What's new

Disturbing Similarity To Vietnam

INDIANFALCON

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I have no hatred toward USA but no Love either.

As a student of MILITARY HISTORY I find it quite disturbing to study the various disasters the mighty US of A has taken the world to and the millions of human lives lost apart from economic and social devastation.

Entire countries have suffered and if we compile the list it is quite a long one-

1950-1959

1950-53 -- Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions. US forces deployed in Korea exceeded 300,000 during the last year of the conflict. Over 36,600 US military were killed in action.

1950-55 -- Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the US Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa and Chinese Nationalist operations against mainland China.

1955-64 -- Vietnam. First military advisors sent to Vietnam on 12 Feb 1955. By 1964, US troop levels had grown to 21,000. On 7 August 1964, US Congress approved Gulf of Tonkin resolution affirming "All necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States. . .to prevent further aggression. . . (and) assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty (SEATO) requesting assistance. . ."[Vietnam timeline]

1956 -- Egypt. A marine battalion evacuated US nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis

1958 -- Lebanon. Lebanon crisis of 1958 Marines were landed in Lebanon at the invitation of President Camille Chamoun to help protect against threatened insurrection supported from the outside. The President's action was supported by a Congressional resolution passed in 1957 that authorized such actions in that area of the world.

1960-1969

1959-60 -- The Caribbean. Second Marine Ground Task Force was deployed to protect US nationals following the Cuban revolution.

1962 -- Thailand. The Third Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by July 30, the 5,000 marines had been withdrawn.[RL30172]

1962 -- Cuba. Cuban Missile Crisis On October 22, President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against nations in the Western Hemisphere would bring about US nuclear retaliation on the Soviet Union. A negotiated settlement was achieved in a few days.[RL30172]

1962-75 -- Laos. From October 1962 until 1975, the United States played an important role in military support of anti-Communist forces in Laos.[RL30172]

1964 -- Congo (Zaire). The United States sent four transport planes to provide airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.[RL30172]

1959-75 -- Vietnam War. US military advisers had been in South Vietnam for a decade, and their numbers had been increased as the military position of the Saigon government became weaker. After citing what he termed were attacks on US destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf, President Johnson asked in August 1964 for a resolution expressing US determination to support freedom and protect peace in Southeast Asia. Congress responded with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, expressing support for "all necessary measures" the President might take to repel armed attacks against US forces and prevent further aggression. Following this resolution, and following a Communist attack on a US installation in central Vietnam, the United States escalated its participation in the war to a peak of 543,000 military personnel by April 1969.[RL30172]

1965 -- Dominican Republic. Invasion of Dominican Republic The United States intervened to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt and sent 20,000 US troops as fears grew that the revolutionary forces were coming increasingly under Communist control.[RL30172]

1967 -- Congo (Zaire). The United States sent three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.[RL30172]

1968 -- Laos & Cambodia. U.S. starts secret bombing campaign against targets along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the sovereign nations of Cambodia and Laos. The bombings last at least two years. (See Operation Commando Hunt)


1970-1979

1970 -- Cambodia Campaign. US troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked US and South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.[RL30172]

1973 -- Operation Nickel Grass, a strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

1974 -- Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated US civilians during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.[RL30172]

1975 -- Evacuation from Vietnam. On April 3, 1975, President Ford reported US naval vessels, helicopters, and Marines had been sent to assist in evacuation of refugees and US nationals from Vietnam.[RL30172]

1975 -- Evacuation from Cambodia. On April 12, 1975, President Ford reported that he had ordered US military forces to proceed with the planned evacuation of US citizens from Cambodia.[RL30172]

1975 -- South Vietnam. On April 30, 1975, President Ford reported that a force of 70 evacuation helicopters and 865 Marines had evacuated about 1,400 US citizens and 5,500 third country nationals and South Vietnamese from landing zones near the US Embassy in Saigon and the Tan Son Nhut Airfield.[RL30172]

1975 -- Cambodia. Mayagüez Incident. On May 15, 1975, President Ford reported he had ordered military forces to retake the SS Mayagüez, a merchant vessel which was seized from Cambodian naval patrol boats in international waters and forced to proceed to a nearby island.[RL30172]

1976 -- Lebanon. On July 22 and 23, 1974, helicopters from five US naval vessels evacuated approximately 250 Americans and Europeans from Lebanon during fighting between Lebanese factions after an overland convoy evacuation had been blocked by hostilities.[RL30172]

1978 -- Zaire (Congo). From May 19 through June 1978, the United States utilized military transport aircraft to provide logistical support to Belgian and French rescue operations in Zaire.[RL30172]

1980-1990

1980 -- Iran. Operation Eagle Claw On April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six US transport planes and eight helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue American hostages being held in Iran.[RL30172]

