A History of the Pakistan Army by Brian Cloughley

I think, whatever casualty Russia had incurred in Afghanisthan is mostly due to US arms supply. Without Stinger and RPG etc. it was not possible. USSR had withdrawn mostly due to economic and political problem, than military. If USA, withdraws from Iraq also, it will be mostly due to economic burden of the war.

Those who compare Russian occupation of Afghanisthan with presence of Indian troops in Kashmir is living in fools paradise.
1. Kashmiri administration is ingrained with Indian administration (Telecom, PWD, Information & Broadcasting, Agriculture, Civil aviation, Education, Health, Culture etc...). In all these services, Pakistan, which is trying to take Kashmir from India, is far inferior. Last earthquake had proved that. Two regions in J & K (Jammu and Ladakh) firmly wants to be part of India. They co-operate with Indian forces.

Kashmiri administration is ingrained with Indian administration (Telecom, PWD, Information & Broadcasting, Agriculture, Civil aviation, Education, Health, Culture etc...). In all these services, Pakistan, which is trying to take Kashmir from India, is far inferior. Last earthquake had proved that. Two regions in J & K (Jammu and Ladakh) firmly wants to be part of India. They co-operate with Indian forces.

Urstruly,

The Salang fire is still of unknown cause and the number of casualties vary, from as low as about 200 to about 2,000. In any case, it was not a military operation but, at most, an act of sabotage or, most likely, a road accident with a fuel tanker. There was absolutely nothing like Dien Bien Phu in Afghanistan where 'insurgent' forces were able to inflict a real military defeat on the Soviets in a regular battle, not even in the Panj Sher. Successful ambushes are NOT the same as defeating the govt forces in a set-piece battle.

The last major operation of the Afghan War was Operation Magistral, end-Nov 87 to Jan 88, where the Mujahideen, getting cocky, made the mistake of fighting a set-piece battle with the Soviets. After repulsing the initial Soviet attack on their heavily defended positions (apparently the Mujahideen boasted that their minefields were impregnable to Soviet Armour), the Mujahideen were forced to flee and abandoned all their heavy equipment as they could not withstand the second attack. So much for Mujahideen military successes.

It was after military defeats such as Operation Magistral that the Mujahideen learnt to leave the Soviets alone as they withdrew from Afghanistan.

how is the insurgency winning in kashmir and the indian army losing?

hello...last time I checked, India still has Kashmir without it being a burden the indian people are unwilling to bear...

a "complete victory" over the insurgency is impossible if you use capt clueless' self-serving definition of complete victory...going by that standard, the drug was has been lost and should be abandoned...as should the fight against crime, poverty etc etc.

Re: # 214

In all four cases that you have illustrated - militaries were unable to hold on to the occupation period. The only thing that matters is that the resistence ultimately achieved its objective. I have seen the images of americans leaving saigon hanging on to helicopter wheels.

Re: # 214

fuzair, please stop insulting our intelligence; do you think we just crawled out from under a rock. Commrade Gromov's liesurly stroll across the bridge has nothing to do with success or defeat but everything to do with the Geneva Pact that guranteed the safe retreat of red army from afghanistan. This agreement was signed by all parties big and small involved in the afghan conflict. Do not forget that it was Gromovs army just a couple of years ago a few miles down the road at Salang Pass lost 3500 soldiers in a single ambush when their conveoy was trapped inside the tunnel.

Romair:

I did not say the USSR was successful in Afghanistan. I said they were not defeated militarily. There is a difference. THAT was the point of Gromov's leisurely stroll across the bridge, to show that they were not retreating in defeat. It is another matter that the USSR did not have the political will to continue the military campaign. My comment was about the military situation, not the political. I suggest you go ask someone to explain this to you. If you want to argue that the military situation is irrelevant if the political will does not exist, that is another issue entirely and I will not disagree with you there.

BTW, do answer one question: do you actually have ANY military experience at all whatsoever? If so, in what branch?


