I am proud of the Kargil operation: Musharraf

[surya kiran]

Why why are you Indians talking about Pakistani soldiers! They were m u j a h i d e e n ! Mushy himself denied they were PA! Now all you lousy Indians get this fact through your head! It is not PA which controls ALL of Kargil...it is the m u j a h i d e e n! Mushy himself said so!

 

[Windjammer]

Just as I predicted in post #67. I even mentioned you by name, expecting you to come up with this.[/QU

Feeling is mutual, the staged managed frivolously titled video, is also never far away from any Kargil discussion....hence you never disappoint. !!!

 

[Armstrong]

But that was not the narrative in 1999. They were not described as soldiers or anything like that. Musharraff used the term Mujaheddin and your FO said that they were unknown entities. The term "Non State Actors" was not yet fashionable.

Wasn't that because it was initially a 'covert' operation ?

 

[janon]

Feeling is mutual, the staged managed frivolously titled video, is also never far away from any Kargil discussion....hence you never disappoint. !!!

Except that I didn't post any video.

 

[surya kiran]

The question to ask is did Kargil achieve what it wanted to achieve? If the answer at the start of the operation was capture peak whatever, then maybe yes?

if the answer was "Hum Kashmeeeer ko aazaaad karenge" or "Siachen ko hum lekar rahenge by cutting supplies" it was the biggest disaster next to only the German invasion of Russia.

 

[blain2]

But, yaraa, at the end of the day - Was it worth it ? Kargil, I mean...was it really worth it ?

India can't defeat us in battle because now we don't a liability called East-Pakistan attached to us but why go looking for trouble just for the heck of it ? Even after listening to numerous interviews by Musharraf & others, I still can't understand - Why in God's name did we start that at such an inopportune juncture in time ? The '80s when Siachin was going on - Fine, it would have made perfect sense...! But '99 out of the blue - why ?

When is a war worth it? To some, never, to others when the opportunity avails itself.
Siachen action by the IA in 84 was unprecedented as nothing like it had happened since the 1971 conflict. They chose the time and place and took action. We simply did the same in 1999. Lastly, there is never a good time for conflict. It happens as and when issues/opportunities come up to gain a more favourable position. Kargil is linked with the overall Kashmir situation and unless there is a drastic change in the overall relations with regards to Kashmir, in the future the Indians or us could continue to take actions.

 

[janon]

Wasn't that because it was initially a 'covert' operation ?

Once it became open, he should have admitted his involvement, right? Was he expecting it to remain covert forever, even after the goal of taking Kashmir from India was achieved? After the initial encroachment, after detection by Indian forces, was it still covert?

Once Indian jets and artillery began to pound his men, was it still supposed to be covert? After Nawaz sheriff rushed to Washington to broker a deal, was it still covert? Even at that time, the tune sung by mushy and the pak army was that it was some rogue "mujahideens", and not their army.

Just as they pretended that the Kashmir insurgency was a home grown movement, and not a pak supported, pak nourished affair that failed to achieve anything other than loss of lives.

 

[Windjammer]

Except that I didn't post any video.

You are part of the same pack.

 

[blain2]

Wasn't that because it was initially a 'covert' operation ?

Thank you.

if the answer was "Hum Kashmeeeer ko aazaaad karenge" or "Siachen ko hum lekar rahenge by cutting supplies" it was the biggest disaster next to only the German invasion of Russia.

Nice one! As far as I know, Armies the world over read and take lessons from the German invasion of Russia to this day yet nobody cares or knows about Kargil. So lets keep the exaggeration measured.

 

[janon]

When is a war worth it? To some, never, to others when the opportunity avails itself.
Siachen action by the IA in 84 was unprecedented as nothing like it had happened since the 1971 conflict. They chose the time and place and took action. We simply did the same in 1999. Lastly, there is never a good time for conflict. It happens as and when issues/opportunities come up to gain a more favourable position. Kargil is linked with the overall Kashmir situation and unless there is a drastic change in the overall relations with regards to Kashmir, in the future the Indians or us could continue to take actions.

Yes, that is absolutely true. And for the sake of argument, let me agree that there is no such thing as "right time". (Although I would think, being in a stronger position is a better time than when one is in a weaker position WRT the enemy.)

But was it the right WAY? Is there any way that Pakistan could have gained anything from that military misadventure? Could pak really have taken Kashmir from India, or even large chunks of it, by that particular campaign? Was mushy expecting that India would not retaliate with full force to evict the intruders? In what scenario could the kargil intrusion have been a military success? A scenario which did not depend on underestimating India's willingness to fight to keep her territory?

 

[Armstrong]

When is a war worth it? To some, never, to others when the opportunity avails itself.
Siachen action by the IA in 84 was unprecedented as nothing like it had happened since the 1971 conflict. They chose the time and place and took action. We simply did the same in 1999. Lastly, there is never a good time for conflict. It happens as and when issues/opportunities come up to gain a more favourable position. Kargil is linked with the overall Kashmir situation and unless there is a drastic change in the overall relations with regards to Kashmir, in the future the Indians or us could continue to take actions.

What about '99 appeared like an opportunity to conduct something like this ?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Wasn't that because it was initially a 'covert' operation ?

See; even if it was covert, the cover(?) had already been blown. Even the NLI soldiers were in mufti not in uniform. Please look at the body of the Captain which was returned by the IA with a Citatation written by the CO of the IA unit opposing him (for his bravery, and he was later awarded accordingly-was it the Nishan-E-Haider); the body is in a blue track suit. The NLI was being passed off as Militants as a subterfuge and were instructed to remain in mufti. Can a Professional Army do that to its Soldiers?
The very basis of an Army's (and its soldiers) existence is "Izzat-O-Iqbal" of the "Paltan" and of its lowest "Sipahi/Jawan".
One can't mess around with that!

 

[surya kiran]

Nice one! As far as I know, Armies the world over read and take lessons from the German invasion of Russia to this day yet nobody cares or knows about Kargil. So lets keep the exaggeration measured.

You have ignored my question. Military operations have objectives. If objectives were not met, they are failures. So, what was the objective of the Kargil operation and has that objective been met?

 

[danger007]

Now that's what's called obsession....or may be more time on hand due to unemployment.....damn if i knew any more than just Mr Singh. !!

@topic: what so great, what is the goal, what is he achieved ? ran back, refused to take bodies, lying, pretended as those attackers are terrorists... hahaha why most of guys thinking PA is outnumbered by IA.... Well are you guys expecting same numbers? silly
Entire PDF members know that who is unemployed.... or may be internet warriors... spends more time to troll and post anti threads.... loll

 

[Armstrong]

Once it became open, he should have admitted his involvement, right? Was he expecting it to remain covert forever, even after the goal of taking Kashmir from India was achieved? After the initial encroachment, after detection by Indian forces, was it still covert?

Once Indian jets and artillery began to pound his men, was it still supposed to be covert? After Nawaz sheriff rushed to Washington to broker a deal, was it still covert? Even at that time, the tune sung by mushy and the pak army was that it was some rogue "mujahideens", and not their army.

Just as they pretended that the Kashmir insurgency was a home grown movement, and not a pak supported, pak nourished affair that failed to achieve anything other than loss of lives.

I'm sorry I don't follow you - Are you seriously arguing that we should've been honest & upright when conducting a covert operation ? That we should've done the right thing & said 'Yup they're our boys alright' as opposed to using deception & misleading statements to our advantage ?

What naivete is this ?