1981 --Libya. First Gulf of Sidra Incident On August 19, 1981, US planes based on the carrier USS Nimitz shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra after one of the Libyan jets had fired a heat-seeking missile. The United States periodically held freedom of navigation exercises in the Gulf of Sidra, claimed by Libya as territorial waters but considered international waters by the United States.[RL30172]

1982 -- Sinai. On March 19, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of military personnel and equipment to participate in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. Participation had been authorized by the Multinational Force and Observers Resolution, Public Law 97-132.[RL30172]

1982 -- Lebanon. Multinational Force in Lebanon. On August 21, 1982, President Reagan reported the dispatch of 80 Marines to serve in the multinational force to assist in the withdrawal of members of the Palestine Liberation force from Beirut. The Marines left September 20, 1982.[RL30172]

1982-1983 -- Lebanon. On September 29, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of 1200 marines to serve in a temporary multinational force to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty. On September 29, 1983, Congress passed the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119) authorizing the continued participation for eighteen months.[RL30172]

1983 -- Grenada. Citing the increased threat of Soviet and Cuban influence and noting the development of an international airport following a bloodless Grenada coup d'état and alignment with the Soviets and Cuba, the U.S. launches Operation Urgent Fury to invade the sovereign island nation of Grenada.[RL30172]

1984 -- Persian Gulf. On June 5, 1984, Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes, aided by intelligence from a US AWACS electronic surveillance aircraft and fueled by a U.S. KC-10 tanker, shot down two Iranian fighter planes over an area of the Persian Gulf proclaimed as a protected zone for shipping.[RL30172]

A F G H A N I S T A N
In order to bolster the Parcham faction, the Soviet Union—citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries—intervened on December 24, 1979. Over 100,000 Soviet troops took part in the invasion backed by another 100,000 plus and by members of the Parcham faction. Amin was killed and replaced by Babrak Karmal.

Soviet troops withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1988.

In response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and part of its overall Cold War strategy, the United States responded by arming and otherwise supporting the Afghan mujahideen, which had taken up arms against the Soviet occupiers. U.S. support began during the Carter administration, but increased substantially during the Reagan administration, in which it became a centerpiece of the so-called Reagan Doctrine under which the U.S. provided support to anti-communist resistance movements in Afghanistan and also in Angola, Nicaragua, and other nations. In addition to U.S. support, the mujahideen received support from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other nations.

The Soviet occupation resulted in the killings of at least 600,000 to 2 million Afghan civilians. Over five million Afghans fled their country to Pakistan, Iran and other parts of the world. Faced with mounting international pressure and great number of casualties on both sides, the Soviets withdrew in 1989.

The Soviet withdrawal from the DRA was seen as an ideological victory in the U.S., which had backed the Mujahideen through three U.S. presidential administrations in order to counter Soviet influence in the vicinity of the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

Following the removal of the Soviet forces, the U.S. and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there.[citation needed] The USSR continued to support President Mohammad Najibullah (former head of the Afghan secret service, KHAD) until 1992 when the new Russian government refused to sell oil products to the Najibullah regime.[58]

1986 -- Libya. Operation El Dorado Canyon On April 16, 1986, President Reagan reported that U.S. air and naval forces had conducted bombing strikes on terrorist facilities and military installations in the Libyan capitol of Tripoli, claiming that Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi was responsible for a bomb attack at a German disco that killed two U.S. soldiers.[RL30172]

1987-88 -- Persian Gulf. After the Iran-Iraq War resulted in several military incidents in the Persian Gulf, the United States increased US joint military forces operations in the Persian Gulf and adopted a policy of reflagging and escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Persian Gulf, called Operation Earnest Will. President Reagan reported that US ships had been fired upon or struck mines or taken other military action on September 21 (Iran Ajr), October 8, and October 19, 1987 and April 18 (Operation Praying Mantis), July 3, and July 14, 1988. The United States gradually reduced its forces after a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq on August 20, 1988.[RL30172] It was the largest naval convoy operation since World War II.[4]

1987-88 -- Operation Earnest Will was the U.S. military protection of Kuwaiti oil tankers from Iraqi and Iranian attacks in 1987 and 1988 during the Tanker War phase of the Iran-Iraq War. It was the largest naval convoy operation since World War II.

1987-88 -- Operation Prime Chance was a United States Special Operations Command operation intended to protect U.S. -flagged oil tankers from Iranian attack during the Iran-Iraq War. The operation took place roughly at the same time as Operation Earnest Will.

1988 -- Operation Praying Mantis was the April 18, 1988 action waged by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.

1988 -- Operation Golden Pheasant was an emergency deployment of U.S. troops to Honduras in 1988, as a result of threatening actions by the forces of the (then socialist) Nicaraguans.

