Abstract
Strategic restraint or patience in the world is perceived to be a sign of weakness. Particularly when military operations are paused and ceasefire declared when the enemy is down, the same is considered to be ill logical. The same was the case was in the Kargil Conflict of 1999, when the Government of the day ordered restrictions onto the Indian Armed Forces that were tactically expensive in terms of human lives and duration of the conflict. Limiting the conflict only to the geographical extent of intrusion where the enemy was entrenched onto dominating heights from where the entire slopes leading to the defences were exposed and no cover was available to the attacking Indian Army was nearly suicidal. Then came the next restriction of not crossing the Line of Control for launching of operations and restricted employment of the Indian Air Force in support of the attacking force came into criticism. The outcry on stopping of the operation based on the request of Pakistani government and the intervention of the Americans when the tide had clearly turned in favor was also a source of severe critical debate. The paper analyses the challenges faced at the tactical and operational levels that resulted in major strategic outcomes that could not be foreseen at that point of time. One concludes that in matters of application of military force and geo political and geo economic environment, strategic restraint pays far more dividends.
