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

[diligence]

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.

With all due respect, I think Kargil operation - starting right from its planning and then execution - was a flawed one. However, looking at it purely from a commander's point of view, it was an excellent plan – over-scoped though to suitably fit at a tactical level. It was a strategic move in all its nature, scope, and consequences. Musharraf failed in realizing that. The capturing of vital peaks and surrounding areas was executed perfectly. But the planning for a sustained hold on those peaks was either non-existing or insufficient. Such a devastating blow to the enemy, it must have been taken into account at the planning level, would certainly invite trouble because the shocked and helpless enemy would certainly expand the scope of operation both at military and diplomatic levels. But we Pakistanis failed to foresee that and hence you see neither all armed services nor the civilian government was onboard before or during the execution of that operation. Nations are required to define and follow a cohesive strategy to push such an operation to the success. But in this case, the civilian leadership was found unaware, least of all being prepared and willing, to effectively provide necessary diplomatic cover and required operational synergy to the operation. On top of that, the erroneous strategy of disowning the occupants on those peaks (calling them merely freedom fighters) badly tied the hands of state of Pakistan. As a result, how then you could deploy, for example, the PAF in support of the occupants to counter IOF sorties? How you could deploy regular army troops to secure the bases/foothills of those peaks to ensure a continued supply of men and material to the force stationed on the peaks? How could the civilian government could openly support the operation when it was launched by freedom fighters (that can easily be portrayed by the enemy as terrorists)? More than that, how the civilian government could resist international blackmailing and pressure launched by world powers (because Pakistan was perceived as an aggressor party - qualon key dallali main moonh kala - our men were being killed by enemy precision bombing on the peaks and we were being labeled as aggressors and could only see that helplessly). For the first time in my life, I heard this silly term of ‘sanctity of LoC’, the same LoC that has been consistently breached by Indians over not years but rather for decades. Yes, we still have a handful of peaks in our control but the operation caused more overall damage and incurred more cost to us than any benefits we reaped. In my opinion, it's not the case that we were not capable of retaining those peaks. Far from that, we had the military capability to achieve that. The prime reason for our failure to achieve that was a flawed planning. It was a failure of the planners to realistically analyze the enemy response and get fully prepared for effectively dealing and defeating the enemy response. The bottom line is that both the civilian government and military (including all three services) must be on the same page before such an operation is launched. You need months of prior diplomatic work to prepare a suitable environment for the time that is in sync with the actual launching of the military operation. We were sadly missing that part. False and self-deceptive narratives of putting all blame on the then civilian government is going to serve no national interest of ours. I believe it's rather harmful.

 

[Reichmarshal]

Kargil was all about commandant FCNA....he had just been promted after his stint in the US of a.
Lots of things mush was unaware of of till the very end. By the time mush n the rest found out wt has been done or happened their was no going back.

It was all commandant fcna....dont fall for the b.s. spun after to cover things up.

Mush was any thing but a leader, shouldent have gone past a Col.

 

[PanzerKiel]

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.

A basic problem with Kargil conflict is that most of us are unaware of the military and political objectives which were set as parameters to declare it successful. Unless those are known, our analysis of the tactical level performance or higher level leadership will be in vain.

We all enjoy the benefit of hindsight while discussing past operations, that may be kept in mind. This makes our task much easier while discussing anything. Its always easier to pass a judgement this way.

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

I, based on my limited experience, always fail to understand the importance of FH-77 Bofors once Kargil is being discussed. It is nothing special, a normal artillery piece. Its extended range was of no use since the conflict dictated that artillery was already being fired over open sights, or direct fire. Rest it fired normal artillery shells which had the same effect as that of a normal artillery gun of its calibre. For Tiger Hill, Indians conducted a 200-gun pre-attack bombardment, followed by a Brigade level attack....even then what odds 8 Sikh, 18 Grenadiers and 2 Naga faced against a small body of NLI troops is pretty evident.

Do please keep in view the exact location of Zoji La pass vis a vis LOC, along with the indian deployments in the area. Its not that easy to reach Zoji La undetected.

A basic problem with Kargil conflict is that most of us are unaware of the military and political objectives which were set as parameters to declare it successful. Unless those are known, our analysis of the tactical level performance or higher level leadership will be in vain.

