Leaders are not made, they are born as one !!

[DESERT FIGHTER]

r they still with us?

Yes, these we retained after Kargil.

 

[PanzerKiel]

The difference is that they succeeded in Siachen, Musharraf failed miserably in Kargil and then covered himself through lies and more shameful acts.

From a military point of view, that depends no how we define victory in these different scenarios.

 

[Jungibaaz]

From a military point of view, that depends no how we define victory in these different scenarios.

Very true, and I’d look forward to your analysis of it. From my reading however, Kargil ended in failure. I’ve heard various strategic aims and objectives of the conflict, and on the basis of those aims too, I think it can be judged a failure.

And what little territory was captured IMO was not worth all the trouble, not worth squandering a peace process and good will, not worth the economic or diplomatic cost, not worth the lives. Conversely, I think we failed to exact such a cost on India for Siachen.

 

[PanzerKiel]

Very true, and I’d look forward to your analysis of it. From my reading however, Kargil ended in failure. I’ve heard various strategic aims and objectives of the conflict, and on the basis of those aims too, I think it can be judged a failure.

And what little territory was captured IMO was not worth all the trouble, not worth squandering a peace process and good will, not worth the economic or diplomatic cost, not worth the lives. Conversely, I think we failed to exact such a cost on India for Siachen.

The territory which we had captured, troops were already taking the full benefit out of it by interdicting Indian movement on their important lateral, the erstwhile Highway 1A. That was a very serious problem for Indian Army....our troops looking right on them, their most important line of communication.

That territory was of worth to be captured, however, it would have benefited us if we would have retrained it. It would have had the same effect, reverse though,, in Tangdhar sector of indian army, where they look on our main road.

 

[Crusher]

Everything in this world is learnable, surely you cannot learn everything to perfection but you can always learn about everything to a sufficient level that caters to your needs. You just need the right trainer/teacher. I am saying it based on my scientific background as I see the whole universe in totality due to the nature of my academic education from invisible elementary atomic particles to beyond imagination colossal sized distant galaxies and everything in between in this universe including us the "little human beings".

 

[Jungibaaz]

The territory which we had captured, troops were already taking the full benefit out of it but interdicting Indian movement on their important lateral, the erstwhile Highway 1A. That was a very serious problem for Indian Army....our troops looking right on them, their most important line of communication.

That territory was of worth to be captured, however, it would have benefited us if we would have retrained it. It would have had the same effect, reverse though,, in Tangdhar sector of indian army, where they look on our main road.

I agree with your assessment of the worth of the territory, but could we have realistically retained those territories at all I wonder? Escalation ladder was in Indian control, and they seemed to dictate how far they’d be willing to go to dislodge us.

I’ve said in the past that I think Kargil planning and timing were both off. We had a few months of reserves in Q1-2 1998, our Air Force by their own estimation was at a disadvantage against the Indians, and initially denying that these were our troops could only work as a strategy up to a point. Beyond which circumstances would force us to own the conflict openly, or leave us unable to respond to escalation. At which point the former would force the brunt of the blame and diplomatic pressure directly on our shoulders for starting a conflict. We were snubbed by everyone during Kargil, even our allies in China refused to back us, the US was not interested in walking the Indians back from anything better than unconditional withdrawal.

I think the biggest issue with the Kargil plan was that it failed to account for broader consequences of starting even a limited conflict. The recent aerial spat showed us the importance of international and internal credibility when engaging in a conflict. And also, Musharraf and his close aides chose not to consult other arms of the military and the civilian government, the trade off for secrecy might have been that scenarios that involved significant escalation and diplomatic pressure mixed in were not wargamed.

I think that in the right conditions, with the necessary credibility, or at least a well thought out plan for managing escalation, another kind of Kargil conflict could have been a major success.

 

[ali_raza]

The territory which we had captured, troops were already taking the full benefit out of it but interdicting Indian movement on their important lateral, the erstwhile Highway 1A. That was a very serious problem for Indian Army....our troops looking right on them, their most important line of communication.

That territory was of worth to be captured, however, it would have benefited us if we would have retrained it. It would have had the same effect, reverse though,, in Tangdhar sector of indian army, where they look on our main road.

not only tangdhar but keran too is like a chicken neck in enemy hands.
when we had the chance.we were going in kargil we should have taken zojila pass.
that would’ve have checkmated indians
they were given free hand to bring in boffors.
if u were in that time wht moves u would take

 

[War Thunder]

Presenting you one of the greatest and brave COAS in the history of Pakistan and EX President General Pervez Musharraf.