1988 -- USS Vincennes shoot down of Iran Air Flight 655

1989 -- Libya. Second Gulf of Sidra Incident On January 4, 1989, two US Navy F-14 aircraft based on the USS John F. Kennedy shot down two Libyan jet fighters over the Mediterranean Sea about 70 miles north of Libya. The US pilots said the Libyan planes had demonstrated hostile intentions.[RL30172]

1990 -- Saudi Arabia. On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he had ordered the forward deployment of substantial elements of the US armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option.[RL30172]

1991-1999

1991 -- Iraq. Persian Gulf War On January 16 America attacked Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait, in conjunction with a coalition of allies and UN Security Council resolutions. Combat operations ended on February 28, 1991.[RL30172] (See Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm)

1991 -- Iraq. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of US forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.[RL30172]

1991 -- Zaire. On September 25-27, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa, US Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Kinshasa. US planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic and hauled evacuated American citizens.[RL30172]

1991-96 -- Operation Provide Comfort. Delivery of humanitarian relief and military protection for Kurds fleeing their homes in northern Iraq, by a small Allied ground force based in Turkey.

1992 -- Kuwait. On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with UN inspection teams.[RL30172]

1992-2003 -- Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones The U.S. together with the United Kingdom declares and enforces "no fly zones" over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings. (See also Operation Southern Watch) [RL30172]

1992-95 -- Somalia. "Operation Restore Hope" Somali Civil War On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed US armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. US forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). (See also Battle of Mogadishu)[RL30172]

1993-Present -- Bosnia-Herzegovina.

1993 -- Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.[RL30172]

1994-95 -- Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy US ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.[RL30172]

1994 -- Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.[RL30172]

1995 -- Bosnia. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs.[RL30172] (See Operation Deliberate Force)

1996 -- Liberia. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered US military forces to evacuate from that country "private US citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the US Embassy compound...."[RL30172]

1996 -- Central African Republic. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of US military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private US citizens and certain U.S. Government employees", and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui."[RL30172]

1998 -- Iraq. US-led bombing campaign against Iraq.[RL30172] (See Operation Desert Fox)

1998 -- Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach On August 20, air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.[RL30172]

1998 -- Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the US Embassy in Monrovia.[RL30172]

1999 - 2001 East Timor. East Timor Independence Limited number of US military forces deployed with UN to restore peace to East Timor.[RL30172]

1999 -- NATO's bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict.[RL30172] (See Operation Allied Force)

[edit]
2000- present

2000 -- Yemen. On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, military personnel were deployed to Aden.[RL30172]

2000 -- East Timor. On February 25, 2000, a small number of U.S. military personnel were deployed to support of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). [RL30172]

2001 -- Afghanistan. War in Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks and "begin combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters."[RL30172]

2003 -- 2003 invasion of Iraq leading to the War in Iraq. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, Australia and Spain to invade Iraq with the stated goal of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and undermining Saddam Hussein.[RL30172]


2004 -- War on Terrorism: US anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.[8]


2007 -- Somalia. Battle of Ras Kamboni. On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected Al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.[citation needed]

2008 -- South Ossetia, Georgia. Helped Georgia humanitarian aid[13], helped to transport Georgian forces from Iraq during the conflict. In the past, the US has provided training and weapons to Georgia.

2009 to 2020 ???????? -- Pakistan


AND THE MOST INTERESTING PART......NOTHING GOT RESOLVED
E V E R
 
ALSO I HAVE BEEN CLOSELY FOLLOWING UP ON THE EVENTS AS THEY HAVE UNFOLDED IN THE ONGOING PAKISTAN ARMY OPERATION.

WHAT I FOUND MOST STRANGE WAS THE METHODOLOGY USED.

AS AN INDIAN I AGREE THAT I MAY NOT HAVE A TOTALLY OBJECTIVE VIEW OF THE PAKISTAN ARMY BUT I CANNOT BELEIVE THAT IT IS A WASHOUT.

IT IS RUN TRADITIONALLY AS THE INDIAN ARMY AS THE ROOTS ARE THE SAME, SAME MARTIAL RACE THEORY THOUGH DILUTED IS USED, THE REGIMENTAL SYSTEM DOES IMBIBE CLOSE BONDING,
MOST OFFICERS ARE WELL TRAINED AND MOTIVATED.

COMING BACK TO THE STRANGE PART----

WATCHING THE PICTURES AND THE FEW VIDEOS CIRCULATED I COULD GET A DEJA VU FEELING....I WAS SUDDENLY TRANSPORTE TO VIETNAM.

I SINCERELY HOPE THAT PAKISTAN ARMY USES ITS OWN THINK TANK AND STRATEGY RATHER THAN "THAKA HUA" US ARMY DOCTRINE.


TANKS GOING UP ON A WINDING MOUNTAIN ROAD !!!!!

HELICOPTER BORNE TROOPS LANDING ON A HILL TOP !!!!!

MOST AMAZING AND NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL


SOMETHING WEIRD IS HAPPENING
 
SOMETHING WEIRD IS HAPPENING

The only thing "Weird" happening is that the strategy is working. Taliban commanders are surrendering. Taliban militants are following the footsteps of their commanders and Army recently captured a Taliban Command centre in Swat.

