Pakistan and Israel: Through the prism of realities

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

ACM Romair #123

{{the German Blietzkrieg, was a breakthrough from a the WWI concept of trenched warfare. And is probably the basis of close-air support armoured-based warfare of today, which is basically what Pakistanis fight, i.e. a tank battle with aircraft used as a flying artillery.}}

No sir. The Pakistanis no longer have the gonadal fortitude for any kind of conventional warfare, at least with a comparably or better-armed adversary. They prefer to rely on jehadic cannon-fodder to fight a sub-conventional war of attrition with the adversary. The limitations of this last method have become only too obvious.

And when was the last time Pakistan used aircraft as flying artillery? I gathered that “Let the Army/Navy fight their own battles!” was a better summary of the PAF philosophy. Close air support seems to be a rather low priority. For example, no close air support or air cover was forthcoming when the Pakistan Army attempted to capture Jaisalmer/Jodhpur in 1971 – not even when IAF Hunters arrived and started shooting up the PA tanks from morning to night! And there were other such instances during the 1971 war. The PAF was also completely absent during Kargil while a Pakistan Army / NLI force of three thousand was slaughtered.

ACM Romair #123

{{Strategic Withdrawl is a strategy used very nicely by Russia. One keeps withdrawing and losing every battle, yet ends up winning the war, primarily because the enemy with superior firepower overstreches himself and gets exhausted. This is something I have always felt Pakistan should use in its foreign relations with India.}}

Russia had unsurpassed geographical depth as well as a powerful ally in General Winter. They could have withdrawn behind the Urals if necessary (in fact they relocated some of their factories there during WW II). There are no parallels with Pakistan’s situation.

Hoping for Indian strategic overstretch assumes that India is in engaged in active pursuit of Pakistan, whether physical, or metaphorical. Unfortunately that is not the case. The Indian strategy is more on the lines of fixing Pakistan in place, and then isolating it from all sources of strength, whether weaponry or economic strength or diplomatic support, so that it ceases to be any kind of obstacle or impediment. Even for access to Central Asia, India plans to bypass Pakistan using Iran. Meanwhile India continues to grow steadily in every dimension of power, without in any way focusing or obsessing on Pakistan.

To the extent that Pakistan is relevant to overall Indian plans, the plan seems to be to make Pakistan utterly irrelevant. It seems to be working so far.

stuka #122 I think you and I are using the term ``whipped`` differently. I mean beaten, regardless of how well they fought. You mean beaten, AND having fought badly. So, if (taking Socrates` advice) we define our terms (as I have done in the previous sentence), I think we are not saying anything contradictory...unless you disagree that the Germans were devasted (as I described in my earlier post) at the end of WWII - and I dont think you disagree with that. And I agree with you that they fought bravely, and certainly that terrible metric - namely the ``kill ratio`` - was in the German`s ``favor`` (if that word can be used when discussing number of deaths).

And dont get me wrong. Germany is today among the cleanest and most pleasant places on earth. And the average German is a fine individual, and Germany is certainly no more a part of the world`s problems (as it once was) and is in fact a part of the solution. Its just that the Germans became a bit carried away for a while in WW II with thoughts of being ``herrenvolk`` I think, and forgot that the rest of mankind is not chopped liver either.

FerozeK/Fuzair: It is interesting to study the various militaries, to see how they have impacted the world, and the field of military strategy. A lot of, ``what-ifs.``

I would have to agree with your assessment that the German military, in and of itself, was no slouch, during WWII. Far from it. Every military loses at some stage. No military wins forever. However, there are two well-known facts, that seem to stand out:

- Good politicians will defeat good Generals
- Good military logistics will defeat good battle tactics

The British defeated the Germans, and have been doing so, again and again, because they always had better political leadership. I am no expert in WWII armies, but my guess would be that in pure military terms, the Germans were ahead of everyone (expect the USA, if it decided to go full blown into military production). Poor(er) political leadership, combined with poor logistics at a later stage, combined with the fact that their cause was immoral to begin with, lead to their defeat.