When asked by an Indian Journalist: Do you have regret about Kargil?

Musharraf: Do you have regret about dividing Pakistan and Siachin?

No matter what he has done with the rest of the things He has always took India, Indian media and their leadership very strongly.

https://www.facebook.com/

He can take his strong talk to his grave. He ruined the country for his own survival and laid down flat on a single call from US. So don't tell me of his ability to be a leader. Tell me the mental state of you folk who have this kind of clowns as your ideals of life.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Long Live Musharaf! He has gifted India Kashmir for eternity with his Kargil misadventure.

So both Musharraf and Imran khan that hate India gifted Kashmir to India while Indian poodles Nawaj and Zardari tried to snatch kashmir from india.
Btw did Pakistan also gift India kashmir in 1948 war?

The only people Musharaff was brave against was the unarmed Pashtuns that he dropped bombs on and sold Pakistan to America for cheap dollars.

People like you should just jump in ganga and drown themselves in BS.

siding with US in WOT was the best decision Pakistan could make for its survival unless the awam wanted to be send back to stone age along with their brothers in afgonistan.

He is the biggest traitor this country has ever seen. Not only did he overthrow a civilian government to sell Pakistan for upcoming war on terror for America, he then unleashed every criminal that had done corruption by giving NRO.

No harm in over throwing a criminal run civil government.
NRO is the only blunder this man ever made, or if he was forced to.

Btw 1990s to 2010s was US prime time where they could rule the world with their dictation but now things are slowly changing.

 

[airomerix]

Dictators act against the interest of the country in an desperate attempt to seek legitimacy for their take over. Musharraf was no different.

He was ballsy, yes. But it came from his military training and was only useful against India. He didnt really help us, strategically speaking.

 

[Psychic]

Cringe, he caused immense damage to Pakistan by taking part in the WOT. What he should have done is not helped the US invade Afghanistan full stop.

Add his mishandling of Baluchistan issue to the list as well.

He brought Pakistan to the brink of internal collapse.

siding with US in WOT was the best decision Pakistan could make for its survival

There were no limits to that alliance. No negotiations, just prostrating infront of each and every demand thrown at us without any quid pro quo. Result was a disaster of epic proportions.

Myopic policies and mishandling of Bugti and Laal Masjid are additional feathers in his cap which turned Pakistanis against each other. Army men couldn't go out in public in uniforms during that time, thats how bad it was.

No harm in over throwing a criminal run civil government.

Its not army's job. Do we want to live in a banana republic where military is not answerable and doesnot care about norms and laws ? Only makes matters worse.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Add his mishandling of Baluchistan issue to the list as well.

He saved Pakistan from another waziristan type situation and now baluchistan is much better except for terrorists being pickup and then indian twitter army complaining about missing person bs.

He brought Pakistan to the brink of internal collapse.


There were no limits to that alliance. No negotiations, just prostrating infront of each and every demand thrown at us without any quid pro quo. Result was a disaster of epic proportions.

US wanted to have their boots on the ground with bases for warplanes which he prevented. what other negotiation were you looking for?

Myopic policies and mishandling of Bugti and Laal Masjid are additional feathers in his cap which turned Pakistanis against each other. Army men couldn't go out in public in uniforms during that time, thats how bad it was.

bugti is now rotting in hell and most of bla dismantled other then few idiots who casually show up from across the border and then go missing the next night.
laal masjid which harbored anti state element has no place in islam and should have been bulldozed.

Its not army's job. Do we want to live in a banana republic where military is not answerable and doesnot care about norms and laws ? Only makes matters worse.

only civilians can rule is only a new modern concept.
During Muslim's prime rule 400-1600s usually rulers came from military background and led their men from the front. prime example Prophet mohammed PBUH...
Pakistan army is the only organization that hires best of the best who are not only competent men but also sincere with the country as well. where as in civil/gov almost every other person is a crook.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I agree with your assessment of the worth of the territory, but could we have realistically retained those territories at all I wonder? Escalation ladder was in Indian control, and they seemed to dictate how far they’d be willing to go to dislodge us.