Nothing weird about that.

HELICOPTER BORNE TROOPS LANDING ON A HILL TOP !!!!!

The SSG commando's were dropped on mountains because that's what the commando's do. Go where your conventional force isn't able to. Exactly why they're called 'SPECIAL' operations. They were dropped behind enemy lines to form a circle around a hot zone where a top priority TTP commander was believed to be hiding. Their mission was to eliminate/capture the TTP commander.

What do YOU suggest they should've done? Taken public transport?

TANKS GOING UP ON A WINDING MOUNTAIN ROAD !!!!!

The Tanks (Al-Zarrar's) were sent up with the Infantry because close artillery support is not always effective in valleys and mountain passages because of the difficult terrain. Exactly why Medium battle tanks were used to provide heavy fire power support to the advancing infantry. Do you know anything about artillery "Trajectory"? Or the mountainous terrain of FATA and SWAT for that matter?

The only thing weird is that you call yourself a 'Military History' student.
 
Last edited:
Oh and one more thing. Fix your Caps Lock key.
 
With due respect to you , I do not agree-

In a counter-insurgency operation which this is ( i.e. it is not a set piece battle between two modern armies )

these are elementary things which are not done

So long as this is the situation, an insurgency essentially cannot be defeated by regular forces. The US in Vietnam attempted to neutralize this advantage by simply taking away the civilian population that shielded the insurgents; however, this had the foreseeable effect of alienating the populace and further fueling support for the rebels. In the current operations against insurgents in the War on Terror, such ruthless tactics are not available to commanders, even if they were effective. Another option in combating an insurgency would be to make the presence of troops so pervasive that there is simply no place left for insurgents to hide, as demonstrated in Franco's conquest of Republican Spain during the Spanish Civil War or the Union occupation of Confederate States with Federal troops following the American Civil War. In each of these cases, enormous amounts of manpower were needed for an extended period of time to quell resistance over almost every square kilometre of territory. In an age of ever shrinking and increasingly computerized armed forces, this option too is precluded from a modern commanders options.

Essentially, then, only one viable option remains. The key to a successful counter-insurgency is the winning-over of the occupied territory's population. If that can be achieved, then the rebellion will be deprived of its supplies, shelter, and, more importantly, its moral legitimacy. Unless the hearts and minds of the public can be separated from the insurgency, the occupation is doomed to fail. In a modern representative democracy, in the face of perceived incessant losses, no conflict will be tolerated by an electorate without significant show of tangible gains. It should be noted that though the United States and its ARVN allies won every single major battle with North Vietnamese forces and their opponents suffered staggering losses (2 million+ casualties), the cost of victory was so high in the opinion of the US public (58,193 U.S. casualties) that it came to see any further possible gains as not worth the troop losses. As long as popular support is on their side, an insurgency can hold out indefinitely, consolidating its control and replenishing its ranks, until the occupiers simply leave.
 
I SINCERELY HOPE THAT PAKISTAN ARMY USES ITS OWN THINK TANK AND STRATEGY RATHER THAN "THAKA HUA" US ARMY DOCTRINE.

I totally agree with you. Army operation against taliban should give impression that National army is fighting against Terrorists ....not an imperial army useing tanks and fighter jets to subdue the people

I am strongly in favour of military operation but when we do it on US pressure and see colletral damage I feel confused... I find my tears rolling for our brave soldiers and then suddenly for those my country men who die as a colletral damage
 
With due respect to you , I do not agree-

In a counter-insurgency operation which this is ( i.e. it is not a set piece battle between two modern armies )

these are elementary things which are not done

So long as this is the situation, an insurgency essentially cannot be defeated by regular forces. The US in Vietnam attempted to neutralize this advantage by simply taking away the civilian population that shielded the insurgents; however, this had the foreseeable effect of alienating the populace and further fueling support for the rebels. In the current operations against insurgents in the War on Terror, such ruthless tactics are not available to commanders, even if they were effective. Another option in combating an insurgency would be to make the presence of troops so pervasive that there is simply no place left for insurgents to hide, as demonstrated in Franco's conquest of Republican Spain during the Spanish Civil War or the Union occupation of Confederate States with Federal troops following the American Civil War. In each of these cases, enormous amounts of manpower were needed for an extended period of time to quell resistance over almost every square kilometre of territory. In an age of ever shrinking and increasingly computerized armed forces, this option too is precluded from a modern commanders options.