Despite their eventual loss, German (and American) concepts have impacted post WWII military warfare greatly. Perhaps more so than anything the British came up with. Similar to what what happened to Napoleon. He eventually lost also. But the corps d`armee, of his Grande Armee`, is now a standard term in all armies. It was a major change from Fredrick`s very static single regiment military structure, and has really not been improved up till today.

Similarly, the German Blietzkrieg, was a breakthrough from a the WWI concept of trenched warfare. And is probably the basis of close-air support armoured-based warfare of today, which is basically what Pakistanis fight, i.e. a tank battle with aircraft used as a flying artillery. Interestingly, John Fuller, and not Guderian actually came up with the blitzkrieg ideas. But the British were reluctant to use them.

The speed with which Napoleon and Germans cut through Europe shows how revolutionary there strategies were, even though they seem the norm now (or are being replaced, now). So, the Germans were definitely no pushovers. At least, not their military. Quite in contrast to what many people seem to think. There is a lot more that goes into a war than just military strategy.

An interesting characteristic of wars seems to be that countries that gain some level of military superiority over others, don`t know when to stop. They evidently overstrech themselves. They initially tear through enemy after enemy, and then just try to keep going. For example, everyone has tried to invade a defeated Russia, yet the only only whom I can think of doing so successfully is Genghis Khan in 1221.

Strategic Withdrawl is a strategy used very nicely by Russia. One keeps withdrawing and losing every battle, yet ends up winning the war, primarily because the enemy with superior firepower overstreches himself and gets exhausted. This is something I have always felt Pakistan should use in its foreign relations with India.

I had a chance to do a few month long training course with Americans, during the Afghan War days, when US was inviting everyone to train here. American soldiers are quite professional, and in great physical shape (not to mention, quite well paid). Interestingly, they are very very highly educated, also. I remember reading somewhere that the US military is the most highly educated organization in the USA (more so than private companies). The Internet iteself is a DoD phenomenon. I believe an officer in the US military cannot (could not) go past the rank of Major without a Masters Degree. It is common to see Ivy League graduates etc. all over the place in the US military. I have never been around a more multi-talented and educated group of people, in my life, than the US soldiers I attended that course with. (this comparison includes Americans I have worked with in Silicon Valley). Many of them are now in the civil sector, with advanced degrees. On the whole, they are very nice decent guys. Unfortunately, they have a bad rep in the world, since the US politicians keep sending them off to invade countries, and to kill civilians.

At the senior level, it is common to see US Generals with Ph.Ds, from civilian universities, all over the place. I believe every single one of them has at least a Masters. This is another thing that the Pakistani military should introduce (but doing so, would require significanly rasing the salaries of Majors and Colonels, so that they don`t want to leave the military after getting an MBA from LUMS).

Interestingly, nearly every US President (other than draft-dodging Clinton) over the past many decades was in the US military. Bush Jr. was a Lieutenant and fighter pilot. Bush Sr. was a Leiutenant in the Navy. Regan was a Captain in the Army. Carter was a Lt. Cdr. in the Navy, as were his three direct predecessors: Ford, Nixon, Johnson. Kennedy was a Leiutenant, Eisenhower a 5-Star General. Truman and Roosevelt were Colonels.

A military career, an Ivy League degree and the Legal profession seem to be three common traits that nearly all US Presidents have. Even the ones who lose the elections have these traits. John McCain was a Naval Academy grad (he graduated sixth from the bottom). Dole was a WWII vet. And Kerry (this time around) I believe is a medal of honor winner. Gore was a Sargent in Vietnam. Maybe, this is why US Presidents always keep their countries in a perpetual state of war all the time :-)

The USA has taken warfare now to a completely new level. They are defining the newest form of strategies based on air warfare and aircraft carriers. No one can match them in this area. We did quite a bit of studying of nuclear tactics etc., during the course. The USA actually has a missile command. A whole branch of the USAF, consisting of missilliers. The strategies on how the nuclear weapons are developed, deployed, targeted used etc. is interesting. It is a lot more than just pressing a button and launching a nuke, like many people think.

I think Pakistan and India are now reaching these areas. And will have to develop nuclear strategies, safegaurds etc. In a sense, we seem to have jumped straight from Blitzkrieg, bypassing aircraft carriers and air-superiority based combat, to nukes. With India now trying to develop a triad of nuclear platforms (much like the USA, with submarine launched nuclear missiles).