We all enjoy the benefit of hindsight while discussing past operations, that may be kept in mind. This makes our task much easier while discussing anything. Its always easier to pass a judgement this way.



I, based on my limited experience, always fail to understand the importance of FH-77 Bofors once Kargil is being discussed. It is nothing special, a normal artillery piece. Its extended range was of no use since the conflict dictated that artillery was already being fired over open sights, or direct fire. Rest it fired normal artillery shells which had the same effect as that of a 130 mm gun or IFG.

Do please keep in view the exact location of Zoji La pass vis a vis LOC, along with the indian deployments in the area. Its not that easy to reach Zoji La undetected.

@diligence

With all due respect, I think Kargil operation - starting right from its planning and then execution - was a flawed one. However, looking at it purely from a commander's point of view, it was an excellent plan – over-scoped though to suitably fit at a tactical level. It was a strategic move in all its nature, scope, and consequences. Musharraf failed in realizing that. The capturing of vital peaks and surrounding areas was executed perfectly. But the planning for a sustained hold on those peaks was either non-existing or insufficient. Such a devastating blow to the enemy, it must have been taken into account at the planning level, would certainly invite trouble because the shocked and helpless enemy would certainly expand the scope of operation both at military and diplomatic levels. But we Pakistanis failed to foresee that and hence you see neither all armed services nor the civilian government was onboard before or during the execution of that operation. Nations are required to define and follow a cohesive strategy to push such an operation to the success. But in this case, the civilian leadership was found unaware, least of all being prepared and willing, to effectively provide necessary diplomatic cover and required operational synergy to the operation. On top of that, the erroneous strategy of disowning the occupants on those peaks (calling them merely freedom fighters) badly tied the hands of state of Pakistan. As a result, how then you could deploy, for example, the PAF in support of the occupants to counter IOF sorties? How you could deploy regular army troops to secure the bases/foothills of those peaks to ensure a continued supply of men and material to the force stationed on the peaks? How could the civilian government could openly support the operation when it was launched by freedom fighters (that can easily be portrayed by the enemy as terrorists)? More than that, how the civilian government could resist international blackmailing and pressure launched by world powers (because Pakistan was perceived as an aggressor party - qualon key dallali main moonh kala - our men were being killed by enemy precision bombing on the peaks and we were being labeled as aggressors and could only see that helplessly). For the first time in my life, I heard this silly term of ‘sanctity of LoC’, the same LoC that has been consistently breached by Indians over not years but rather for decades. Yes, we still have a handful of peaks in our control but the operation caused more overall damage and incurred more cost to us than any benefits we reaped. In my opinion, it's not the case that we were not capable of retaining those peaks. Far from that, we had the military capability to achieve that. The prime reason for our failure to achieve that was a flawed planning. It was a failure of the planners to realistically analyze the enemy response and get fully prepared for effectively dealing and defeating the enemy response. The bottom line is that both the civilian government and military (including all three services) must be on the same page before such an operation is launched. You need months of prior diplomatic work to prepare a suitable environment for the time that is in sync with the actual launching of the military operation. We were sadly missing that part. False and self-deceptive narratives of putting all blame on the then civilian government is going to serve no national interest of ours. I believe it's rather harmful.

As far as planning is concerned, the objectives, their retainability and sustainability were all within limits if we had gone as per the ORIGINAL plan. If we would have stuck to the original plan, Indian response would not have been that big, and the scope of operation from both sides would have been within our acceptable limits.

You are right, disowning own troops is always detrimental to morale.

PAF support was originally not required as per the original plan.

Again, supply should not have been a problem if we would have followed the original plan.

You are also right that in the end, this operation did more damage to us than of any use.

You are also right that pre-hostilities diplomatic moves were missing which could have complemented our efforts.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Cmon gentlemen, instead of discussing Kargil War in this thread (we can do it in its own thread) lets discuss our leaders, for this is what this thread is all about.

Leaders are not found in higher echelons, Pakistan Army has exemplary examples of leaders at all levels till General Officers. Just some examples (some, not all)

Gen Iftikhar
Gen Tajammal
Gen Bokhari (as Brigadier in FCNA)
Brigadier Ameer Hamza (105 Brigade)
Lt Col Raja Akram, FF
Lt Col Sultan, 31 Baluch
Brigadier Hayat, 107 Brigade, 1971
Gen A O Mitha
Gen Abrar, GOC 6 Armored Division
Gen Akhtar Malik
Brig Nisar, 25 Cavalry, Chengez Force
Brig Amjad Chaudhary
Brif A R Shami
our NH recipients
Capt Iqbal, SSG
Maj, later Brigadier Abdul Rehman, SSG
Brig T M


Above names may not be even 1% of our heroes, and then these are only from Army, we have many heroes from PAF and PN as well.....

