Blueblood, I have no direct knowledge of what happened in Kargil, just going by published reports. Most of them played up the "starving soldiers" bit, so that was my impression. After your post, I have adjusted my mental picture to "some posts ran out of food and water and low on ammo, while others had abundant rations".
Does that sound reasonable?
Btw, on our blog, I just asked the question, why have India-Pakistan wars been generally low in casualties until now (hopefully we wont have another one)?
Just one of those things that happened to be the case until now ("case by case", each war unique and each with specific reasons why slaughter was less intense)? or is there some deeper explanation? (after all, the British Indian army probably lost more men in the battle of Monte Cassino than India and Pakistan did in entire "wars")
http://www.brownpundits.com/2012/10/...#comment-18821
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks