We had 50 or so weapons ready BEFORE the tests.
Pakistan used regular troops.. posing as irregulars at first but as the situation grew more desperate.. they went in uniform.
And Nawaz really did not have the full picture, he was really convinced of peace.. Mr musharrafs ploy was to give a rosy picture to him regarding a "few areas we can gain"
IF BVR weapons decide the conlfict then the short lived Eritriea Ethopia war with Russian BVR's shows they made no difference, what made the difference was pilot training and close in weapons.
A authoritative article exists as to how the PAF was kept out of the loop in this conflict.
Get your facts from better sources.
Pakistan wanted to lure India into cross the IB and use that as a reason to use nuclear weapons. Musrhaff ordered steadfast assembly and delivery of war heads. India proved mature by not cross the IB. We were left dumb founded. Not futher excuses after that. Bad planning is bad planning after all. Even if Pakistan captured Kargil, it had no means to sustain its hold without nuke threat. Which would have invited worldwide condemnation and our annhilation as well.
The battle was followed by Pakistani counter attacks which led to the capture of Manipur, Rajasthan districts and also a capture of the town of Khem Karan. Pakistani offensives convinced the Indian army that the war was a stalemate and thus offered to declare a ceasefire.
Last edited by somebozo; 07-18-2010 at 08:28 PM.
The Fulcrums of the ErAF and the Flankers of the EtAF both were obsolete baseline models which are in no way equal to the MKIs or the Mirages or even the upgraded Fulcrums in the IAF.
secondly u cannot possibly compare the pilot training courses of IAF and EtAF..
And if u possibly hinted at saying the oft repeated notion of Pakistani pilots being way better than their Indian counterparts....then think again..ttimes have changed.
No neutral source.. I am the one in this case, heard this myself first hand from the top people...
No m not repeating the oft repeated thing..Russian pilots flew the Su-27's and Ukrainians the Mig-29's..no Eritrean was involved.. which at that point in time were exactly the same baseline as the IAF Migs.
Please dont give me "peace seeking" garlands.. we are not discussing national psychology here. Pakistan was an aggressor in that conflict, and yes keeping the PAF out was a bad decision. What if the war had gone really hot?.. without the PAF having any proper forewarning of it?..The PAF being kept out in the planning stages was the worst more and a deja vu in history.
To the title... Musharraf is simply making excuses. Something you normally do when you lose out. Being a general, he should know that a miss is as good as a mile in such operations and there are no consolation prizes in a war...
And those who say kargil was blunder yeah it was the plan that was a blunder what was navaz thinking attacking india and calling back army at the end time. Musharaf was ordered to proceed operation grand slam so he did as he was told
I hate to say this but essentially this whole thread has been hijacked by either the Indians or the "anti-Mush" camp (I am not one to condone his mistakes but do realize that people are pulling all sorts on inane agendas into this threat as a motivation for what transpired).
I have yet to see an analysis of why Kargil operations were undertaken on this thread (please don't post long articles that are thrown at each other ad-nauseam). It had nothing to do with the idiotic notion that the Americans were behind it or that Musharraf wanted to upstage Nawaz Sharif and bring about martial law and that too at the behest of the Americans (spare them..at least some of the times).
Those looking to quote other Army personalities involved in this episode and who seemed to be upset at kargil need to realize that when operations don't go as planned, then everybody wants to be seen as the "nay sayer" and dissenter. There is hardly anyone who stands his ground and says the right thing when the house has fallen down. Our culture stinks at owning up and standing the ground. The same controversy about owning up is going on India with a chap being accused and then acquitted for getting surprised etc. Passing on the buck is a typical desi tactic.
I do not want to go into the details of why this was undertaken aside from the fact that that interdiction of Kargil/Drass was seen as a counterweight to ongoing and periodic interdiction of the Neelum Valley on our side. Things had been left on the table in the times of Gen Karamat but Musharraf decided to take the gamble and do something about it. The mission was always planned as a tactical one, in the context of what went on locally along the LoC and up north in Siachen. Mistakes were indeed made, but why is this operation any worse or shameful for people than the one we conducted on Siachen? Was Siachen not garrisoned because we wanted to block the Indian ingress and to interdict their garrisoning?
If someone tells me that Siachen is disputed, then what is LoC? Its definitely not IB as such there are differences and as opportunities come up, either side will try to take advantage and consolidate to gain an upper hand in the Kashmir region.
Any which way you look at it, both sides have lost more people and material on the heights of Siachen than two Kargils combined so all this talk of singling out Kargil as unnecessary loss of lives by fellow Pakistanis and that of back-stabbing (by the Indians) is not grounded in facts.
