Re: Pakistan lost 357 soldiers in Kargil: Musharraf Says
Mazhar-Kaleem-Fan:
[quote]
emotions running high over reason
[/quote]
Can you please pinpoint, where in the post, emotions running high over reasons? I thought that whatever I wrote, it was all reasons and no emotions (nor any speculations). Actually, reading most mails, I felt that most are writing after discarding reasons and relying on speculations (or propaganda).
[quote]
Let me put the record straight, i have never said that Indians captured all the posts after firefight
[/quote]
Did I write anywhere that you said that ‘Indians captured all the posts after fire-fight’? :) If so,where? Can you show me?. Why are you speculating on what I wrote that what I did not?
I only said that, India did not retook the heights but heights were abandoned (Pakistan withdrew the forces). True, India did took couple of heights, no doubt, but when I wrote that India did not retook the heights, I mean vast majority of them and regardless, what they took were insignificant and that also happened because (what I believe) there was some reason for that, other then Indian capability.
[quote]
You are being so naive, Attacking on Pakistani held Kashmir is fighting across the LoC.
[/quote]
Well, what I believe is that after Pakistan occupied Kargil (and other) heights, those heights became part of Kashmir that is on Pakistan side of line of control (i.e free Kashmir). Now it was up to Pakistan government (politically and militarily) to defend those heights as they defend Azad Kashmir. As for LOC that came into existence after Shimla agreement, it is already violated when India occupied Siachin. Thus, LOC is meaningless.
One should also remember that LOC (then ceasefire line) that existed before Shimla Agreement, Kargil was part of Free Kashmir.
Thus, I believe that India attacking Kargil was similar to Pakistan occasionally attacking Siachin and as India is defending Siachin, Pakistan should have defended Kargil (and other) heights. Actually, I believe that Pakistan should have defended those heights similar way Pakistan defends other parts of Free Kashmir. If India wanted to go to war for that, let that be (even if that would have ended in nuclear war). Though Pakistan political wing started wetting their pants when confronted with possibility of war, while military was ready and thus everything went upside down.
[quote]
I have met many officers who were actually deployed across the LoC in the operation, and mind you unlike journalists or higher command, a junior officer is forthright and never hesitate in answering the truth. They all said that the situation had virtually become untenable. Indeed many simply abandoned their posts when all the rations and ammunitions exausted. Some did not leave themselves and told their men to leave.
[/quote]
Well, reasoning backed with all the reports I have read, the evidence I posted earlier, without emotion or speculation, tells that above statement is doubtful. Pakistan agreed with Clinton on 6th July for withdrawal (even though at that time the position of Pakistan was such that Nawaz was trying to ask return for that withdrawal, something unimaginable if position were bad). Nawaz conveyed his decision to the military and Withdrawal started by around 8-10 July, and by 14th of July, India was in control (of whatever Pakistan was holding for many months).
Before that withdrawal agreement, Pakistan army was thinking to hold those heights and thus, they must be supplying ammunitions and rations. Now what reasoning can conclude that after decision of withdrawal taken and withdrawal started, and completed within few days, soldiers would be compelled to withdraw because of shortage of ration and ammunition (rather then due to them being asked to withdraw)? Maybe, your reasoning is different, but for me to conclude that, would be speculation against all reasoning.
[quote]
If Pakistan could hold back easily and continue to cause severe casualities on Indian Army, why did we have so much casualities?
[/quote]
I do not think that there were too many casualties (rather I believe that a lot is exaggerated because of political reasons). Measurements of casualties are done ‘with respect to opponents’ and not ‘in discrete terms’. Regardless, casualties do happen in operations and that is part of military life.
Military commander evaluate casualties and aims, then once decisions made, commander take plunge, sometime casualties are higher then expectation and sometime lower, but regardless, it does not matter. If political wing of Pakistan had decided that to defend the position rewritten after Kargil operation, even 1000s of casualties were worth and even now, I believe that what Pakistan achieved (that is difficult to divulge or preferably better not to divulge), what casualties happened is well justified.
[quote]
If according to your logic that these casualities were due to withdrawal under atrillery fire, why did the high command agree to withdraw in so much haste without even waiting for Indians to stop the fire? If there was pressure from the civil government to withdraw in any case than general sahab paid a heavy price in terms of blood of troops while once his own life came at stake he acted promptly. If the casualities was under artillery fire on the posts, than they were too much & speak about ill planning and mishandling of the operation.
[/quote]
Again it was political incompetence that when Nawaz agreed withdrawal with Clinton, he should have also made him clear that withdrawal would happen after ceasefire. Unfortunately, Nawaz came to Pakistan and told Musharraf that he agreed withdrawal and thus asked Musharraf to give order to withdraw. I believe Musharraf took Nawaz words and ordered withdrawal, without realising that Nawaz only agreed on one aspect and not the other that should have happened simultaneously, that Nawaz would agree Pakistan army to withdraw while India would stop firing, simultaneously.
You cannot blame Musharaf for what Nawaz negotiated, that Pakistan should withdraw while India keeps firing and thus resulting in casualties. When political decision made Musharraf had no choice other then reject that decision or follow it and Musharraf decided to follow it.
I believe that military high commands must have felt dejected by the political decision of withdrawal (and we can see that from the results that followed, that is ousted of Nawaz from Power). Thus, for army, there was no point in holding on the heights and thus rejecting demand by Nawaz, whatever the cost.
As for reasons behind the Kargil operation, if I mention that, it would be considered as speculation as I would not have anything as reference to back that (and even if I would be right, no relevant high command in army would be willing to divulge). Only thing I can say is that, I believe that Kargil operation had several strategic consequences having long terms effect on Kashmir, and (in isolation) all was militarily achieved other then backing of political will. That political decision to disown the operation and agree to withdraw changed a lot from the objective, though I believe still a lot is achieved (unsaid).
I believe that in 1999, if Pakistan had strong, intelligent, and confident person as Prime minister in Pakistan, willing to take risk for Kashmir and willing to go for everything, probably we would not be talking about Kashmir problem now. [As I believe that world would have seen …. subcontinent or …. Kashmir]
***