Then, again, thousands of examples from the last two decades in our fight against terrorists.

 

[niaz]

Just like a racehorse, the pedigree of human beings matters. Thinking that every human being is born with equal abilities is inherently false. Often the leaders, especially the extraordinary ones; just like those blessed with good looks; are endowed with the leadership qualities from birth.

But the DNA can only help to a certain extent and no more. Leadership is a combination of skills that can be taught. Armed forces officer's training programs are based on the assumption that teaching, observation, and training honed through experience, produce competent officers. The environment, such as the type of school and peer group relationship during the pre-adulthood age, also matters.

However, there is a difference between and a competent Leader and a Master. In my opinion, a master or a ‘Gifted’ leader; whether military or political; in addition to training, learning & experience is born with a ‘Charisma’ as well as a 6th sense. Something that cannot be acquired and has to be in the DNA.

 

[Hamza913]

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

We wouldn't get it lol. That aid isn't even near enough to compensate the sheer economic loss that occurred when we assisted them anyway.

 

[fisher1]

You people need to repent for your sins for following footsteps of the people of loot and destroying Islam's image by being a intolerant society where women and children are treated like slaves. Name me one achievement from your part of the world except for widespread of homosexuality pandemic and terrorism? Dont even bother considering yourself defender of Islam since your type have caused more harm to Islam then anything.
First control over widespread of homosexuality which your lots have spread across the region and then talk about Islam. Allah can forgive many things that a muslim has committed but not homosexuality. What have you done to stop the widespread? The real "beigherat" are people like you who beat up their women lock them in cage while have sexual relationship with young boys.
Please tell me what contribution you lot have in Pakistan? except for causing rest of pakistan to suffer because of your action and giving bad name to Islam.
________________

Prophet Mohammed PBUH was not only a prophet but also a great warrior, leader in the battlefield, merchant, father, husband etc. He was everything that a good man could be.
You need to embrace the fact that Prophet Mohammed PBUH fought in battles but only when his people's life were threatened.

Salahudin, tipu sultan are a prime example of what Muslim leader as they lead their army in battlefield and were also involved in the well being of his people.

I am not here to give you a historical lecture but just showed you a quick glimpse of the great Muslim history that people like you have destroyed by creating intolerant interpretation.

I can also predict that your next punch line is going to be oh i am on american agenda or on their payroll go ahead I wont be bothered by someone like you.

Since you speak about Pakistani army general in high regards then let me tell you.
Zia Ul haq saved you people from more rape, death and destruction from soviet union and gave you shelter. Yes zia was the same guy who not only toppled bhutto's government but also hanged him and then worked hand in hand with CIA and US government to fight soviets.
As for musharraf, he did the best thing by toppling a corrupt incompetent PMLN government and saved Pakistan from being wiped off the map.
US would not have attacked Pakistan? Not that they are not capable of since few hundred salvo missile attack could cripple entire Pakistani military fallowed by stealth bombers without US having to put boots on the ground.
By the term being whipped off the map also refers to having your economy assassinated and bringing entire nation to the knees.
During 2001 ENTIRE world government including your arab masters were on US side 100% and had they all agreed to sanctioned Pakistan people like you would perish within few weeks fallowed by death and destruction of society within months. Pakistan is in no position to self sustain like Iran which has a much much much better economy in isolation where as Pakistan rely on world.
Oh were you going to say that Pakistani army generals practice wife swapping rituals? lol even if they do its still no where close to bacha bazi culture on massive scale.

I think you have been watching too many FOX TV shows about Pakistan and Pashtuns.

I think you should seriously reflect back on your knowledge of Islam and Islamic history, for your own good.

If by some miracle Pakistan gets in a war with India, and Imran Khan engages in war on the field, nobody will call him a military man and say Muslim leaders came from military background just like Imran Khan. No, Imran Khan is a civilian even if he takes part in war.