Essentially, then, only one viable option remains. The key to a successful counter-insurgency is the winning-over of the occupied territory's population. If that can be achieved, then the rebellion will be deprived of its supplies, shelter, and, more importantly, its moral legitimacy. Unless the hearts and minds of the public can be separated from the insurgency, the occupation is doomed to fail. In a modern representative democracy, in the face of perceived incessant losses, no conflict will be tolerated by an electorate without significant show of tangible gains. It should be noted that though the United States and its ARVN allies won every single major battle with North Vietnamese forces and their opponents suffered staggering losses (2 million+ casualties), the cost of victory was so high in the opinion of the US public (58,193 U.S. casualties) that it came to see any further possible gains as not worth the troop losses. As long as popular support is on their side, an insurgency can hold out indefinitely, consolidating its control and replenishing its ranks, until the occupiers simply leave.

Anyone can come in here and rant, make comparisons of our war with previous conflicts, and give their own view point of how things should be. And you have the right to do so.

But that has nothing to do with your second post. You can't make assumptions unless you're totally aware of how the Army is handling the operation. I explained to you why elite commandos were air dropped on that mountain. It was the requirement of their mission. To go behind enemy lines, choke their supply lines and close in on a position where the suspected Taliban commander was hiding. Give me ONE reason why it should have been done any other way.

Secondly, your statement about Tanks being used in the operation. I already explained to you in my previous posts why they were used. Artillery can only be effective to a limit. Unless you know EXACTLY where your enemy has built up their bases and command centres, your artillery will be prone to error due to the difficult terrain of the valleys and mountains.

But on the ground where troops are advancing you cannot simply rely on mortars and hand held rocket launchers for maximum fire power. That's where the big guns come in and in this case, Al-Zarrar's were used to provide fire power for the advancing infantry. Which also gives them protection against light weapons in case they are ambushed on a road by the militants. Give me ONE reason why we never should've sent our armour up in the battle field.

The reason why I'm focusing more on your second post is because you clearly don't understand the nature of the Operations being carried out by Pakistan Army hence your first post is irrelevant. Moreover, you're basing your point of view on a couple of videos from the operation that are now available online. I'm just trying to explain to you what you saw.

With all due respect, of course.
 
Last edited:
Also let us move to a period more closer - AFGHANISTAN

Soviet ground forces, under the command of Marshal Sergei Sokolov, entered Afghanistan from the north on December 27th. In the morning, the 103rd Guards 'Vitebsk' Airborne Division landed at the airport at Bagram and the deployment of Soviet troops in Afghanistan was underway. The force that entered Afghanistan, in addition to the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, was under command of the 40th Army and consisted of the 108th and 5th Guards Motor Rifle Divisions, the 860th Separate Motor Rifle Regiment, the 56th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, the 36th Mixed Air Corps. Later on the 201st and 58th Motor Rifle Divisions also entered the country, along with other smaller units.[29] In all, the initial Soviet force was around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFVs. In the second week alone, Soviet aircraft had made a total of 4,000 flights into Kabul.[30] The Soviet force rose with the arrival of the two later divisions to over 100,000.

Mind you these troops were well eqquiped and though the motivation and fighting spirit of the largely conscript soldiers was less than earlier times , by and large the officers / high command was good.

Despite having Tanks / Artillery support and Air / Heli interdiction the Soviet Army failed.

A classic example is the Panjshir operation-

Panjshir III - March 3-4, 1981

The first three offensives were small-scale operations, involving only four battalions. The Mujahideen, who weren't strong enough to confront the Soviet army in the open, blended in with the local population and generally waited until the Soviets had left to resume their activities.

[edit]
Panjshir IV - September 6, 1981

By this time, Massoud had mustered enough men to openly resist the Soviet assault. During this offensive, to avoid losing vehicles to land mines, the Soviets sent their sapper units to clear the way in front of the main force. This tactic proved costly, and the attack force penetrated only 25 km into the valley before retiring, after having suffered 100 casualties.[2]

[edit]
Panjshir V - May 16, 1982

The first major offensive was carried out by a force of 12,000 soldiers under the command of General N.G. Ter-Grigoryan supported by 104 helicopters and 26 airplanes[3]. The main assault began on the night of May 16, after an intense aviation and artillery bombardment. While motorized rifle battalions, preceded by reconnaissance units, attacked the dominating features at the entrance of the valley, airborne units were airlifted by helicopter behind the main Mujahideen defenses. In all, 4,200 troops were airlifted into the valley to capture strategic points, right up to the Pakistani border, in an effort to cut the Mujahideen supply lines. In some areas the fighting was intense: when a Soviet paratrooper regiment landed east of Rukha, it was quickly encircled and suffered significant losses. The beleaguered paratroopers were saved only by the arrival of a motorised rifle battalion led by Major Aushev, who forced his way through the Mujahideen defenses, consisting of well-located strong points, and captured Rukha. For his actions, Aushev was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.[3]

Massoud, who expected an attack similar to the previous ones, had disposed his defenses close to the entrance of the valley, and was thus unable to prevent the Soviets from gaining footholds in the Panjshir. They established three main bases at Rukha, Bazarak and Anava. Most of the Mujahideen had survived the attack and Massoud divided them into small, mobile groups that fought the Soviets all down the valley.

