Going on war directly is not the only thing to do. Read about Arab Israel wars you'll realize how US backed Israel without intervening directly.
your Comparison of Pakistan with Israel is Hilarious.Best of Luck
Pakistan was able to repel your so called full offensive slaughter in 65 when you attacked Lahore and out numbered PA 5:1. And most recently after Mumbai attacks India wanted to go on war once again but that didn't happened, ever wondered why?
Again Old we won 65 Rant Let me Bust your Fan-boyish bubble
Despite the declaration of a ceasefire, India was perceived as the victor due to its success in halting the Pakistan-backed insurgency in Kashmir.
[108] In its October 1965 issue, the
TIME magazine quoted a Western official assessing the consequences of the war
[109] —
Now it's apparent to everybody that India is going to emerge as an Asian power in its own right.
In light of the failures of the
Sino-Indian War, the outcome of the 1965 war was viewed as a "politico-strategic" victory in India. The Indian premier,
Lal Bahadur Shastri, was hailed as a national hero in India.
[110]
While the overall performance of the Indian military was praised, military leaders were criticized for their failure to effectively deploy India's superior armed forces so as to achieve a decisive victory over Pakistan.
[111] In his book
"War in the modern world since 1815", noted war historian
Jeremy Black said that though Pakistan "lost heavily" during the 1965 war, India's hasty decision to call for negotiations prevented further considerable damage to the Pakistan Armed Forces.
He elaborates[112] —
India's chief of army staff urged negotiations on the ground that they were running out ammunition and their number of tanks had become seriously depleted.
In fact, the army had used less than 15% of its ammunition compared to Pakistan, which had consumed closer to 80 percent and India had double the number of serviceable tanks.
As a consequence, India focussed on enhancing communication and coordination within and among the triservices of the Indian Armed Forces.
At the conclusion of the war, many Pakistanis considered the performance of their military to be positive. 6 September is celebrated as
Defence Day in Pakistan, in commemoration of the successful defence of
Lahore against the Indian army. The performance of the Pakistani Air Force, in particular, was praised.
However, the Pakistani government was accused by foreign analysts of spreading disinformation among its citizens regarding the actual consequences of the war.
[119] In his book "
Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies", S.M. Burke writes
[18] —
After the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 the balance of military power had decisively shifted in favor of India. Pakistan had found it difficult to replace the heavy equipment lost during that conflict while her adversary, despite her economic and political problems, had been determinedly building up her strength.
Most observers agree that the myth of a mobile, hard hitting Pakistan Army was badly dented in the war, as critical breakthroughs were not made.
[120] Several Pakistani writers criticized the military's ill-founded belief that their "martial race" of soldiers could defeat "Hindu India" in the war.[121][122]
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pakistan never goes for offensive, its doctrine is a defensive one. A little bit of reading and use of common sense harms no one.
Rasul Bux Rais, a Pakistani political analyst wrote
[123] –
The 1965 war with India proved that Pakistan could neither break the formidable Indian defenses in a blitzkrieg fashion nor could she sustain an all-out conflict for long.
Ps: History LessonThey Won't Teach you in Pakistan.