LoC Warfare tactics
- Thread starter Levina
- Start date
Sir.
What according to you remains a conventional equilibrium? Is it achieved by military or by the political directives of the nation?
Sir.
Another release of 'vitamins in air'? I hope you would cut down the methane content.
Indian Army kills 3 Pakistani soldiers in cross border ops in J&K - Times of India
Knee jerk reactions by GOI at LC is making Pakistan conventionally at par with India.
Although the army retaliated on 59 Baloch which is the regiment of COAS of Pak Army to give a massage but on ground situation is nothing more than an equilibrium.
Their tactic is , they begun something we end it no win no loss, is win win situation for Pak not for India.
Don't try to act over smart with those intellectual phrases.
So you call the matrydom of Indian soldiers as stupidity done by Pakistan and India did the same stupidity by taking out three of their soldiers.
Bravo you just pooped sh*t.
Sir.
What makes you think that the tit for tat strikes being undertaken along the LoC are 'knee jerk reactions' by GoI since this government only? The reactions are part of military operations undertaken by the Indian Army since decades. Only the political ownership has been a first.
Conventional parity is far from a reality for Pakistan, sir. If you mean the apparent inability of India to undertake a decisive military course of action, and are calling that a conventional parity, then you would be incorrect in assuming it as any routine peace posture by any military is at an apparent equilibrium not being involved in active operations.
That is a logic only for non-military minds.
Neither does Pakistan win. The status quo remains the same with no changes.
That is an acceptable military objective speaking in terms of military gains/loss.
Sir.
Would you call the needless loss of lives, primarily due to the failure of the leadership of this nation to undertake a course correction with an approach in order to enter a phase of conflict de-escalation from a phase of status quo ante, anything but?
Are not military operations and their objectives, defined by the Political Objectives of any nation? If that is a reality, then is not the conflict resolution the task of the political leadership, one way or the other, with a military conflict with defined objectives, or through a diplomatic and political solution?
Or do you seriously consider the work of Mr William E Holland "Let A Soldier Die", to be a gospel truth and the ultimate duty of every soldier?
Sir.
I am glad that a civil tongue has started to find it's place in your mouth. There is a rather nasty member elsewhere, a certain Areesh, who could give you company if you have an itch to revert to your previously uncivilized and uncouth self.
My best wishes remain with you for you to be able to spread the seeds of knowledge and do away with the constant urge to release methane-vitamins in air.
And I still await your wise inputs on the authorization of Cooks (Special) and Cooks (General) to an Infantry Unit. I really like to learn from people 'more' knowledgeable than me. @Shashank Neither have you, sir, given me a revert on that query.
It's nothing new it's been ongoing past so many decades thus maintaining an equllibrium.
Conventional equilibrium is inclusive decision making tendency and not just fire power. In a long term the casuality on both aised are almost similar in numbers. What happened in Kargil? Just imagine if Pakistan had launched air strikes on Indian installation in Kashmir it would have become really tough to evacuate the peaks.
Pakistanis will come again after few weeks what makes you think they will not come?
Neither they lose. Being conventionally inferior.
What is the objective of IA posted in Kashmir? And compare it with PA army's objective. You would know why there is a hypothetical parity but effective one maintained by Pak.
Sir.
The objective of any deployment of the Armed Forces of any country is defined by the political directive given to it.
Let us examine the directive given to Indian Army in Kashmir. It is 'to bring down the level of violence to a level where a political dialogue can be facilitated'. This was, in addition to it's role along LoC: that to maintain the sanctity of the LoC in spirit of the Simla Agreement.
Has the level of violence, from the levels of 1989-94, come to level where political dialogue can be facilitated? Yes.
Has the political dialogue been seriously pursued, no.
No conflict can be resolved without a political/diplomatic initiative. Sans that, the conflict remains in perpetuity. Look at the Syrian Conflict, the Afghan issue and Kashmir. All three have stalled and failed political initiatives.
Now let us examine the role of Pakistan Army. Likely they have the task of maintaining the sanctity of the LoC. Which they undertake too.
