Kargil: A Poltical and Military Coup or a Huge Blunder?

[pmaitra]

Wikipedia states this:

Kargil War (1999)


During the Kargil conflict IAF Mirage 2000Hs, along with MiG-27s carried out strikes against enemy positions.
On 11 May 1999, the Indian Air Force was called in to provide close air support to the Indian Army at the height of the ongoing Kargil conflict with the use of helicopters.[54] The IAF strike was code named Operation Safed Sagar.[54] The first strikes were launched on the 26 May, when the Indian Air Force struck infiltrator positions with fighter aircraft and helicopter gunships.[55] The initial strikes saw MiG-27s carrying out offensive sorties, with MiG-21s and later MiG-29s providing fighter cover.[51] The IAF also deployed its radars and the MiG-29 fighters in vast numbers to keep check on Pakistani military movements across the border.[56] Srinagar Airport was at this time closed to civilian air-traffic and dedicated to the Indian Air Force.[55]
On 27 May, the first fatalities were suffered when a MiG-21 and a MiG-27 jets were lost over Batalik Sector to enemy action and mechanical failure, respectively.[57][58] The following day, a Mi-17 was lost- with the loss of all four of the crew- when it was hit by three stingers while on an offensive sortie.[51] These losses forced the Indian Air Force to reassess its strategy. The helicopters were immediately withdrawn from offensive roles as a measure against the man-portable missiles in possession of the infiltrators. On 30 May, the Indian Air Force called into operation the Mirage 2000 which was deemed the best aircraft capable of optimum performance under the conditions of high-altitude seen in the zone of conflict. Mirage 2000s not only had better defence equipment compared to the MiGs, but also gave IAF the ability to carry out aerial raids at night. The MiG-29s were used extensively to provide fighter escort to the Mirage 2000.[59] The Mirages successfully targeted enemy camps and logistic bases in Kargil and within days, their supply lines were severely disrupted.[60] Mirage 2000s were used for strikes on Muntho Dhalo[51] and the heavily defended Tiger Hill and paved the way for their early recapture.[51] At the height of the conflict, the IAF was conducting over forty sorties daily over the Kargil region.[59] By 26 July, the Indian forces had successfully liberated Kargil from Pakistani forces.[61]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Air_Force#Kargil_War_.281999.29

This is apparently in the book Pakistan: eye of the storm by Owen Bennett Jones.

 

[Ray]

^^ Good post (post #16).

So, in summary, and if I understand correctly, cutting off supply routes would not have had much effect on the intruders sitting atop the peaks because they would in all likelihood have had enough stocks to last several months. Thus, dragging the war for months would not have been beneficial for India as foreign powers would have pressed the belligerents (India and Pakistan) to cease fire.

That is a very convincing reply.

However, from a pure military point of view, let me ask you a question.

If India was a superpower and did not care about international diplomatic fallout, or if there was no diplomatic fallout in the event IA crossed the LoC, wouldn't the military planners call for crossing the LoC, cutting off supply lines and encircling the peaks rather than climbing them?

First of all, India is not a superpower.

If it were US, then it would have the wherewithal, not only to cross the LC, but ensure that there was no Pakistan.

India is nowhere near that.

It would not be cutting supply lines, it would be total elimination.

I was commenting on the ground realities.

P2P

I really don't know.

The helicopters used were not gunship, just modified and all did not carry chaff.

 

[pmaitra]

Sir. After Kargil war, there were news reports of IAF not going to provide CAS to the army from now on. Is this because of the IAF's lack lustre involvement in Kargil with respect to gunships?

Also, wasn't it after Kargil that army was highly inclined to build thier own air arm with possible future orders of LCH?

IAF did not have gunships during Kargil War.

What IAF could have used are:

• Mil-24/35 'Krokodil' (NATO: Hind) - This is not a gunship; it is a gunship and troop transporter combo, is heavy due to passenger compartment and heavy armour and has deficiencies in high altitude operations.
• Mil-17 (NATO: Hip) - These are pure transport helicopters, but IAF attached rocket-pods so that they could be used as gunships. See a picture from Kargil War below:

AFAIK, one Mil-17 was shot down and IAF withdrew helicopters from assault tasks and these tasks were handed over to fixed wing aircraft.

 

[Ray]

The Mirages successfully targeted enemy camps and logistic bases in Kargil and within days, their supply lines were severely disrupted.

Muntho Dalo in India territory.

A logistic hub they created.

Nothing was attacked across the LC.

 

[pmaitra]

Muntho Dalo in India territory.

A logistic hub they created.

Nothing was attacked across the LC.

I see. I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

[Tronic]

Would it have been a good idea to cross the LoC, cut off these supply lines and 'starve' the intruders sitting atop the heights. Could we have managed to reduce our casualties had we done this?

Apparently, India gained a lot diplomatically by not crossing the LoC. However, was it worth it given that we could have possibly kept our casualties lower?

I think it depends on what kind of victory we are looking for. In addition to the brigadier's points; assuming we had crossed the LOC, I don't think we would have held the same level of clout in the international arena the way we do today (as our restraint has been able to make a mockery of Pakistan's "threat from the East" excuse.) We have covered ground, from being equated together in the conflict with Pakistan, to being placed on a more responsible level. The military is a means to achieve political victory for the country at the international level.

