Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The real truth, July 7, 2004
By A Customer
I think the author has seen both the sides of the story:1. Kargil was never a part of Pakistan. It has been disputed since the day Pakistan was seperated from India. In 1971 Indian Army was marching inside Lahore. I dont think 'capturing' kargil would have been a intelligent choice when India had a handful of better choices. 2. Evicting Indian Army from siachen? Why did Pakistani soldies and high ranks have to dress like mercenaries and terrorists to do that? It is a understanding (un-written) that there would be cease-fire on the L.O.C. (line of control - line seperating the 2 countries) during the winter as both armies would climb down to valleys. Why did the Pakistani army (along with civilians - terrorists) cross the LOC in that winter? 3. NATO standard army ?? Please refer to point 2. Also, visit the families of Indian officers killed in the early stages of operation, who were captured as POWs and skinned alive & bodies used for target practice 5 days after death. Please check close facts before entering reviews. Then read more books and thank Amazon.com
Lets focus on stopping the war and the killings of faithful, innocent pakistani and indian youth, who are fighting for a cause not knowing if it is right or wrong.
|
|
|
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Worth anyone's while, July 18, 2006
I was surprised to read some of the reviews here. I really think the reviews written by some of the people say more about them than about the book itself, which by the way is an exemplary scholarly effort.
1- "It was one of the most brilliant tactical high altitudes operations of all times.Even Indian own post war inquiry admitted that 'after all our war planning we were totally surprised'."
Sure the Indian army was surprised, but they weren't surprised by the technical brilliance of the pakistani jihadists/generals but rather by their audacity and foolhardiness! As far as the brilliance of the high-altitude operation is concerned, it is well known that in high altitude warfare the advantage rests with the one firing down from a height and certainly not with units that have to scale treacherous heights under heavy fire. Notwithstanding this fact and against all odds, the Indian army virtually neutralised the advantage the paki fanatics had gained by virtue of sheer madness and beat them hands down on some of the most difficult peaks. So, its obvious the technical finesse was India's prerogative (being at a disadvantage from the get-go) . All the pakis had to do was to hold on to the enormous advantage, yet they couldn't! Now that says a lot doesn't it?
2- "Pakistan Army captured nearly 134 posts and according to neutral observers till the time Clinton intervened, Indians had taken back about 10 of these posts."
Absolutely false! I'm astonished by the ignorance. Its true that the first 10-15 operations took almost a month and the casuaties were pretty high, but the Indian army captured all but a handful posts within 3 months of operations and the remining posts were oppupied by the indian army before July 20th.
3 - "Most importantly the posts that Indians recaptured were the frontal ones meaning where artillery could have direct hits and have an impact, where as remaining 110+ plus were at the rear where this decisive Indian strength was useless."
The Indian artillery was not the decisive indian strength but rather the brave and disciplined infantry/special ops troops won the battle for the indian forces. The indian army did utilise the Howitzer guns very very effectively during the course of the entire operations, that is true. However, the victories were won by the infantry/special ops units physically climbing the heights and killing the pakis/jihadists. The Artilerry shelling was only for 'softening' the targets and played a minor role and could easily be replaced by munitions dropped by fighter planes. Anyone aware of the geography of the area under question would agree that the heights overloooking the plains are the hardest ones to re-occupy while the remining heights get easier as one goes along.
4 - "The role of President Clinton has not really been correctly highlightened in this book.The real fact is that it was HIS personal intervention that in the end turned the tables.It seems that other geo political considerations such as Pak. support of Taliban etc. played a decisive role in ensuring U.S mega pressure on Poor Nawaz Sharif."
It was Nawaz Sharif who went to America to meet with Bill Clinton despite Clintons assertion that the Pakistani army had to withdraw from across the LOC before any talk of cease-fire. The reasons was Nawaz Sharif's nervous please for American intervention were obvious because the Indian army had started to really pound the occupiers and the Pak army was suffering heavy casualties every day. Why else did Musharraf move the nuclear warheads if the 'tables' hadn't turned? So the Americans intervened on behalf of the pakistanis and they virtually saved the entire pakistani army from being obliterated rather than the other way around.
5- "In short, from pure military point of view it was a super move by Pakistan Army.I have checked from number of global sources and and just a fraction of NLI was hit.Their bravery at those heights was unbelievable as was the professionalism of SSG commandoes, perhaps the best high altitude fighters in the world."
Hahahahaha! Which global source is being referred to here is' I'm sure' a mystery for everyone. It is the indian army that releases the official history of every war publicly, the pakistanis would rather hide their shame in secrecy. Nawaz Sharif recently claimed 8000-9000 pakistani casualties. Did the NLI suffer heavy casualties? Ofcourse they did. They constituted the bulk of the occupiers and no doubt suffered greatly. In fact, the pakistani authoroties refused to accept many bodies to avoid embarassment. What the f**k were the SSG commandos and the NLI troops doing on indian territory anyway? The Indians inflicted such heavy casualties despite being at such a disadvantage from the beginning. I can't see how the pakistani army can even claim an iota of glory from this whole episode and pretend to be the 'best high altitude' fighters in the whole world! It would be the most ignorant assertion if it wern't so darn funny!
6 - "However, the limitations were equally glaring regarding poor understanding of U.S response and other players intervention."
I agree the authors don't spend a lot of time talking about the last days of teh war when diplomacy kicked in and gave a face-saving opportunity for the pakistanis to withdraw whatever was left of their army. However, the book rightly focusses on the victories of the indian army because that is what the conflict was all about. Never before has an army, with such enormous disadvantages, in such hostile terrain and against such fanatic fighters displayed this level of committment, bravery and technical expertise and professionalism so as to make the opponent consider escalating a local, low-level conflict into an all out nuclear confrontation. Also, diplomacy came in only at the fag end of the conflict when the pakistani madmen were seriously contemplating a nuclear strike against india. The diplomacy of Bill Clinton probably saved pakistan from obliteration.
|
|
|
15 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent, July 13, 2001
By A Customer
Unbiased and extensive.Once again,the rapists of kashmir aka pakistan have had their 4th serving of a defeat in war.With ouver 5000 soldiers and commandos lost in Kargil,pakistan continues to recruit local kashmiri for something they cannot do
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