During this offensive, the Soviets managed to occupy a large part of the Panjshir and scored some successes against Massoud's organization, such as the capture of a list of the names of 600 of his agents in Kabul.[4] However, most of the rebels had escaped capture, and this was not the decisive victory the Soviets had been hoping for. Also, their heavily fortified bases only gave them control over the valley floor, while the surrounding heights were still held by the Mujahideen. For this reason they decided to launch a sixth offensive.

[edit]
Panjshir VI - August - September, 1982

The sixth offensive consisted of a series of sweeps conducted by motorised units and by airborne Spetsnaz units, launched from their bases in the Panjshir, to find and destroy the Mujahideen hideouts. It was accompanied by a heavy aerial bombardment of villages suspected of harbouring rebel groups, notably carried out by Tu-16 bombers flying from inside the Soviet Union. Heliborne troops carried out search and destroy missions, encircling Massoud's mobile units and destroying some of them. However, as a rule attrition among the Mujahideen was low[5], and the brunt of the attacks fell on the civilian population, who suffered heavily, many of them preferring to flee the valley.

Despite bitter fighting, the Soviets were unable to eradicate the Mujahideen, and the battle soon developed into a stalemate. During the 5th and 6th offensives the Soviets suffered up to 3,000 casualties, and 1,000 Afghan Army soldiers defected to the Mujahideen[6].

Once the height of the offensive had passed, many areas captured by the Soviet forces were handed over to Afghan army units, who suffered from low morale and high desertion rates. They were the targets for Massoud's counterattacks. In a series of surprise attacks, several government outposts fell to the rebels. The first was the Afghan Army outpost at Saricha, which the Mujahideen captured along with 80 prisoners and 8 tanks, despite having to cross a minefield[7]. The government post at Birjaman fell soon after, and the Mujahideen were able to recapture some areas in this way. These operations, along with the continued harassment of Soviet garrisons and resupply convoys, proved that the Mujahideen were far from defeated, and convinced the Soviets that they must negotiate a truce with Massoud.

In January 1983, for the first time a ceasefire was concluded between the Soviets and the Mujahideen, lasting 6 months, and later extended. Negotiated by Massoud in person with a colonel of the GRU, Anatoly Tkachev[3], the agreement stipulated that Soviet troops should evacuate the Panjshir, except for a small garrison at Anava, whose access was controlled by the Mujahideen. The area covered by the ceasefire included the Panjshir valley, but not the Salang pass, where fighting continued[8].

Massoud took advantage of the truce to extend his influence over areas that had until then been held by hostile factions loyal to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-islami party, like in Andarab. More peacefully, he took control of the Khost-Fereng sector, and some areas in southern Takhar, while establishing contacts with other guerilla groups in Baghlan Province, and persuading them to adopt his military organisation[9]. He also ordered the strengthening of defenses in five subsidiary valleys as well as in the Panjshir, permitting a defense in depth, and withdrew his headquarters to Shira Mandara, in Takhar province, in anticipation of a renewed assault.

[edit]
Panjshir VII - April 19 to September 1984

In February 1984, Konstantin Chernenko replaced Yuri Andropov as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. While Andropov had supported the ceasefire, Chernenko, a disciple of Brezhnev, believed that the guerillas should be rooted out through military action, an opinion which he shared with Babrak Karmal, president of the DRA. As a result a new offensive was planned, which, in Karmal's words, should be decisive and merciless, and in order to destroy the Panjshir valley bases, all those living there should be killed[3].

However, some Soviets, who were supporters of Andropov, disagreed with this policy, and they gave Massoud advance warning of the attack[10]. Through this channel, and thanks to his agents in the DRA government Massoud had a precise idea of the Soviet plans, and he was able to counter them. To avoid civilian casualties, all 30,000 inhabitants of the Panjshir (from a population of 100,000 before the war) were evacuated to safe areas[11]. Only ambush parties were left to delay the Soviet advance. All the roads, villages and helicopter landing zones were heavily mined. All these preparations were carried out in secret, and a token activity was maintained near the Soviet base at Anava, to deceive the Soviets into believing that a conventional defense was being prepared.

11,000 Soviet and 2,600 Afghan soldiers, under Marshal of the Soviet Union Sergei Sokolov participated in the offensive, supported by 200 airplanes and 190 helicopters. On April 22, after a two-day bombardment of the region by Tu-16, Tu-22M and Su-24 bombers[12], they advanced rapidly into the Panjshir. Much of the valley was occupied, but the Soviets paid a heavy price; many soldiers were killed by mines and in ambushes. During one battle, on April 30 in the Hazara valley, the 1st battalion of the 682nd motorized rifle regiment was decimated: the losses of Soviet troops were estimated at 60 killed[13].

