mayfair
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,032
- Likes
- 13,110
Because it was not declared as on out and out war, so RoEs were different.Well if it's an all out war, then we won't be talking about strategic restraint.. Would we?.... The whole point of carrying out strikes deep into Pakistan, was to display to ourselves, as much to the world, that India's policy of strategic restraint has been dumped. So once a policy has been dumped, why the half hearted attempt to resurrect it. When you throw away any restraint while attacking, why show restraint when defending. If it was left to me,, I would say we should have locked and fired on any combat jet moving towards our airspace (whether within BVR or WVR.)
Moreover, escalation happens in step.
Cross-Loc air strikes were one rung in the ladder. Do recall our use of the phrase "pre-emptive non-military action"
The idea was we are targetting a terrorist camp based in another country, not that country itself. Indeed, the strike package would have been authorised to defend themselves by any means necessary. They achieved their objectives and flew in and out without a hitch.
Second, thee are Rules of Engagement in military clashes that are put together for a very specific reason. In this instance, they were looking to protect the military installations, shield the civilian air traffic behind them AND chase the bandits away. In the meantime, Napaki bandits fired BVRs that were neutralised.
Only F-16 made it's way into Indian territory (3 km), that was latched onto by Wg Cmdr Abhinandan and brought down. Exactly what RoE called for. However, in the process, he most likely suffered an engine malfunction (given the lack of missile induced damage on his plane) and ejected and the winds carried him west into PoK.
These are the facts that we know.