What made IAF Stand down in Kargil

[-xXx-]

As for 1965, again, we didn't liberate Kashmir, but you didn't take Lahore or Sialkot either. Both of us failed our objectives, making it a stalemate. But it's more humiliating for you guys as you outnumbered us 4 to 1 and your PM died of shock afterwards..

1965, you were aggressor and raised war. The objective of war was to get Kashmir but you end up defending Lahore.

There was no Indian objective since it was not a war raised by us.

 

[Hamza913]

1965, you were aggressor and raised war. The objective of war was to get Kashmir but you end up defending Lahore.

There was no Indian objective since it was not a war raised by us.

There was an Indian objective, as you expanded a small scale conflict in Kashmir into a large scale war, and launched numerous attacks on the Pakistani Punjab until your invasion was halted.

 

[MilSpec]

For those habitually dragging in 1971 to salvage their egos, are once again reminded that the PA was fighting a war a thousand miles from home with a much larger force on the front and a rogue and treacherous enemy stabbing from the back.

Actually you are wrong, considering the front of East "Pakistan" was apart of erstwhile Pakistan, you were fighting on home turf, if anything east was the larger populous of Pakistan. It was your brilliant leaderships doctrine of "security of the east lies in the west" that caused your logistics horror. How did that work out for you.

There was an Indian objective, as you expanded a small scale conflict in Kashmir into a large scale war, and launched numerous attacks on the Pakistani Punjab until your invasion was halted.

What does that tell you about security and threat analysis of your military leadership? instead of the Dark Art of "Appreciating the Situation", going by the accounts of most of your officers your Military leadership has gone about "Situating the Appreciation".

 

[-xXx-]

There was an Indian objective, as you expanded a small scale conflict in Kashmir into a large scale war, and launched numerous attacks on the Pakistani Punjab until your invasion was halted.

The Indian objective was to defend his territory from aggressor that was Pakistan. India employed counter offense and an element of surprise when we cross IB. This tactic helped us in achieving our prime objective - defending against aggressor.

Now think like this -

Some burglars, decoit attack your home. You responded and fight back. In the process you tried to capture the dacoits but they fled away.

Now is that a stalemate? Should dacoit boast and say look your objective of capturing me has failed?

Rather its your win that not only you succeed in defending your house, you were close to capture one of the bandit.

 

[Hamza913]

What does that tell you about security and threat analysis of your military leadership?

They weren't the smartest men in town, but ultimately I can see where they were coming from. If the plan in 1965 went well, it could have worked. Unfortunately, they overestimated Pakistan's offensive capability. Luckily, they don't seem to be repeating that mistake.

 

[MilSpec]

They weren't the smartest men in town, but ultimately I can see where they were coming from. If the plan in 1965 went well, it could have worked. Unfortunately, they overestimated Pakistan's offensive capability. Luckily, they don't seem to be repeating that mistake.

Look up what Air Marshal Malik Nur Khan had to say about it.

 

[-xXx-]

They weren't the smartest men in town, but ultimately I can see where they were coming from. If the plan in 1965 went well, it could have worked. Unfortunately, they overestimated Pakistan's offensive capability. Luckily, they don't seem to be repeating that mistake.

They in fact did in Kargil.

Actually they didn't over estimated the pak capability but they wrongly assumed an uprising in J&K in their support.

Actually you are wrong, considering the front of East "Pakistan" was apart of erstwhile Pakistan, you were fighting on home turf, if anything east was the larger populous of Pakistan. It was your brilliant leaderships doctrine of "security of the east lies in the west" that caused your logistics horror. How did that work out for you..

Moreover they could have opened multiple fronts here in west which would have given them the precious time to leverage international pressure on India.

Rather the generals in west chose not to shed their blood for a lost cause.

 

[Hamza913]

The Indian objective was to defend his territory from aggressor that was Pakistan. India employed counter offense and an element of surprise when we cross IB. This tactic helped us in achieving our prime objective - defending against aggressor.

Now think like this -

Some burglars, decoit attack your home. You responded and fight back. In the process you tried to capture the dacoits but they fled away.

Now is that a stalemate? Should dacoit boast and say look your objective of capturing me has failed?

Rather its your win that not only you succeed in defending your house, you were close to capture one of the bandit.

If India's objective was to defend itself, it would have only launched operations in Kashmir. Even if it felt the need to launch operations against the rest of Pakistan, if the objective was only to defend Kashmir, the assaults wouldn't have been so numerous.

The analogy you used has some faults, I will fix it for you:

Let's say a pair of burglars come into your family's house, you guys try to defend it but you also want to have a proper victory and humiliate him, so you can have leverage against him. You decide to send some members of your family to their house, and try to take control. You end up biting more than you can chew, and both of you end up coming to an agreement and everything goes back to normal.

Look up what Air Marshal Malik Nur Khan had to say about it.

It doesn't matter what some people say, what matters is what actually happened.

 

[surya kiran]

You didn't say the glacier, you said the region as a whole.

Post 79: "You are not on Siachen" I would have said 'in' not 'on' if i meant the region. 'On' is on the glacier.

Post 81 : "2. Pakistan is not on Siachen. Nowhere on it. Why not ask your own countrymen? You are nowhere on the glacier. I know, hard to digest the fact that you have been fed lies till now. The bottom line, let me re-state it for you. The Pakistani Army is not on the Siachen Glacier. I do not know how to say this again, but there is no Pakistani on the Siachen Glacier. It is 100% under Indian control."