I think you're too stupid to understand this or have an agenda to defend these oppressors especially Musharaff and their illegal coming to power. All of them. Military generals in Islamic history were only defenders and expander of borders. Ulema were the leaders of the country.

Read the link i posted. Read Islamic history. Read what happened to Khalid bin Waleed(RA).

 

[AZ1]

Mujeeb won 165 seats and Bhutto 84, but Yahya and his cronies(Establishment) did not favour Mujeeb. They fed Bhutto with the lollipop that they will control EP and not allow Mujeeb at all cost, so should consider yourself as a PM. There was full censorship in the media, even till the 15th Dec we believed Pakistan was winning. Had the Establishment not blessed Bhutto, his rhetoric was enough for censorship. But they fed it to the masses to make Mujeeb look bad (which he did became later on).
Moving on we need to learn from our past mistakes and strive to make our country GREAT again.

Moral of the story, every bad thing happened is because of establishment and every good thing oh i forget with democracy there never any good thing.

 

[blain2]

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

India has been gifted nothing. As the adage goes, don't chew more than you can swallow, the very same applies to IoK. The playbook that is being tried out has been seen before in an other part of the world and people are not going to fall for that in the IoK. There will be a very violent resistance to Indian moves in the occupied territory in the coming years and this isn't something that India can solve by itself just because it has changed a law but I understand if Indians a very bullish due to Modi's theatrics. The contours of relations in the region are also going through a seismic shift and none of the countries involved in this Kashmir situation will be the better for it.

Moral of the story, every bad thing happened is because of establishment and every good thing oh i forget with democracy there never any good thing.

The establishment is Pakistan's saving grace. Don't buy into the tripe that is spewed about Pakistan's establishment all the while everyone elses establishment is given a pass.

 

[Psychic]

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...

When the most celebrated General of Islam was removed from command, he obeyed the command of his caliph instead of marching with his forces towards Medina and overthrowing the supreme leader. Compare that to the attitude displayed by Musharraf.

And comparing Musharraf to those Islamic rulers is an affront.

Besides, Musharraf was no Napoleon or Clausewitz, he was a below average general who was supposed to retire but was promoted superseding others.

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.

LoL. He was responsible for creating that mess thanks to his heavy handed tactics which did more harm than good. And he didn't clean anything, he made people terrorists through his stupid policies. It were Kiyani and Raheel Shareef who had to clean his mess.

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

Again a myth. There was no "stone-age" threat. The US wanted logistic support and action against AQ, nothing else. We gave a lot more than that without getting anything in return. Indian influence was allowed in Afghanistan and Kashmir handed in a platter to the Indians. We got peanuts and are happy with it; the damage to economy was far greater.

laal masjid which harbored anti state element has no place in islam and should have been bulldozed.

Yeah and as a result, the whole country got buldozed.

Ch Shujaat was about to reach an agreement when the operation was launched under media's pressure. Yeah the same media was asking Mush to take action and switched sides once it was taken. You can blame media or laal masjid for that, I blame the one who was at the helm.

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.

There was zero problem in Baluchistan before Bugti episode. Had peace been made, there would have been no violence. Again a mess created by Musharraf himself and cleaned by his successors.

 

[GDP Adil Khan Niazi]

We wouldn't get it lol. That aid isn't even near enough to compensate the sheer economic loss that occurred when we assisted them anyway.

Only if the state administration can understand!
sometimes I think we locals are much more sensible and could've taken very different decisions (which could've actually benefitted Pakistan) from what our administration has taken.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I think you have been watching too many FOX TV shows about Pakistan and Pashtuns.

You see, you lot are so predictable. "American agent" "jew agent" "kafir". prime example of knee jerk reaction of delusional people.
Before you cry about China or Pakistani military oppressing your people, do something about fixing your society which has more commonality with the people of Lut the city that was turned upside down from wrath of Allah! This is not a propaganda against you or your people but showing you the reality on the mirror.
Apart from praying, please do let me know what commonality your people have that you are so proud of have with Islam? Actually I can find more positive things in western society then yours that is in accordance to Islam which they fallow unknowingly. And as Muslims allah has higher expectations from us then them.

Here this is just one example, it has become so normal that abusers openly talk about it without fear of the law.

I think you should seriously reflect back on your knowledge of Islam and Islamic history, for your own good.