While I am saddened by the loss of life, I do not apologize for Kargil and don't think there is any need to. Both sides have a history of taking advantage because the Kashmir issue lingers. Our side tried to take the initiative when an opportunity came up. India has done the same at Siachen (lets not even bother with arguments about who went there first etc.) and certainly took the initiative in 1971. The Rann of Kutch affair was no different. Our side responded to the Indian ingress in the Rann area. So this is the military history of Pakistan and India. The other side certainly feels no shame over anything they have done militarily or clandestinely so why should Pakistan or Pakistanis?
If people want reason to prevail then lets agree that all wars are bad. Lets not have them anymore by resolving our problems peacefully. However who has done that? Unfortunately neither of the two parties involved here.
Last edited by blain2; 07-19-2010 at 12:58 AM.
More recently Kargil, again at the time of Musharraf's liking and the place where he thought it could cause the maximum impact. Result. Zero.
Martial race theory does not apply to all Pakistanis...I have talked to some Punjabi Sikhs who think they are God's gift to soldiery and nobody can stand up to them. Should I take that as a norm? I know of officers who have made statements of the sort, however as I have said before, there was no martial race theory being drilled down in the heads of our troops. The same bogus, general martial race theory of the British applied to your side.
Result is zero for both sides. Has the "supposed" threat to India from Pakistan receded after the 1971 war? Has Kashmir been resolved? Has militancy reduced? No so all results are relative. Its a chess board. You make some moves and we make some. Don't be selective in only highlighting our pre-emptions when your side has done quite a few of those as well.More recently Kargil, again at the time of Musharraf's liking and the place where he thought it could cause the maximum impact. Result. Zero.
You called us out on blind "patriotism". Is your boasting about 1971 and Kargil any different when the reality is that "Zero" has been gained by your side?
'....a myth was widely propagated in Pakistan that the Punjabi Muslims were the most martial race and the Pathan Muslims were the second most martial race. I may add that I heard this ridiculous and irrational myth thousands of times in the course of my 13 years service in Pakistan Army.'
The Pakistan Army From 1965 to 1971
Btw, the link provides a very interesting analysis of PA.
Has the "supposed" threat to India from Pakistan receded after the 1971 war? Well I no longer see a Pakistani threat emanating from the east anymore.Result is zero for both sides. Has the "supposed" threat to India from Pakistan receded after the 1971 war? Has Kashmir been resolved? Has militancy reduced? No so all results are relative. Its a chess board. You make some moves and we make some. Don't be selective in only highlighting our pre-emptions when your side has done quite a few of those as well.
Has Kashmir been resolved? 1971 was not about Kashmir, remember? Although I must admit, Ms Gandhi made a blunder trusting some of his advisers and also Bhutto.
Last edited by toxic_pus; 07-19-2010 at 01:46 AM. Reason: typo
I just said the Tashkent agreement is a testimony of our upper hand in post 1965 war. Can you disagree to this ? And Pakistan had a set of objectives in 1965 other than proving they are a Martian race. Not a single objective was met. Do you consider this a stalemate?
Come again when you have convinced yourself that you bettered us in 65. The fact is you did not. It was a stalemate which for a smaller side is pretty significant. Secondly, why so selective? Why should we forget 1971?
No one can ignore 1971 as Pakistan was reduced to half its size. So let us understand 1971 better.
I am impressed. In-spite of having the finest, Pakistan is unable to do anything about Kashmir from the Indian position since 1948. What bogus theory are you talking about. Can you supplement it with some proof?Martial race theory does not apply to all Pakistanis...I have talked to some Punjabi Sikhs who think they are God's gift to soldiery and nobody can stand up to them. Should I take that as a norm? I know of officers who have made statements of the sort, however as I have said before, there was no martial race theory being drilled down in the heads of our troops. The same bogus, general martial race theory of the British applied to your side.
India never tried to change the score. It was Pakistan that was desperate in 1965, the result was shown in 1971. It was Pakistan again that was desperate in 1999. Need I say more? If the unrest in Kashmir is Pakistan's victory, then I think we have to redefine the meaning of achievement. Let us rest assured that Kashmir is being connected to mainland with trains and roads. The connection with the hearts is what India believes is more important and that is happening with a political class that is representative of the local population. Please google and find out the voting percentage corroborated by international media in the last elections.Result is zero for both sides. Has the "supposed" threat to India from Pakistan receded after the 1971 war? Has Kashmir been resolved? Has militancy reduced? No so all results are relative. Its a chess board. You make some moves and we make some. Don't be selective in only highlighting our pre-emptions when your side has done quite a few of those as well.
Again I repeat, It was not we who tried to change the status quo. You did it and the results for your mis-adventure is staring you in the face. The support to breed Frankenstein for creating havoc in the valley has back fired with increasing incident of terror in Pakistan. The hand which was being fed is now being bitten and without second thought.You called us out on blind "patriotism". Is your boasting about 1971 and Kargil any different when the reality is that "Zero" has been gained by your side?]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)