Former PAF ACM Sohail Aman Gives His Views on PAF V IAF !

[kursed]

So in your own words, the threat of missiles strikes deter them, not shooting down of just 2 jets instead of 9 or 11, whatever the score was!
In other words it wouldn't have made any difference if Pakistan shot down all the locked jets.
If anything, it would have deterred Indians for years to come, not to try any misadventure.
on top of it, their reputation in the world would have gone down the drains. They wouldn't have come up with lies of shooting down a F 16. Abhinundun wouldn't have humiliation to get a vir chakara.

Shooting down 11 jets would have resulted in a confirmed war. Missiles or no missiles.

In my opinion, Indian threat of missiles strike was merely to achieve an early release of Abhinandan, which was necessary to build an appropriate and effective narrative for the electoral win, with large margin.

Nope. The threat was real; it was ‘watched’ by our side. Hence our response was immediate as well. We were entirely anticipating a missile attack on the night of 27-28th Feb.

 

[Trango Towers]

Both sides restrained, because both had achieved their respective objectives. Modi gained a powerful narrative, though fake and false, but saleable, to spin a thumping victory, in the coming elections, which was precisely the sole objective of Balakot Strikes. Pakistan achieved an upper hand, by giving a bloody nose and more-than-proportionate response to India, on Feb 27. So, there was hardly any need for escalation from either side.

This is dangerous thinking. What will modi do at the next election? Should we hold back if there is another misadventure?

 

[SIPRA]

This is dangerous thinking. What will modi do at the next election? Should we hold back if there is another misadventure?

First thing is that we didn't hold back at all. In my opinion, Pakistan's response was far more aggressive than my expectations and imagination. It was more-than-proportionate and was good enough, keeping in view that Pakistan is not in a position to go for a full-scale conflict with India, at this point of time.

Secondly, of course, we must facilitate Modi to remain in power as long as possible; because it is in Pakistan's interest. See, how this man has brought India into an open conflict with China.

 

[Trango Towers]

First thing is that we didn't hold back at all. In my opinion, Pakistan's response was far more aggressive than my expectations and imagination. It was more-than-proportionate and was good enough, keeping in view that Pakistan is not in a position to go for a full-scale conflict with India, at this point of time.

Secondly, of course, we must facilitate Modi to remain in power as long as possible; because it is in Pakistan's interest. See, how this man has brought India into an open conflict with China.

Your 2nd para is spot on. I have always said modi is pakistans best asset in new Delhi. No one can f up India like bjp.
The response on the 27th was aggressive and good. However had they taken out 11 targets. India would not have responded. The message for India would have been clear. You started this we will finish it. Islamabad would have simply said end this now . The missiles posturing would have happened but India at that time was 100% sure Pakistan would capitulate

 

[araz]

'I am more concerned with his comments regarding the constraint shown by Pakistan.
He admitted what we know for long that PAF had far more Indian jets locked and could have caused lot more damage. But decided not to, because people were worried about full scale war.

It is exactly like sending a boxer to fight with one of the hand tight behind his back, while opposing fighter has no such constraints.
Indians were not worried about full scale war when they send their jets to bomb Pakistani land, Pakistan proper must add not Azad Kashmir.

@MastanKhan

I would disagree with your post. In my view the decision was a very prudent one. 9-11 fighters taken down in one operation would have been considered an act of war. Pakistan financially was in dire straits and could not have taken the pressure of an extended war. There was so much uncertainty about the response from the Indians that you would have had to respond with all your might( Nuclear Option included). The IAF in my view merely lobbed some bombs knowing that the job would subsequently be done by their press. So you had very little loss on land to justify escalating. It backfired for them as PAF escalated a response which was not being expected and they lost 2 fighters. Now dropping all 9-11 would have forced their hand. I have not commented on the international repurcussions of this act as this would paint a bad picture for Pakistan. So we achieved all our aims on the narrative and military front. This was what was so sublime and worth achieving than the 9 fighters they would have lost.
A

 

[SIPRA]

The response on the 27th was aggressive and good. However had they taken out 11 targets. India would not have responded. The message for India would have been clear. You started this we will finish it. Islamabad would have simply said end this now . The missiles posturing would have happened but India at that time was 100% sure Pakistan would capitulate

In my opinion, Pakistan's response, intentionally or inadvertently, had already touched the threshold point. Anything, beyond that, would surely have resulted in an untoward escalation, which didn't suit Pakistan, at all. So, in my view, Pakistan's military and political leadership acted very sanely, and in a very calculated and calibrated manner.