Urstruly:

S. Vietnam fell to regular NVA troops; remember the invasion of the South by NVA main-force armoured divisions? That is what defeated S. Vietnam, not a bunch of part-time insurgents and terrorists running around in black pajamas. In any case, after Tet in 1968, the VC were a pale shadow of their former selves.

The Pakistan Army surrendered to the Indian Army AFTER a full blown military invasion, not to the Mukti Bahini, not to the provisional govt of Bangladesh; if you recall, the Indians didn't even bother to pretend the Bangladeshi govt had any status in the surrender negotiations or signing ceremony. The heavy involvement of the Indian Army after October 1970 was necessitated by the fact that the Mukti Bahini and BSF men disguised as MB could not defeat the Pakistan Army; go read the Indian official history of the 1971 War if you don't believe me.

If you recall, the Pakistani POWs were kept by the Indians and not the Bangladeshis because the Bangladeshis were irrelevant in the military equation after October 1970.

The French Army mutinied in Algeria because, after they had defeated the FLN militarily, de Gaulle unilaterally decided to withdraw from Algeria. The French withdrawal was a political decision, not one necessitated by the fact that the Army had been defeated in the field. I suggest you read Alastair Horne's work on Algeria if you want to know what happened.

Now, Vietnam was a French military defeat (e.g., Dien Bien Phu) and the withdrawal was necessitated by the fact that they were militarily incapable of holding on to the country.

Do try to understand what I am actually saying. Again, if you want to argue that military victory does not matter if the political establishment lacks the will to succeed, that is another issue entirely and I won't disagree with you there.

fuzair writes "and the VC in Vietnam were all defeated militarily by govt forces..."

The VC was never defeated, small skirmish losses and strategic retreats don't translate into "defeat", the Americans and their puppets in the south were ultimately defeated, and the East Pakistan insurgency ultimately resulted in an independant Bangladesh, that does not count as defeat. The over 80K Pakistani soldiers shitting in their pants and laying down arms, now that is what is a defeat...similar is the case with the FLN.

For the genius from the PMA's cream of the crop, Fuzair, if you can blast your gazillion dollar guns shooting "air" and the insurgency acts smarter and makes you shit in your pants and lay down your arms or make a quick exit, that means a "military defeat" for the insurgency. Get a brain fool, another "masterpiece" of this idiot was the comparison of Nepal to Pakistan/India relations, we'll read our military history later, first get a grasp on the history of the partition, if Nepal/India had gone through a similar history as India/Pakistan there would have been similar posturing (on which the Pakistan Army cashed on big time while shitting in their pants in every battle, or trying to grow fat snacking on the carcass of a dying country)on the Nepali side...

Re: # 209

"The East Pakistan insurgency, the FLN in Algeria and the VC in Vietnam were all defeated militarily by govt forces. Read your military history. "

...and in twilight zone all crows are white.

#206 Posted by bulleya on February 6, 2008 6:29:46 am


yes, they have......but extremely rarely in recent days....kindly look at all the recent examples....


when saddam was ruling iraq, he kept the islamists in check. no IEDs were going off in baghdad when saddam was crusing around in his fancy car.

#208 Posted by bulleya on February 6, 2008 6:44:14 am


india didn't gain anything from the piling of forces on pakistan's borders


really? since mushy's jan 03 speech, the jihad in indian kashmir seems to have been rolled up...

The East Pakistan insurgency, the FLN in Algeria and the VC in Vietnam were all defeated militarily by govt forces. Read your military history.

majumdar #: "Seems just like the other day. Sigh, how time flies!!!"

yes, time flies......by the way my lose-lose-lose scenario for india did come out to be correct....india didn't gain anything from the piling of forces on pakistan's borders....

pakistanis are too emotional to make sane decisions.....the more i interact with people here, the more i am realizing this......there is a group that wants fata bombed....primarily because they hate maulvis.....they have no time to consider the fact that most pakistanis don't want this, and it will cause long term problems....there is another group that feels this will be success, even though usa can't achieve such a succcess in iraq (or afghanistan) with much more money and resources......"if" pakistan does things correctly.....not realizing that if pakistan did things correctly, it wouldn't be in this mess to begin with......