Once you distinguish religion from culture you will only then understand Islam. Unfortunately specially from your part of the world only few percentage of muslims have any knowledge while majority just fallow it because its part of their culture (not that other part of current muslim world is any better).

If by some miracle Pakistan gets in a war with India, and Imran Khan engages in war on the field, nobody will call him a military man and say Muslim leaders came from military background just like Imran Khan. No, Imran Khan is a civilian even if he takes part in war.

Apart from social and religious life of Prophet Mohammed PBUH he was a warrior, a leader in battlefield and also a politician who brought together diverse communities and successfully governed/ruled the land.
This alone concludes my main argument that government run by only civilians is a modern concept imposed by British masters on their muslim colony and Islam supports land being governed by individuals with diverse military and political background.

As for Imran khan argument, he is a civil leader without any military experience or background and it will be military leadership that will take over the control of such situation and rightly so.

I think you're too stupid to understand this or have an agenda to defend these oppressors especially Musharaff and their illegal coming to power. All of them. Military generals in Islamic history were only defenders and expander of borders. Ulema were the leaders of the country.
Read the link i posted. Read Islamic history. Read what happened to Khalid bin Waleed(RA).

Again, prime example prophet mohammed PBUH who was a military leader and a leader of his nation and as a matter of fact his successor Abu Bakr was also a great warrior who then became then chosen by prophet to be the leader and became the first caliph. Their was NO elections and nor was Abu Bakr a civilian who never picked up a sword before. It is absolutely permissible for a military man to lead his nation because he is the one who puts his life in danger to protect his people.
Their might have been cases of muslim generals not performing up to par but it does not mean anything regarding ruling system in Islam.
As for Musharraf, I am not here to defend him for all of his actions as me made a lot of blunders but Kargil and removal of Nawaz in 1999 was not one of them and he was certainly better then many before him.

 

[Crusher]

When the most celebrated General of Islam was removed from command, he obeyed the command of his caliph instead of marching with his forces towards Medina and overthrowing the supreme leader. Compare that to the attitude displayed by Musharraf.

And comparing Musharraf to those Islamic rulers is an affront.

Besides, Musharraf was no Napoleon or Clausewitz, he was a below average general who was supposed to retire but was promoted superseding others.

LoL. He was responsible for creating that mess thanks to his heavy handed tactics which did more harm than good. And he didn't clean anything, he made people terrorists through his stupid policies. It were Kiyani and Raheel Shareef who had to clean his mess.

Again a myth. There was no "stone-age" threat. The US wanted logistic support and action against AQ, nothing else. We gave a lot more than that without getting anything in return. Indian influence was allowed in Afghanistan and Kashmir handed in a platter to the Indians. We got peanuts and are happy with it; the damage to economy was far greater.

Yeah and as a result, the whole country got buldozed.

Ch Shujaat was about to reach an agreement when the operation was launched under media's pressure. Yeah the same media was asking Mush to take action and switched sides once it was taken. You can blame media or laal masjid for that, I blame the one who was at the helm.

There was zero problem in Baluchistan before Bugti episode. Had peace been made, there would have been no violence. Again a mess created by Musharraf himself and cleaned by his successors.

I am as anti-musharraf as you can get out there but Nawaz Sharif of 1999 was a POS in his behavior and policies, his love for india in 1999 was making most people in Pakistan uncomfortable so I can understand why the army as a whole sided with another POS like Musharraf to get rid of him.

 

[BATMAN]

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

Indian would piss in his pants to show Giligit as Indian territory during the rule of Musharraf.
You are clearly thanking the wrong person.

 

[Prince Kassad]

Indian would piss in his pants to show Giligit as Indian territory during the rule of Musharraf.
You are clearly thanking the wrong person.

Why was he given the death sentence?

 

[BATMAN]

I strongly agree to that, but the rest of his show was a complete DISASTER for the STATE.

Disaster was created by Imran Khan and party, which has been multiplied after they hijacked Pakistan by unfair means.

On the subject matter, India was never so bold, as they are while Pakistan is being ruled by Imran Khan, and rightly so because India was not accounted upon scraping special status of occupied Kashmir, instead Indians started claiming Gilgit as their own country.
Complacency of new regime of Pakistan, leaves no doubt on their treason with Kashmir and Pakistan.

Why was he given the death sentence?

Because Pakistan is ruled by the friends of Iran, who help India more than Indians can help themselves.