For the Soviets, the operation was partly successful - some of the infrastructure of the Mujahideen, created in the time of the truce in 1982-1983, was destroyed. Babrak Karmal completed a propaganda visit of the Panjshir, which for some time had become a safe zone. However, it quickly became apparent that most of Massoud's forces had escaped the onslaught, and were still able to carry out their harassment tactics. Eventually, in September, the Soviet-DRA forces once again evacuated the Panjshir valley, leaving occupying forces only in the lower Panjshir.[14].

[edit]
Panjshir VIII - September 1984

The 8th offensive was a follow-up to the 7th, involving mostly airborne forces.

[edit]
Panjshir IX - 16 June 1985

The 9th offensive was carried out in reprisal for the destruction of the DRA garrison at Peshgur, during which Massoud's mobile groups took 500 prisoners including 126 officers and killed a brigadier of the Afghan Army[15].

Initiated hours after the raid, the Soviet counter-attack installed a new garrison in Peshgur, and pursued the retreating Mujahideen. The group escorting the captured Afghan officers was caught in the open by Soviet helicopters, and in the ensuing fight most of the prisoners were killed, with both sides projecting on each other the responsibility for the incident[16]

[edit]
Aftermath

In 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev announced his intention of withdrawing the Soviet contingent from Afghanistan. From then on the Soviets were mostly concerned with avoiding losses in the Panjshir sector, and they observed a tacit ceasefire: unprovoked shooting by Soviet troops was forbidden, and the Mujahideen refrained from attacking Soviet bases. Despite provocations ordered by Najibullahs government to draw the Soviets into further fighting, the situation generally remained calm, enabling Massoud to carry out his "strategic offensive", capturing much of Baghlan and Takhar provinces. The last Soviet and Afghan troops present in the lower Panjshir were finally evacuated in June 1988[3].
 
Anyone can come in here and rant, make comparisons of our war with previous conflicts, and give their own view point of how things should be. And you have the right to do so.

But that has nothing to do with your second post. You can't make assumptions unless you're totally aware of how the Army is handling the operation. I explained to you why elite commandos were air dropped on that mountain. It was the requirement of their mission. To go behind enemy lines, choke their supply lines and close in on a position where the suspected Taliban commander was hiding. Give me ONE reason why it should have been done any other way.

Secondly, your statement about Tanks being used in the operation. I already explained to you in my previous posts why they were used. Artillery can only be effective to a limit. But on the ground where troops are advancing you cannot simply rely on mortars and hand held rocket launchers. That's where the big guns come in and in this case, Al-Zarrar's were used to provide fire power for the advancing infantry. Give me ONE reason why it should've been done any other way.

The reason why I'm focusing more on your second post is because you clearly don't understand the nature of the Operations being carried out by Pakistan Army hence your first post is irrelevant. Moreover, you're basing your point of view on a couple of videos from the operation that are now available online. I'm just trying to explain to you what you saw.

With all due respect, of course.

بھائی اس کی بات میں دم ہے۔ ہم جس قسم کی سٹریٹجی استمال کر رہے ہیں ویسی امپیریل طاقتین استمال کرتی ہیں۔۔۔
ذرا سوچین ایک طرف بہت زیادہ کولیٹرل ڈیمج ہو رہا ہے۔۔۔ جس کی وجہ سے پختون عوام میں فیڈریشن کے خلاف جزبات پیدا ہو رہے ہیں۔۔۔ دوسری طرف ہمارے سیاست دان قومی جزبات کو بڑھا رہے ہیں۔۔۔ سندہ اور پنجاب میں محاجرین کے داخلے پر پابدی لگائی جا رہی ہے۔۔۔ کراچی میں ایم کیو ایم اور جے سندہ قومی محاظ جیسی جماعتون نے دنگا شروع کر رکھا ہے۔۔ پختون مخالف جزبات برھائے جا رہے ہیں۔
دوسری طرف ان پختون مخالف جزبات کا فائیدا لینڈ ، ڈرگ مافیا اور انتحا پسند اٹھا رہے ہیں۔۔۔
وللہ پختونون کو ہاتھون سے نہ نکلنے دین وہی پاکستان کی اصل طاقت ہیں۔۔۔ دشمن جانتا ہے اس ہی لئے ایک پلینگ کے ذریعے پختونون کو متنفر کر رہا ہے۔
پاکستان سب کا ہے۔ کسی مائی کے لال کو یہ حق نہیں پہنچتا کہ وہ پاکستان کے باسیون کو پاکستان میں کسی بھی جگہ بسنے سے روکے۔

کسی کو حق نہیں پہنچتا کہ کسی پاکستانی کی عزت، جان، مال سے کھیلے۔
خدا کی قسم یہ اٹھارا کڑوڑ پاکستانی پوری دنیا کے انسانون سے مہنگے ہیں۔۔۔کیونکہ یہ ہمارے ہیں اور ہم ان سے ہیں۔۔۔