If you ever get a chance, do study Israel`s nuclear command structure and military strategy. Their nuclear structure is second only to the USA`s. And their Air Force, in terms of quality of aircraft, is also second only to the USA. Their Prime Ministers have an eeriely similar career to US Presidents. Nearly every Israeli Prime Minister seems to be a retired senior miltiary commander, lawyer and/or an Ivy League type grads also. Sharon was a brigade commander and is a law graduate. Netanyahu was a Captain and an MIT architect. Ehud Barak was a Lt. General and a Stanford MS in engineering. Shamir studied law and was a soldier (actually a terrorist). Begin was a lawyer and soldier (actually terrorist also). Rabin was a Maj. General (at the ripe age of 32). So on and so forth.

Interestingly, USA (and Israel to some extent), like all countries in history, who get superiority over their opponents, seem to be overstreching themselves militarily at the moment (at least, in my opinion). I guess some things never change :-)

TAhmed: Did some research on Skorzeny. He lived out the end of his life in Spain, under the benign gaze of Franco. I still disagree with your connotation of the Germans being ``whipped`` which may hold a different meaning for you. The Germans were defeated comprehensively, yes...but at at no time did they give up without a very tough fight. I think the only country that was comprehensively whipped all around was the Italians..foloowed closely by the French.

fuzair #120 you are right (I knew it was some east european country). i did a quick google on skorzeny, and picked up the following gems about him: at neuremberg he was declared acquited of the charge of dressing up german soldiers in us uniforms at the battle of the bulge (a british colonel testified on his behalf, saying that the allies did the same thing at times needed), handed to postwar german authorities who placed him in a ``denazification`` prison for from where he escaped in 1948 to spain. he also befriended the perons in argentina, and some say he befriended eva peron all the way to her bed. he also set up some brutal police in argentina (once a nazi....). he was also adviser for a while to nasser of egypt (proof that good advice is lost on arabs, seeing that nasser ended up getting getting deflated in the 1967 war). skorzeny died in bed in madrid in 1975, a brilliant soldier in war, a successful businessman in peace (although our generals could probably teach him a thing or two about making money).

here is another wwii story - a chap i used to work with was a US bomber pilot in wwii. his parents had migrated to US from germany. he told me how he used to have mixed feelings doing bombing runs over germany in wwii, particularly the time he bombed his ancestral village.

Re: Ferozk #113

``I meet a German gentleman, in Europe, who had fought as panzerfuhrer on the ostfront and had been decorated with 4 Iron Crosses; Iron Cross (first class), Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords and Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds! He was old and kind, but he still scared the holy trinity out of me!!!!``

Ummmm, not quite. The German practice was to award ``Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds`` where the British (and all Commonwealth armies) awards ``bars.`` That is, the second award of the ``Iron Cross`` gets Oak Leaves, third gets Swords and fourth gets Diamonds. So this gentleman had one single ``Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds,`` not four separate ones. Twenty-seven Germans got this award and one got the golden version of it. The Germans were handing out Iron Crosses (First and Second Class) like confetti in the waning days of the war. Even earlier, at Stalingrad, Hitler had a crate-full of these airdropped for von Paulus to motivate his men with. In contrast, for the UK and its allies, there were only three multiple Victoria Cross awards in almost 150 years of fighting. And two of them were (distant) cousins! Von Paulus was promoted to General-Field Marshall so that he would shoot himself rather than be captured alive. He surrendered. Also, I believe but I could be wrong, that the Germans did not believe in awarding medals to distinguish between different acts of valor.