 

[pmaitra]

I think it depends on what kind of victory we are looking for. In addition to the brigadier's points; assuming we had crossed the LOC, I don't think we would have held the same level of clout in the international arena the way we do today (as our restraint has been able to make a mockery of Pakistan's "threat from the East" excuse.) We have covered ground, from being equated together in the conflict with Pakistan, to being placed on a more responsible level. The military is a means to achieve political victory for the country at the international level.

True.

One hypothetical question: Do you think if India tried harder diplomatically, India could have crossed the LoC and still managed to retain international diplomatic support? We can recall how Indira Gandhi traveled to different countries to mould world opinion build up her case against Pakistan.

 

[Tronic]

True.

One hypothetical question: Do you think if India tried harder diplomatically, India could have crossed the LoC and still managed to retain international diplomatic support? We can recall how Indira Gandhi traveled to different countries to mould world opinion build up her case against Pakistan.

Nothing is certain, but I doubt the political mileage would have been equivalent to what we achieved by not crossing. Also, Indira Gandhi's India and today's India, there is a big difference; with a much more open and globalized economy, there are far more factors to take into account.

Should also add, there are nation's which have been forced to side with India, who otherwise may look for excuses to keep India chained down to the same level as Pakistan. (Chinese are good example )

 

[Oracle]

True.

One hypothetical question: Do you think if India tried harder diplomatically, India could have crossed the LoC and still managed to retain international diplomatic support?

Diplomacy is not needed to cross LoC and still have International backing. That is a piece of our land, those dogs tried to mark!

Had we the capability to amass forces and send them in on the very first day, we could have crossed LoC, whipped their arses and come back for lunch the next day. By the time our babus came into their sense, most World powers were reigning on India's nerves not to cross LoC and warned Pakistan to back off. Atleast we drove the infidels away from our side of the border. This is why Cold Start was realized.

We can recall how Indira Gandhi traveled to different countries to mould world opinion build up her case against Pakistan.

Her travelling to US did not gain anything significant other than bad mouthing from Richard Nixon. While today, none of our politicians need to travel abroad to mould world opinion. It's already in our favor.

 

[p2prada]

We have 2 squadrons of attack helicopters. Mi-25 and Mi-35. I guess they weren't conducive to high altitude operations. No chaff is bad.

Things would have been better if the govt had not restricted Army's movt along LOC.

 

[Ray]

We have 2 squadrons of attack helicopters. Mi-25 and Mi-35. I guess they weren't conducive to high altitude operations. No chaff is bad.

Things would have been better if the govt had not restricted Army's movt along LOC.

Too heavy for lift off with adequate loads and weaponry.

 

[ace009]

I know that armies prepare for the last war they fought, but how prepared are we NOW (as compared to 1999) for another Kargil or something worse (say Chinese invasion of Arunachal Pradesh)?

 

[Ray]

As ready as what the Budget and the Govt's WILL allows.

 

[ace009]

I did not just mean the MoD babudom plans and Govt money coming in. I meant, do we have specialized forces for different terrain? Specialized equipment, arms, artillary, vehicles etc? Army strategies? Intelligence? satellite coverage of the border areas?

 

[pmaitra]

Diplomacy is not needed to cross LoC and still have International backing. That is a piece of our land, those dogs tried to mark!

Exactly. I would have liked India to have done something like that. I am still not sure where to stand in this delicate balance between 'earning applause from foreign countries for showing restraint by not crossing the LoC' and 'crossing the LoC, encircling the enemy and reducing our casualties'.

Had we the capability to amass forces and send them in on the very first day, we could have crossed LoC, whipped their arses and come back for lunch the next day. By the time our babus came into their sense, most World powers were reigning on India's nerves not to cross LoC and warned Pakistan to back off. Atleast we drove the infidels away from our side of the border. This is why Cold Start was realized.

True.

Her travelling to US did not gain anything significant other than bad mouthing from Richard Nixon. While today, none of our politicians need to travel abroad to mould world opinion. It's already in our favor.

Well, with Nixon, yes, it is true. However, the US Congress fully backed India's stand about genocide in East Pakistan.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

https://m.rediff.com/news/column/why-did-vajpayees-bus-diplomacy-fail/20180831.htm

On August 9, 1998, we wrote to the prime minister through the good offices of the minister for external affairs proposing a 'unilateral' peace initiative with Pakistan.

Our logic was that with the nuclearisation of the subcontinent, war as an instrument of politics has become redundant.

...away from public gaze, India, in that year, imported a record amount of sugar from Pakistan, worth nearly $200 million to help that country.

Financial year 1998-1999 was the only year when Pakistan ran up a trade surplus with India, of $27 million.

Where Inpad and Vajpayee went wrong was the belief that Pakistan suffered from a sense of insecurity.

The logic that nuclear weapons and Indian assurance would make Pakistan feel secure and it would embark on the path of peace was flawed.

This also assumed Pakistan to be a 'normal' (as opposed to an ideological) State.

As subsequent events at Kargil and Pakistan's continued support to terror activities in India prove, Pakistan has never felt insecure and has always felt that the break-up/destruction of India was within its capability.

In short, a Pakistan that feels secure will always continue to be aggressive vis a vis India.

It is this notion and unshakeable belief of the Pakistani army that lies at the root of failure of every single peace initiative undertaken by India.

This will end only when Pakistan gets divided along ethnic lines or ceases to exist altogether as an independent State.

Till such time, the best that India can do is keep Pakistan destabilised and insecure so that it has no chance to carry out its aggressive agenda.