military to where it could not escalate remain valid ones. The fact that India did not escalate (was not able to escalate) led to an earning of respect is a retrospective position.

It couldn't have worked out better (for India), since the very thing that Pakistan tied India down with, contributed to the diplomatic pressure to withdraw and an increase in India's stature.

A strategy that turned out to be too successful perhaps.

So how exactly did Pakistan prevent India from escalating the conflict?

India could have crossed the LOC, I don't see how any tactic of Pakistan could have prevented that if India wanted to.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So how exactly did Pakistan prevent India from escalating the conflict?

India could have crossed the LOC, I don't see how any tactic of Pakistan could have prevented that if India wanted to.

The article posted by Blain discusses those points. Did you read it?