For example, a soldier could get the Iron Cross, second class for some particular act of heroism. A month later he is a hero again. Instead of a second award, he gets upgraded to an Iron Cross, first class. If he is a real glory hound and carries out another act of extreme heroism, he gets himself upgraded to the Knights Cross. Finally, he does something else worthy of mention and gets Oak Leaves. So it is now Hauptman Feroz Khan, Knight`s Cross with Oak Leaves. (He may also have a Wound Stripe or General Assault Badge, but these are not really ``decorations.``)

The Brits did it differently. Our hero, if he was a Britisher or Ally, carries out a particularly nice bit of military derringdo and gets himself a Military Cross (Sitara-e-Jurrat). He then does something equally heroic a little later on and gets a Bar to his MC. Next month he really excels and rallies his men, takes command of the unit when his superiors are killed and repels the enemy attack--but he hasn`t personally rushed out and and single-handedly beaten back the enemy attack. He now gets a Distinguished Service Order (Hilal-e-Jurrat). Finally, a month later, he single-handedly beats back the enemy attack, after being shot twice in the stomach. For this he gets the VC (Nishan-e-Haider). (Ignoring things like Mentioned in Despatches--Imtiazi Sanad).

So, finally, it is Captain Feroz Khan, VC, DSO, MC and Bar. So the Brits distinguished between how heroic was the act, whether it was really just exceptional

So, the Iron Cross awards are really similar to the British Distinguished Service Order and not the VC since they could be, and often were, especially for Swords and Diamonds, awarded to very high ranking officers for meritorious service. For example, Rommel got upgraded to the ``Knights Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds`` in 1943 and he was presumably not in the front lines shooting at enemy tanks!

Sorry, was bored and thought would write this up--just to add to the general pointlessness of Chowk!

Cheers.

Re: Tahmed #117

I thought Skorzeny kidnapped the son of Admiral Horthy, Regent of Hungary?

ferozk #113 Your reading of the WWII history is basically correct. And, as a miserable flunkie in the german language, I admire your command of the german military vocabulary. (I dont even have an excuse for flunking german, having visited that country perhaps 25 times in the past two decades, and having a brother with a german speaking household who made that place his home and who is married to the nicest possible person who happens to be german - it just tells you that people are people and it is these damned generals and oberfeuhrer types who are the trouble makers).

Nevertheless...lets be honest - the germans got whipped in WWII and no ifs and buts about it. (see reasons provided to stuka)

PS: i can understand stuka`s sympathies, seeing that he named himself after a WWII german dive bomber. next thing, with all you german lovers, romair will change his name to messerschmitt, and hamidm will start calling himself a grundig radio...

stuka #107 Given that the war ended with (a) unconditional German surrender (the US commander even refused to shake the outstretched hands of the German general Jodl who, millions of deaths later, was now trying to play the ``fellow gentlemen`` role, (b) virtually every german female between 12 and 60 raped by the Russians on the eastern half of germany, (c) their cities reduced almost literally to ashes, (d) a third of their population killed, I think ``whipping`` is in fact a euphemism for what the germans experienced. The japanese got off easy when one considers such hard facts, despite this constant whining by third world ``intellectuals`` about nagasaki and hiroshima.

stuka #108 on skorzeny - after liberating mussollini, he had more adventures in wwii (kidnapping of the romanian crown prince - or perhaps it was bulgarian - in an effort by hitler to convince his dad the king to remain on the nazi side; in the battle of the bulge, commanding the english speaking US-uniform wearing german troops who were planted behind allied lines to confuse them with wrong directions etc.; and finally, a few days before the end hitler summoned him to his bunker, promoted him to some kind of an uber shduber general, and told him to take charge of a german army in the south - on reaching the location, skorzeny found that the army existed only in hitler`s brain, and being a smart chap walked over to the US lines and surrendered. He was tried at the neuremberg trials, and did jail time (i am quite sure) and then ended up going to south america (uruguay or someplace) where he spent the rest of his life getting rich as a rancher, and setting up a sort of an exNazi-scumbag Welfare Society (similar to the Fauji Foundation in Pakistan, except they dont make corn flakes). He died around 1969 or 1970 I think, an unrepentent Nazi and a rich ba!stard till the very end.

dullbhatti #110 you are obviously unaware that people from across the globe flock to chowk to get investment advice, military advice, marital advice, religious advice. i understand even presidents and generals (they are the same thing in pakistan, incidentally) lurk on chowk, gobbling up the wisdom from Pir Romair Sahib, getting inspiration from Janaab Manto Sahib. The rest of us loafers simply come here to avoid cutting the hedges as promised to our spouses...

