Baikul wrote: ↑10 May 2025 23:26
k prasad wrote: ↑10 May 2025 23:14
We are all talking about "winning", but I think we need to first have a meta-discussion of what "winning" looks like, and for whom.
….
It’s been hashed out many times on this forum saar. This is a late stage to restart the Hindu bania metaphysical discussion on the nature of victory.
I’ll tell you what winning looks like. It’s a grievous blow to Pakistani prestige and sense of self.
It’s making them believe they’ve lost.
That could be as ‘simple’ objective as one F16 fighter down, or more difficult, land taken and held, or even tougher a port destroyed - anything that hits the national pride of that shameless country.
Anything less will only make them believe they won, sustain their self mythos, raise their spirits, nourish their arrogance and going forward. Their army will use it to further file their already depraved cult of religious and ethnic superiority. And make them bolder for future misadventures.
All out analyses of achieving strategic goals, cunning victories in the long term. ‘wait to be one a zillion dollar economy’, ‘nation of beggars’, Pakistan going down the tubes do not matter a good goddamn. In my humble opinion.
Saar, strategic victory, we are both in agreement, but at a more medium-term level, I think the jury is still out.
While the aam janata and online jawans would love it, I don't think the destruction of the Pakistani state is an objective for anyone in power at this time. Unlike Bangladesh in 71 where we had a viable administration ready to step in, Pakistan has no such option. Yet. That is a multi-decadal objective.
At a more granular level, what does success look like in the 1-3 year time frame? And is Sindoor achieving that? And are we prosecuting this plan accordingly? I think these are the arguments I haven't seen much agreement on, either here or IRL.
What we seem to have achieved so far is to reframe the new normal for retaliation, and increased the stakes for the Pakistani state in their planning of future misadventures. We have probably caused them at least a couple of billion dollars in damage, and many more billions in rebuilding costs to improve their defenses. Billions that they don't have. And we seem to have done it relatively quietly, professionally, and with no-fuss, while reporting little damage to our own infrastructure and defenses, and while keeping tour economy pretty stable. I think that's success to me. Where it goes from here is TBD.