there is another group that wants nato bombed.....primarily because they hate usa.......without realizing that pakistan cannot take on nato.....and that it is wrong for a part of a country to declare war on its own.....this group wants loyalty with pushtun brethren and feels our western borders will be invaded by someone......

then there are people like me, who feel the govts' best strategy is to ensure suicide bombings do not occur in pakistan, and that pakistan doesn't get caught in other people's wars......

pakistan is a in a lose-lose scenario.......in such a situation, the best strategy is not get out of the fight, or not start it.......exactly the same suggestion i made in my article to indian leaders.....

fuzair #: "French in Algeria..."

????

perhaps you and i have a different definition of success.....earlier you had suggested that ussr was successful in afghanistan, because a certain general walked across a certain bridge, and did not run across it, or did not exit, frantically, on a helicopter....

i consider success, the achievement of the ultimate political aim.....did ussr achieve its ultimate political aim in afghanistan.....did french do so in algeria.....is usa achieving it in iraq and afghanistan.......is pakistan going to do it in fata.......(considering the fact that if there was no pressure from usa, i doubt any govt. in paksitan would bomb fata, to begin with, as the population of pakistan is against it)......

in my opinion, i can only think of one genuine succes of a foreign power against an insurgency......but even that insurgency did not have popular support amongst the locals.....

while the list of failures is much much longer....

fuzair #: "Militaries have defeated insurgencies before, if they've been willing to be ruthless enough:"

yes, they have......but extremely rarely in recent days....kindly look at all the recent examples....

i am always amazed with the prefixes all experts from the usa attach to their analyses, after things don't turn out the way they wanted.......

.....if the usa had added more troops......if they were more ruthless.....if they were this or that.......have you ever wondered why those ifs never materialized.....obviously, the guys making us policy are more experienced than me (and perhaps even you also)......maybe they had no choice but to do things the way they are doing....maybe they have their limitations.....political limitations, resource limitations, etc.......

"ruthless"......ruthless against whom....killing hundreds of thousands (as usa has done in iraq) is quite ruthless, to begin with......wouldn't you agree......how much more ruthless would you like them to be......should they turn into hitler......

india has been going on in kashmir for decades....perhaps you see it as a slow approach....i see it as a failure to control an insurgency......pakistan couldn't control one in bangladesh.....ussr in afghanistan.......usa in iraq......so on and so forth.......trust me, chechnya will start up again also.......

one can attch all the ifs in the world to the above, through which they may have been successful......monday morning quarterbacking is quite easy......

if pakistan controlled corruption, elected good leaders, pushed education, it would be a first-world country......and fata would be like switzerland.....if shoaib akhter remained fit, he could be the best fast bowler in the world........

so lets stick with what is happening and what every country has the capability of doing......lets look at what is happening on the ground, in real life.......without the ifs.....if i had bought microsoft shares in 1990, i would be a multi-millinaire today....

p.s. what exactly would you consider, "ruthless" action in fata.......exactly what should pakistan do?......how many people can and should they kill.........as opposed to letting them fight teh usa, without getting involved......

Romair,

Sometimes I wonder what kind, if any, military training you actually have had? Militaries have defeated insurgencies before, if they've been willing to be ruthless enough: Guatemala, Peru, British in Kenya, French in Algeria, Russians in Chechnya.

The reason why the US is failing in Iraq and Afghanistan is that they are not being ruthless enough and neither do they have enough troops to implement successfully their chosen strategy. The Russians in Chechnya used the "kill them all and there is no insurgency" approach, which is the relatively quick solution. The Indians in Kashmir are using the "flood the country with troops and drown the insurgency," which is a slow approach. Obviously the Indian govt is not willing to use the same tactics in Kashmir that the Russians used in Chechnya.

May I suggest you actually go and read some military history?