Now I am not sure in which world would this lead to be defined as parity?
Sir.
That does not mean a conventional parity. You can not mix up the two terms.
I am going to ask you to reference these terminologies and justify them. Do not introduce self invented words in a discourse on security aspects and defense matters.
What is a successful military operation/campaign for you? A achievement of your political objectives, which are the defining objectives of any military campaign, or killing more of the enemy?
What are your comments on the USSR casualties (it is casualty and casuality as latter is casual) in World War 2 and the far lesser casualties sustained by Germany proportionally? Who won the war, sir?
What happened in Kargil was a Siachen 2.0 which they failed to execute. So?
How are the two connected?
So, what is the solution? Head back to what I wrote sir. The political imperatives have to be defined and executed.
As long as they do not attain their objectives, it is a victory for India. Understand that.
It's me who first started talking about conventional equilibrium related to Pakistan in the other forum and I have defined it very well there.
And you are ignoring the on ground situation.
By the way let me tell you that, had India not liberated Bangladesh, Pakistan was superior to India in terms of conventional war fare. As they already posses a big chunk of Land known as POK. In 65 India had a chance to control much won territory, but was returned. If India was conventionally superior that area would have been under Indian administration.
timely Decision making+ result+ fire power decides the conventional equilibrium.
With respect to Pakistan it will be always territory gain, not status quo.
The two are connected in a manner that,
Pakistanis did a covert operation to place their men on peaks , which was a timely decision which later became overt. As they knew that Indians are conventional more powerful. India had to push in their best and max fire power concentrated on an objective. Had Pakistan mobilized more troop and it's airforce taking their government in confidence they would have won the Kargil and. And India had to open the fronts in Punjab sector.
In that particular region Pakistan would have suppressed India with it's fire power and decision making conventionally.
Not political but a new mechanism where you appoint a person from security background to handle Pakistan. He must be given absolute authority. He may report to PM.
They will attain their objectives if this skirmish on LC lingers on. You re making them realize that India in any case would not cross LC and gain some land in POK where as Pakistan has already tried multiple times and inadequate reponse was given back by Indian government.
Whatever it may be the decision making chair lacks backbone. And this gives rise to Pakistan being conventionally at par with India
Dear Sir,
It would seem from your reaction that you have ''tested'' my output.
Besides, I ALWAYS act smart with intellectual phrases; would you expect me to act smart with stupid phrases?
Sir.
How is conventional parity and conventional equilibrium denoting the situation on ground? Only in your view does it do so. You are twisting the situation into something that it is not - of trying to mix military 'conventional parity/equilibrium' which is most exclusively calculated by parameters of sizes, structure, equipment and logistical capability of the respective armed forces of the nations, with a status quo being maintained by the Government of India as a policy directive.
Strange logic.
Read your sentence here. Do instruct us on how having two land masses separated by the expanse of a hostile nation, enabled Pakistan to achieve a conventional superiority? How does this logic come to fore?
Can you provide a reference for these considerations?
So says you!
Hardly. It remained a colossal failure of the Indian Intelligence. The chatter of war was there in the messes of the Pakistan Army just before the movement started.
The Commander of the Kargil Brigade failed to get appropriate WASO sorties to undertake 'area domination'.
And you were saying there is conventional parity? And conventional superiority by Pakistan at an instance too?
Incorrect, a series of objectives set in High Altitude and Mountain Warfare backdrop. A minimum force structure of 10 is to 1 required, more the better.
Had this, had that, speculative. Had Indian Army carried out due reconnaissance, had intelligence picked up, had Gujral not wound up RAW assets, etc etc.
No. India would have allowed troops across the LoC, something which the Chief, General Malik asked permission to permit in order reduce the casualties being sustained but was denied. And why was that?
Funny.
What are your views on a Military Background being the policy decider in Pakistan?
What objective? Of peacefully integrating into China?Just what objective is that?
Inadequate? Status quo ante being maintained in every case by India!