I would disagree with your post. In my view the decision was a very prudent one. 9-11 fighters taken down in one operation would have been considered an act of war. Pakistan financially was in dire straits and could not have taken the pressure of an extended war. There was so much uncertainty about the response from the Indians that you would have had to respond with all your might( Nuclear Option included). The IAF in my view merely lobbed some bombs knowing that the job would subsequently be done by their press. So you uad very little loss on land to jistify escalating. It bacfired for them as PAF escalated a response which was not being expected and they lost 2 fighters. Now dropping all 9-11 would have forced their hand. I have not commented on the international repurcussions of this act as this would paint a bad picture for Pakistan. So we achieved all our aims on the narrative and military front. This was what was so sublime and worthachieving than the 9 fighters they would have lost.
A

Excellent post. Fully agree.

 

[Vanamali]

11 Targets? From what is in the open there were 2 SU-30 on CAP and 2 Mirage-2000 and then 2 Mig21 that makes it 6 in total, any idea what were the other 5 targets.

5 Samosas in Tamil Nadu... Makes it 11..

 

[SIPRA]

Your 2nd para is spot on. I have always said modi is pakistans best asset in new Delhi. No one can f up India like bjp.
The response on the 27th was aggressive and good. However had they taken out 11 targets. India would not have responded. The message for India would have been clear. You started this we will finish it. Islamabad would have simply said end this now . The missiles posturing would have happened but India at that time was 100% sure Pakistan would capitulate

I have a feeling that some deeper politics is also involved and both China and Pakistan are trying to keep Modi and BJP in power in India. His rule also suits China.

 

[Trango Towers]

I have a feeling that some deeper politics is also involved and both China and Pakistan are trying to keep Modi and BJP in power in India. His rule also suits China.

There is an interview of gen Hamid Gull and he was saying that bjp is a good for Pakistan. We should assist bjp in their endeavours. When u have a party of collective morons making serial mistakes don't ever interrupt them

 

[PakShaheen79]

My biggest concern regarding this interview is how unprepared our journalists and talk show hosts are when it comes to issues/topics related to national security and military.

 

[The Eagle]

I mean the video just cuts in without the formal introduction of the guest or the topic. I'm sure the ACM wasn't invited for barely Six odd minutes to address the topic.

That memory card demand was for people wants evidence and pays no attention to what an official says.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Today I met him at Islamabad club.

 

[The Eagle]

My biggest concern regarding this interview is how unprepared our journalists and talk show hosts are when it comes to issues/topics related to national security and military.

Not just that but when an official speaks or about to conclude his statement, these wanna be experts interrupts and wouldn't let him complete. This is just like over excited and losing a key point in the end. First of all, these journos needs to learn such ethics to not to interrupt.

 

[Dil Pakistan]

Don't expect much from US on this. Washington has many jobs for India in the region and given Pakistan standing, they aren't going to shame mad Modi.

Apparently, this Vir Chakra would have been already worked with US in a manner that there will be no spoilers as long as India agrees for particular regional duty to serve US interests. The way it seems, it will be like everyone out there knows that no F-16 was shot down on that day so US don't need to explain and wouldn't slap the child for wrong claim. Instead, better to keep quiet.

Speaking of integrity, professional honesty, moral & code of honour; India proven to be exact opposite of all these after awarding Abhinandan.

At-least foreign militaries will keep their cadets away from Indian Forces so that the honour remains. Otherwise, just look at ANA which is history now.

Unfortunately not just military but seems like all of India is convinced fir such a blatant lie and nobody with self respect questions it and that's more worrisome for all the neighbours.

This is exactly the game.

'I am more concerned with his comments regarding the constraint shown by Pakistan.
He admitted what we know for long that PAF had far more Indian jets locked and could have caused lot more damage. But decided not to, because people were worried about full scale war.

It is exactly like sending a boxer to fight with one of the hand tight behind his back, while opposing fighter has no such constraints.
Indians were not worried about full scale war when they send their jets to bomb Pakistani land, Pakistan proper must add not Azad Kashmir.

@MastanKhan

I beg to differ with what I have changed to red font.

It was not about sending the boxer in the ring for a title fight (which would be in a full scale war).

It was more to do with "do not challenge us" --- or --- "you do not have the capacity to challenge us".

The strategy has worked.

IAF has not even close to the LOC since 27th Feb-2019 (even on their side).

 

[TsAr]

So you were sitting in the Srinagar control room

I think you have comprehension issues, read carefully I am asking a question from the poster. If you don't have anything to add stay out of it.