Post 84 :"Please show me on the map, ground positions of the PA on Siachen glacier. Feel free to use PA maps. And you do not own anything on the glacier. You know why? Because you are not on it? Again, show me ground position on the glacier of the Pakistani Army."

Glacier. I have been quite explicit in saying glacier multiple times.

 

[Hamza913]

They in fact did in Kargil.

Actually they didn't over estimated the pak capability but they wrongly assumed an uprising in J&K in their support.

In Kargil, Musharaf just wanted political support so he found the best way possible, kill some Indians. Not only that, but we still control point 5353.

They did overestimate our offensive capability, we were outnumbered 4:1 there was no way our offensive tactics could break Indian defences.

Post 79: "You are not on Siachen" I would have said 'in' not 'on' if i meant the region. 'On' is on the glacier.

I know, hard to digest the fact that you have been fed lies till now.

Don't be a grammar Nazi with me, the fact is you were not specific in some of your posts.

And it's ironic for you to state I have been fed lies, since you come from India. The country where every Muslim is an ISI agent.

 

[Windjammer]

Actually you are wrong, considering the front of East "Pakistan" was apart of erstwhile Pakistan, you were fighting on home turf, if anything east was the larger populous of Pakistan. It was your brilliant leaderships doctrine of "security of the east lies in the west" that caused your logistics horror.

Yup considering the volatile situation in East Pakistan, separated from main West of the country by a thousand miles of Indian territory. only an Indian TT would have the brilliance to term it home turf....not forgetting fearing Maoists, how your bunch once had to leave their wounded colleague behind in mainland India and pray that the four PAF squadrons held back weren't utilised else there would have been plenty more Agni Pankhs with tails on fire.

How did that work out for you.

Couldn't have asked for a better payback.

http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1809/18090220.htm

 

[surya kiran]

Don't be a grammar Nazi with me, the fact is you were not specific in some of your posts.

And it's ironic for you to state I have been fed lies, since you come from India. The country where every Muslim is an ISI agent.

In all the conversations, I have been explicit. Every time I have stated glacier, you have responded and your arguments were untenable.

Just shows and re-inforces that you came to the realisation that you do not control the glacier as part of this conversation. Which is not something new on this forum by the way. Where we have people like @Stealth photoshoping some mountain expedition and calling it PA on Siachen. So, I stand by to correct the false propaganda spread by members like this and the PA establishment on your locus standing on Siachen.

So let me state again, you are not anywhere on Siachen. PA has zero control on Siachen. You are west of the glacier. In fact, beyond the Saltoro ridge.

Yup considering the volatile situation in East Pakistan, separated from main West of the country by a thousand miles of Indian territory. only an Indian TT would have the brilliance to term it home turf....not forgetting fearing Maoists, how your bunch once had to leave their wounded colleague behind in mainland India and pray that the four PAF squadrons held back weren't utilised else there would have been plenty more Agni Pankhs with tails on fire.



Couldn't have asked for a better payback.

http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1809/18090220.htm

Who cares? You lost East Pakistan. Mission accomplished.

In Kargil, Musharaf just wanted political support so he found the best way possible, kill some Indians. Not only that, but we still control point 5353.

They did overestimate our offensive capability, we were outnumbered 4:1 there was no way our offensive tactics could break Indian defences.

So you are saying the PA chief sent in Pakistanis to their death to score political points? What are you smoking? I want some of it.

 

[Hamza913]

In all the conversations, I have been explicit. Every time I have stated glacier, you have responded and your arguments were untenable.

Just shows and re-inforces that you came to the realisation that you do not control the glacier as part of this conversation. Which is not something new on this forum by the way. Where we have people like @Stealth photoshoping some mountain expedition and calling it PA on Siachen. So, I stand by to correct the false propaganda spread by members like this and the PA establishment on your locus standing on Siachen.

So let me state again, you are not anywhere on Siachen. PA has zero control on Siachen. You are west of the glacier. In fact, beyond the Saltoro ridge

So you are saying the PA chief sent in Pakistanis to their death to score political points? What are you smoking? I want some of it.

You have not been explicit in all of your posts, only some of them. And again, you fail to see the irony as you post propoganda like saying India does not attack Pakistan because it "changes it's mind" which is the biggest load of tosh I have ever heard.

As for the Kargil war, yes scoring political points was part of it, if you don't know that then please find out more about the topic at hand.

 

[surya kiran]

As for the Kargil war, yes scoring political points was part of it, if you don't know that then please find out more about the topic at hand.

You do realise, what you are saying? He sent Pakistani Army men to their deaths to score political points. And he was the Pakistani Army Chief?

For the Siachen post, selective reading seems to be a problem for you. But its ok. Now that you realise you do not control the glacier, we can proceed with your new theory that the PA has such stupid generals and idiots managing it. And he rose through the ranks to become PA chief. Does not say much about the PA, does it?

 

[Hamza913]

You do realise, what you are saying? He sent Pakistani Army men to their deaths to score political points. And he was the Pakistani Army Chief?

For the Siachen post, selective reading seems to be a problem for you.

It was a part of the reason, yes. Also, more Indians ended up dying anyway and Pakistan managed to secure point 5353 too. He caught India at the throat, made it beg for us to leave as your military proved incompetent like usual.

As for the Siachen post, I could say the same. You are ignoring the parts where you weren't explicit.