I don't have to because it is par for the course when it comes to Pakistan and our neighbor. Why is war 1965 not a "misadventure" then?
1965 is also just as debatable as misadventure as Kargil, to be fair.
You have a subjugated population in Kashmir. If Pakistan does not put military pressure nothing happens. This has been the case for 7 decades. Pakistan cannot just sit dormant on the issue of Kashmir. Musharraf and MO Dte planned Kargil before things went awry with NS so this was not an act of self-preservation. The focus was the Kashmir cause and that is it. Now we can debate what helps and what does not, but any military action in support of Kashmir is not a misadventure in my book.
Whose Constitutional authority is it to decide on initiating a war? How did this military operation serve Pakistan's national interest in the short and the long term? Is Pakistan closer to getting its way over Kashmir after the Kargil episode?
Has the other side ever apologized for their Siachen "misadventure"? They went across LoC to stake their claim. We did the same. Why this constant apologetic PoV? Some of the very same retired hazraat who are on record to be in the opposite camp of Musharraf and talked of Kargil as being a misstep, in private all these individuals agree that there is no option but from time to time put military pressure across LoC to force the issue. Indians do it as and when it suits them. This has been the case since ever since 1971.
Please note that there was no LoC demarcated that could be crossed from the last demarcated point except as "thence north to the glaciers" and that is why India stopped at the Saltoro Ridge. That is why Pakistan has never taken the required steps to show a violation of the LoC over this matter.
This drawing room talk of exerting military pressure across the LoC from time to time is merely to ensure the ongoing nature of Pakistan as a security dominated state, that is all, with everlasting damage to its social development. Kashmir the princely state that existed in 1947 has long since been divvied up between three neighboring nuclear powers and there can be no going back to that for the foreseeable future.
India can do as it wishes over this matter is because it has not allowed itself to become a security state and concentrated on its economy for the last few decades, pure and simple. Pakistan, sadly has made the exact opposite choices and the consequences are only just becoming evident, very predictably so, I might add.
If Pakistan wants to achieve the same international gravitas, it must also follow the same strategy of economic and social development and give it a few decades as there are no shortcuts.
In the meantime, there will never been a fruitful outcome to any military misadventures across the LoC, by either side.
I don't apologize for what Pakistan did in 1965 and I don't think anyone should apologize for what went on in Kargil. Planning and execution was done for all the right reasons.
But isn't it ironic how all the "right reasons" have given always rise to all the wrong outcomes we see today?