I’ve said in the past that I think Kargil planning and timing were both off. We had a few months of reserves in Q1-2 1998, our Air Force by their own estimation was at a disadvantage against the Indians, and initially denying that these were our troops could only work as a strategy up to a point. Beyond which circumstances would force us to own the conflict openly, or leave us unable to respond to escalation. At which point the former would force the brunt of the blame and diplomatic pressure directly on our shoulders for starting a conflict. We were snubbed by everyone during Kargil, even our allies in China refused to back us, the US was not interested in walking the Indians back from anything better than unconditional withdrawal.

I think the biggest issue with the Kargil plan was that it failed to account for broader consequences of starting even a limited conflict. The recent aerial spat showed us the importance of international and internal credibility when engaging in a conflict. And also, Musharraf and his close aides chose not to consult other arms of the military and the civilian government, the trade off for secrecy might have been that scenarios that involved significant escalation and diplomatic pressure mixed in were not wargamed.

I think that in the right conditions, with the necessary credibility, or at least a well thought out plan for managing escalation, another kind of Kargil conflict could have been a major success.

bro, it was very important for Pakistan to try resolving Kashmir issue militarily 1965 and 1999 because now that opportunity is completely gone since Indian military is toooo big for Pakistan to consider attacking over anything. At most Pak military is best fit for defensive role.
During 1990s when saichen conflict was at its peak (which also a limited war) which again was initiated by Pakistan the top military brass at that time thought it was a feasible idea to open another front. And are you implying that Pakistan was at the mercy of Indian air force during 1990s decade? Dont forget during soviet war PAF was like a walk in the park against Soviets but still they managed to deter any misadventure however their are many many other factors...And also during 1990s PAF F-16 hours were still 270+ which is higher then most of IAF fighters today.
This time America came to Indian rescue and forced pakistan to retreat and China was in no position to help Pakistan since it was solely concerned with building its economy. Had US not interfered things would have been quite different.
Just because the operation failed to achieve its prime objective does not mean it was a bad strategy. Some times even the best of the best strategy will result in a failure and worst of the worst strategy will result in success.
Also the international community usually does not side with aggressors and Pakistan was the aggressor but for the sake of rescuing Kashmir.
From Pakistani prospective, we must admit to the fact that Indian occupied kashmir is an occupation not a undisputed territory and then kargil war will make sense.
Now that military options have failed, Pakistan is not going to have any much luck in diplomatic front without Chinese support.

 

[fisher1]

only civilians can rule is only a new modern concept.
During Muslim's prime rule 400-1600s usually rulers came from military background and led their men from the front. prime example Prophet mohammed PBUH...

You're saying the same lie Kuffar say about Prophet Muhammad (saww).

Prophet Muhammad (saww) was a shepherd, perhaps a businessman. He didn't have military background. He was a civilian.

This is the same story of other four Caliphs (RA). They were not military. They were civilians. In fact, they were Mullahs, Ulema, something Pakistan today curses for coming into politics.

Islam has no place for dictators. Coming to power by force is never allowed in Islam and generals past, present and future, all are haramis for going against Islam and ruling over people by force.

Nauzbillah, Astaghfirullah, how dare you lie about Prophet Muhammad (saww) and the rightly guided Caliphs (RA) who were elected by their people and enjoyed love and support of their people. Don't you know about Hazrat Imam Hussain(RA)? Anyone coming to power by force is following Yazids way.

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/MilitaryDictatorship.htm

 

[GDP Adil Khan Niazi]

Cringe, he caused immense damage to Pakistan by taking part in the WOT. What he should have done is not helped the US invade Afghanistan full stop.

How are we gonna get the so-called USAid if we wouldn't have participated??

He can take his strong talk to his grave. He ruined the country for his own survival and laid down flat on a single call from US. So don't tell me of his ability to be a leader. Tell me the mental state of you folk who have this kind of clowns as your ideals of life.

If this is the way you talk to everybody I doubt I'll even bother answering you next time. There is no point in letting people like you know me or my idealizations.

With respect to the US everyone (administration) in this country bows down to the US calls, No matter how many press conferences DG ISPR do or tweets IK does, did the US even spoke once about the casualties in Kashmir No? That's a shut-up call to all I guess but they have been speaking now from last one week against China and in favor of their puppet because China is not listening to them and China doesn't have to pay back any kind of loans but we do have to so we have to listen to them. Even after so much of sacrifices being done for the US, Trump administration had invited anti-Pakistani leader to attend G-7 summit in the US and that anti-Pakistani leader has accepted the invitation which means in future even a single bullet fired from Pakistani side and all those 7+ countries will have one stance against Pakistan.