Alephnull #106 Thanks for the correction. The story of the ``man who never was`` is a fascinating one indeed...i understand in life the man was a some kind of a wino, and at was only after his death that he ended up serving his country (and the rest of us too, i may add, given the stakes in wwii).

re: tahmed32

The Germans had an indication that it was Normandy, because allied bombing had intensified and the allied aircraft were attacking German radar sites. Also, the French Marquis, as the resistence was known, was more active than usual. There were plenty of signs to warn the Germans, but the fact that der Furhrer was of a different opinion is another matter. Your point is correct that Herr Reichsmarshal Herman Goering`s failure to destory the Dunkirk pocket was a major blow to German strategy, as was the onset of Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941. The invasion of Russia in the mid summer, having been delayed for about 3 months, because the Wehrmacht was busy helping Mussolini in the Balkans and Greece, was another mistake. There was another mistake of Hitler`s when in show of solidarity with the Japanese, he declared war on the United States in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor attack in 1941.

The failure to crush the Dunkirk pocket stemmed from Hitler`s assumption that Britain would surrunder and seek a political settlement and the reason he halted the advance of the panzerarmee on the outskirts of Dunkirk. As to the ``man who never was``, it was a ploy to confuse the Germans about allied intentions in the Balkans and Italy and had nothing to do with the allied invasion of Festung Europa. The Falise pocket saw some really fierce fighting and the city of Caen was bombed into rubble as a result, but that operation was missed opportunity, because the British fieldmarshall Bernard Law Montogomery allowed the Germans to eek out of the kessel (pocket). Also, as some one mistakenly said, Falise was not a campaign but a battle of the Normandy campaign.

I agree with Stuka. German military gave as good as it got in terms of fighting and on a tactical level, the Germans were far superior to the allies and this can be seen in both the western and eastern fronts. The German army recovered from the loss of Normandy in August and by November of 1944, it had stopped the allied advance cold in Holland and in Belgium. The allied operation, ``market-garden`` was a tactical defeat and then the Germans gave the allies a rude shock during the second Ardennes campaign. Even after that, it resisted the allied advance as seen in the bitter fighting of Hurtzen woods in Germany.

On the ostfront, the Germans had broken the balance of the Russian armies at Minsk and Kiev and it would take the Red Army nearly three years to push the Germans out of Russia and then, the German retreat across eastern Europe was resisilent, if nothing else. On par, the German generals were handicapped because they had taken a personal oath to obey der Furhrer and that prevented most of them from disobeying insane orders. Still, you have to make the difference between professional German soldiers and generals and officers and Nazi political types. In 1943, the Germans having been defeated at Stalingrad would stop the Russian counter-attack at Kursk. The Germans were never ``whipped`` and this could be seen in their dogged resistence to the Russians till the last hours of the battle of Berlin. Granted they lost the war, but the German army never gave up its tactical advantage to the allies and it was still capable of mounting coordinated gegenangriffs till the very end.

Watching History Channel is fun, but it is no comparsion to reading the offical war diaries of American, British and Canadian and German divisions or the people who fought in those campaigns! History Channel does not hold a candle to talking with veterans, who admit that they never believed the myth of old men and boys on bicycles! LOL

I meet a German gentleman, in Europe, who had fought as panzerfuhrer on the ostfront and had been decorated with 4 Iron Crosses; Iron Cross (first class), Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords and Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds! He was old and kind, but he still scared the holy trinity out of me!!!!

re:zbed (sp)

I think, if I remember correctly, that was the time frame and the first thing Rommel did was to release the panzer reserves. Besides, Kurt Meyer`s SS panzer units were in action on the first day attacking British positions.

Ciao

Still no response from the great business and literary mind (i.e. Air Marshal Counterfeit coin)... when you don`t have an argument you just don`t have an argument. Neither has he answered Dost Mittar`s questions about the BJP nor as he proved exactly how I am a `fanatic`.


Ofcourse his only argument is that I supposedly compared fatima Jinnah to Benazir Bhutto.. whatever comparison was made was made with a disclaimer that BB is not even close to FJ in honesty and integrity, and whatever comparison there was, was quickly withdrawn after I learnt of BB`s conviction in a Swiss court. Yet we will see the counterfeit coin accuse me of this again and again. When you don`t have the arguments... you rely on lying.

-Manto