Pakistan Army doctrine says ‘Attack First’

The idea is to take the battle into Indian territory and get a hold over as much territory as possible. Pakistan can then use this territory as a bargaining chip on the negotiating table.

Pakistan Army

The growing tensions between India and Pakistan may result in pre-emptive action by Pakistan according to information gleaned about Pakistan’s military doctrine.

Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal, Director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies
Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal, Director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies
Retired Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal, Director of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies and author of the book, Indian Army Vision 2020 says the Pakistan army has a doctrine of ‘offensive-defense’, which was initiated in 1989 by the then army chief General Mirza Aslam Beg after the key Exercise Zarb-e-Momin. “The idea is to take the battle into Indian territory,” says the Brigadier, “and hold get as much territory as possible.” Pakistan can then use this territory as a bargaining chip on the negotiating table.

It is imperative according to this doctrine for the Pakistani army to try and punch through Indian lines first, rather than wait for an Indian attack. “They have to attack first. They have to take the initiative here. If they wait for India to strike, they will be left in a reactive mode. As it is they have only two Strike Corps in comparison to the three Indian Strike Corps,” Brigadier Kanwal explained.

The two Pakistani Strike Corps are the Army Reserve North and the Army Reserve South with reports that Pakistan army had created additional formations in the 1990s for both defensive as well as offensive roles.
Brigadier Kanwal is doubtful of the Pakistan Army’s ability to execute this doctrine. “They don’t have enough attacking forces to do the job. Their two Strike Corps are not enough to do this,” he opines, adding, “They rely on missile systems to try and achieve this.”

Related Posts

  1. Isn’t it obvious that Pak needs to attack first. What is the need for a ‘doctrine’.

    Even though Pak has 2 strike corps and we three, why did 300 people have to die in Mumbai last year ? The brigadier must analyze that. In response, in Newspapers, it was reported that the Indian Army Chief didn’t think his army was ready for an attack

    Going forward, if Pakistan needs to attack first, where would they attack? Kargil showed that the Army dint put any effort on that analysis.

  2. Isn’t it obvious that Pak needs to attack first. What is the need for a ‘doctrine’.

    Even though Pak has 2 strike corps and we three, why did 300 people have to die in Mumbai last year ? The brigadier must analyze that. In response, in Newspapers, it was reported that the Indian Army Chief didn’t think his army was ready for an attack

    Going forward, if Pakistan needs to attack first, where would they attack? Kargil showed that the Army dint put any effort on that analysis.

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

MoD calls deaths of WW2 pensioners ‘natural wastage’

[caption id="attachment_10361" align="alignleft" width="300"] Minister of State for Defence, Rao Inderjit Singh | Photo: PIB[/caption] The defence ministry on Tuesday...

Denel back in India with a twist

[caption id="attachment_10346" align="aligncenter" width="679"] Denel exhibit at DefExpo 2016. Denel Asia, it says. | Photo: StratPost[/caption] South African state-owned arms...

Tata-Boeing to build Apache fuselage facility

Tata and Boeing are set to break ground on their new facility for the manufacture of the fuselage of the...

Race on to sell fighters to India

Remember when we wrote about India’s undeclared fighter contest last October? Game on. Even though the government hasn’t announced any...

Video: MKU at #DefExpo2016