Mav3rick
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 6,946
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
In the event India is unable to retake Kargil, it means full scale war, which your military or civilian leadership did not foresee.
The Military and Civilian leadership made an utmost effort to ensure that the conflict remained confined to Kargil, besides the point of Kargil was to find a solution to Kashmir issue permanently and not really to initiate a war.
PAF didn't not have BVR at that time unlike IAF and Pakistani Navy was not ready for war.
Is that why IAF conducted 'surgical strikes' in Pakistan after 2001/02? Is that why your mighty SU-30MKI's always broke away when challenged by F-16's? And is that why IAF never dared to cross an inch of the border even during 1999, successfully that is?
The role of PN was changed to protect Karachi port from IN, it was turned from an offensive force to a defensive force and was ready to face any challenges.
Shariff saved Pakistan from potential defeat in full scale war.
To be honest, if India ever had the guts to initiate a full scale war, it would have done so. NS saved Indian shame by helping mask Indian military's humiliating thrashing at the hands of some fighters with diplomatic victory under pressure.
I can further prove my point with the intention displayed after the Mumbai attacks, India mobilized almost 8,00,000 troops and Air Force/Navy only to unilaterally & unconditionally withdraw after 6-8 months and in the process losing a few hundred soldiers! Even then, they never dared to cross an inch of the border.
Achieving stated objectives, which was retaking Kargil, was achieved.
But that was not done militarily and that's the point in discussion. Pakistani fighters were withdraw n by the civilian government of Pakistan and not repealed by Indian Military.