جزبات کی جگہ ٹھنڈے دماغ سے سوچنے کا وقت ہے۔۔ جزبات تباہ تو کر سکتے ہیں مگر بنا نہیں سکتے۔ آئین اپنا وطن بچائین ۔

جہان تک طالبان سے لڑنے کی بات ہے۔۔۔ہان انھیں نیست و نابود کرنا بہت ضروری ہے۔۔۔مگر خیال رہے کہیں افغانستان کی طرح پاکستان میں بھی طالبان تحریک پختون قومی تحریک نہ بن جائے۔۔۔۔


Once, the great Mao Zedong asked his friends: "How can you make a cat eat pepper?" The first one replied, "I will catch the cat and open its jaws and with spoon pour pepper into its mouth and throat." Great Mao replied, "No it's brutal, things done in Moscow style are brutal and cause dissent." The second one replied, "I will imprison the cat and give it no food for days then I will give it meat which is dusted with pepper." Mao replied, "No deceit is wrong and immoral. This method creates hate and disloyalty." Everybody tried but no one had the answer. Mao said, "The solution is simple, just dust the pepper on cats back. Cat has habit of licking its body and back, naturally it will lick the pepper too."
 
Indian falcon:

Don't derail your own thread. This started from you comparing Pakistan's war to Vietnam and now Afghanistan.

Secondly, You've yet to reply to two of my posts which were responses to your lack of knowledge about the operations Pakistan Army is carrying out.
 
Dear Bezerk,

Appreciate your reply and understand what you conveying.

What I was trying to say was that considering Big Brother USA is closely monitoring everything in Pakistan....I hope sincerely that Pakistan Army does not fall into a trap where actually US Army " advisors" are running the show.

This could well be the last chance.

As long as it is succesful I am sure everyone will be happy.

The point was Russian Tanks were ambushed in hundreds........the sound of the roaring diesels could be heard for miles and gave ample warning to mujahdeens as well as time to plan and site an ambush.

The advancing army columns were hampered by the speed on the mountain roads and one RPG hit could result in a delay of hours.

Soviets used spetnatz too but in most cases the enmy had fled the area in which they were airlifted...the sound of the helicopters a tell tale sign that a search operation is under way.....in most cases they were left to search and destroy any ammo / supplies left behind.
 
Bill Longley:

With all due respect, please post a reply in English so that I can quote you properly. There's nothing much to quote really but let me just say that the strategy we're using isn't 'Imperial' strategy but our current requirement. If you disagree, why don't you write a letter to the COAS because he's the one running the show right now.

Anyway, I'll refrain from replying to emotional statements because that leads to nowhere.
 
alice asked the cat " where this road leads
cat replied " it depends where you wants to go"


brother it depends where you want to go

but tell you one thing truth is relative, my truth may be different from yours...but in end we are Pakistanies. and as Col shufqat Baloch once wrote on my auto graph book
Who lives if pakistan dies
and who dies if Pakistan lives
Long live Pakistan
 
Dear Bezerk,

Appreciate your reply and understand what you conveying.

What I was trying to say was that considering Big Brother USA is closely monitoring everything in Pakistan....I hope sincerely that Pakistan Army does not fall into a trap where actually US Army " advisors" are running the show.

This could well be the last chance.

As long as it is succesful I am sure everyone will be happy.

The point was Russian Tanks were ambushed in hundreds........the sound of the roaring diesels could be heard for miles and gave ample warning to mujahdeens as well as time to plan and site an ambush.

The advancing army columns were hampered by the speed on the mountain roads and one RPG hit could result in a delay of hours.

Soviets used spetnatz too but in most cases the enmy had fled the area in which they were airlifted...the sound of the helicopters a tell tale sign that a search operation is under way.....in most cases they were left to search and destroy any ammo / supplies left behind.

That's all we ask. A successful operation where you're able to chop the enemy's head off or a limb for that matter. Make it crawl around for a bit and when you're ready, crush it.

Maximum force is being used for all these reasons. We cannot afford to make more peace deals because they've led us nowhere so far.

Your point about helicopters making a lot of sound and alerting the enemy isn't valid to a degree. Simply because all the hostile regions are monitored from time to time using helicopters and other equipment for surveillance. The enemy cannot guess when there's air cavalry on its way because this strategy wasn't used by Pakistan army before in its operations.
 
alice asked the cat " where this road leads
cat replied " it depends where you wants to go"


brother it depends where you want to go

but tell you one thing truth is relative, my truth may be different from yours...but in end we are Pakistanies. and as Col shufqat Baloch once wrote on my auto graph book
Who lives if pakistan dies
and who dies if Pakistan lives
Long live Pakistan

I appreciate your patriotism. We're all Pakistani's here, looking to win this war before more damage is done.

Truth is relative, but only where it deserves to be relative. But in this thread, I'm simply trying to answer some obvious misconceptions put forward by our Indian friend here, nothing more.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom