The General and Kargil

#46 Faruk,
Your explanation is probably more logical than many others - from revenge for `71, to internationalization of Kashmir issue, to obtaining a toehold in J&K.

Leaving all this Kargil nonsense aside, looks like this mohajir is still hustling well. He wrote a book of half truths, did some good PR (how many can get people talking about his book in a meeting with Bush) and now must be raking in some good moolah....

Good for him and we only have ourselves to blame (of course, more so pakis than indians..)

- Avkrishna

Re: # 51

Thank you. As a General my plan was to ``lose`` 10 km of territory, let the Indians get comfortable in their occupation; establish with international community that it is India that is occupying Pakistani territory and better yet let the indians ``dictate`` the terms of relaese of occupied territory and then one day....poof!!!

Re: # 50 by urstruly:

Urstruly sahib:

You are simply brilliant. While 50 - 100 k Indian soldiers would be decimated, Indians would simply water their nuclear bombs waiting for them to flower. Sir, the next Kargil should be planned and executed by you. If not as an armyman then as a freedom fighter. They need you.

About Internationalization.....

In my opinion, I do not think that ``Internationalization`` or in other words ``political objectives`` were among the list of objectives in Kargil expedition at all. Had this been the case, Paksitan would have started a worldwide media campaign few months before the undertaking. The sole objective was military i.e. to cut off supply lines to Siachin for the winter by either capturing or destroying the Indian highway A-1. Once that control were to establish, Kashmiri militants would start acts of sabotage to destroy supply lines to Indian army, waiting in lower plains, by blowing up bridges and poisoning the water sources etc. The exit startegy in this plan was to let India advanced with full force and fury into Pakistan territory for about 10 kms and then decimate the rear columns at undefined territory with a nuclear tactical device. It would have achived three objectives:

1. It would have decimated an estimated 50k-100k Indian soldiers thus demoralizing military in general

2. It would have rendered area around highway A-1 unusable for next 100 years because of radiation thus cutting off way to Siachin.

3. It would have trapped a large invading front columns of Indian military into Pakistani territory with absolutely no supply lines because of a nuclear blast in the rear.

Hence, I think from military perspective it was a brilliant plan. In my opinion, Pak Army should have deployed soldiers and freedom fighters a little bit early when the snow was still on the ground and use the time to fortify the position. They delayed untill snow had melted and shepards were out. I think next time it won`t happen.

Thus what we call as political objectives are just fringe benefits, but not as a consequence of a well thought out strategy.

I think Nawaz Shareef was absolutely aware of the operation. But in the end when Musharaf started planning for a coup and the rift between military and political leadreship cleft assunder, in a moment of weekness NS disowned the Kargil. It was a political suicide on part of NS. Had he owned the Kargil as his brainchild he would have become Pakistan`s most pragmatic leader ever - one who made Pakistan a nuclear state, one who defied Western pressure, one who initiated jihad in Kargil to liberate Kashimiri brethren, one who started mega-projects like motorways and Gawadar despite an economic embargo on Pakistan, and last but not least the Shariah Bill which is the reflection of the desires of people of Pakistan since its inception. A single stupid mistake ruined his political career forever and had he not disowned Kargil Musharaf could not last a year even if he attempted and succeeded the coup.

#12 by Mantolives

[#7 ... It is sad to see that the followers of the greatest fraud in human history ... that racist casteist bigoted Hindu freak Gandhi ... abusing the one man in South Asian history whose integrity and honesty was beyond question...]

Yes, but what about Jinnah and his sister? Was that a good thing? How come you macaca sandniggers can worship such a man?

Very disgusting.

#50 by Urstruly on October 9, 2006 11:57am PT

case, Paksitan would have started
Kashmiri militants would



In my opinion, Pak Army should have deployed soldiers


Coulda would shoulda...

The key question is, if you really care about Indian Kashmir being part of Pakistan, WHY DIDNTCHA?

#44 by Salim_Chauhan

[...I must stress that if this was such a major defeat for the Pakis, why are Injuns so upset at the mere mention of Kargil? ]

Because if a dirty two-bit lowlife of a thief sneaks into your house in the middle of the night, and is subsequently kicked into jail by the police, the homeowner is still upset at the thief for intruding into his house.

Get it?

No?

Well that figures....

#47 by bongdongs on October 9, 2006 11:21am PT


Internationalization is ok when the pre-dominant international order is actually in your favor...The current pre-dominant international order treats Pakiland like it`s pet female-of-the-canine species at best and as a prophylactic at worst..

Pakis can delude themselves all they want..fact is, the US exerted tremendous pressure on Pakiland to not test their nukes and yet Pakiland did so...So if there really was any pressure on Pkailand from the US during Kargil, it would have easily resisted if it really was winning..after all, they really really want kashmir to banega Pakiland...

#57

Let us also not be delusional, though the international environment has changed in India`s favor since `90 its not all hunky-dory.

There remains strong support for the Pakistani military & intelligence services in the CIA and US national security establishment. The entire generation that is at the top of the CIA ``made their bones`` in Afghanistan fighting along the ISI. See people like Bob Baer, Uncle Milty (Milt Bearden), Scowcroft etc. Whatever their views on the current problems in Pakistan/Afghanistan they still believe strongly in working with the Pakistani Army/ISI (I dont believe in any of the ``rouge ISI`` bullshit).

Britain remains the country most vulnerable to radical Islam. For all their outward westernization Brit-Paki`s have been deeply indoctrinated in the ``Kashmir-jihad-hate-India`` routine. All this while Brit-Indian`s remain disinterested in politics, if not actually supportive of islamic radicalism due to their attraction to leftist politics (like ``human-rights`` litigation, which seems like a boom industry in the UK).

As some CIA guy said ``Indian`s are too self-righteous, they believe that they should be helped just because they exist``. Nobody has ever won anything by moral self righteousness, its only power (economic, cultural, military...) that speaks.

Re: # 59

Pl read as (first para):

Kargil was an operation that was disowned by them then, but owned by Musharraf with an added comment that Kashmir was internationalised. Nope. Kashmir was internationalised when the issue went to the UN.

Ms. Pande,

Kargil was an operation that was disowned by them then, but owned by Musharraf with an added comment that it Kashmir was internationalised. Nope. Kashmir was internationalised when the issue went to the UN.

Recently Mush used taxpayers’ money to promote his book (to make more money for himself, in the process; a clear case of self-aggrandisement).

Win or loss is a matter of interpretation. India lost some soldiers, Pak too lost their own plus some freelancers from their side. Perhaps, Pak wanted to repay India in the same coin for Siachin, but failed.

Musharraf forced the hand of Nawaz when Nawaz wa in power but when Mush himself was pushed into the chair of running Pakistan, he too mellowed a bit and learnt his lessons in diplomacy and international relations in the hard way i.e. making mistakes.

For them solution means getting the Valley, at least. From India`s point of view, how can we accept the propriety of Musharraf`s regime that was not representative, b4 we think abt the solution?

If we look back, it`s Pak’s obsession with their world-view that Muslim majority state shud not go to India. OTOH, conceding Kashmir is a fundamental cognition of TNT for us. This third-option of independence is of recent origin. In any case India`s had to make some choices but in a democratic setup things cant go the way we like it. For eg. Oslo Agreement of 1993 went down the drain when Netanyahu came to power, who nullified Yitzak Rabin’s peace accord.

When British India faced this conflict of Pakistan and Hindustan, Jinnah suggested that there ought to be exchange of population. What abt the same logic now?

Re: # 61 by Salim_Chauhan:

Salim:

``If this was such a major defeat for the Pakis, why are Injuns to emotionally upset, even much more than the Pakis who ostensibly lost this war, at the mere mention of Kargil? ``

Apart from winning and losing, could it just be that the Indians are upset because Indian (and pehaps Pakistani) soldiers DIED? Is it possible for people to get emotionally upset when they see death? How do you measure emotions? How do you know that Pakistanis are not, or less, emotionally hurt?

Guys people died in Kargil. And here we turn Kargil into a football to be kicked around by Indian and Pakistani keyboard generals.

Taking a cue from Asadi: `Elites` played their games and people died. Here we are again dancing to their tunes. I also agree with Arjun: Now that the general has said that the Pakistani army was involved, the Pakistani people should demand that the general get back the bodies of dead Pakistani soldiers.

Krishna_abcd #56 {`` In response to my #48,

[...I must stress that if this was such a major defeat for the Pakis, why are Injuns so upset at the mere mention of Kargil? ] ``}

Krishan responded:

{``Because if a dirty two-bit lowlife of a thief sneaks into your house in the middle of the night, and is subsequently kicked into jail by the police, the homeowner is still upset at the thief for intruding into his house. ``}

So,
I must rephrase my question:

If this was such a major defeat for the Pakis, why are Injuns to emotionally upset, even much more than the Pakis who ostensibly lost this war, at the mere mention of Kargil?

#61 by Salim_Chauhan on October 9, 2006 1:52pm PT

You mistake lauging out ass off at paki delusions with being upset..

Salim #61
I can answer for myself. At appeared in March 1999 that for once, there will be a solution to Kashmir. Vajpayee had mandate in India, and Nawaz Shareef had in Pakistan. Both counteries appeared to be in right frame of mind.

Kargil destroyed all that... I was in Jammu during that period, and can tell you much would have happened had someone not restrained India (who was that invisible ``someone``, was that Vajpayee or was that US government, is another question)