Geronimo : What if Osama Bin Laden was killed prior to 9/11?

Gotta wonder if Grand Theft Auto III ITTL would be the more arcade and cartoonish like game it was shown in the beta and at E3 2001?.


I've just discovered this. Wow. What an extraordinary timeline.

The 9/11 chapter was truly something. So simple, but so tastefully done.
Gotta wonder if Grand Theft Auto III ITTL would be the more arcade and cartoonish like game it was shown in the beta and at E3 2001?.
Probably the same as OTL. Truth be told, the arcade and cartoonish graphics in 2001 looked really advanced for its era. I don't see having no 9/11 drastically improve gaming development to have next generation graphics.
Probably the same as OTL. Truth be told, the arcade and cartoonish graphics in 2001 looked really advanced for its era. I don't see having no 9/11 drastically improve gaming development to have next generation graphics.
What I am talking about
See how different this looks than OTL’s game
What I am talking about
See how different this looks than OTL’s game
This must have been a prototype. I too remember seeing this from Game Sauce and G4TV back in the day.
Even without 9/11, the only minor difference caused by the butterflies would probably a be more polished preview of the game.
This must have been a prototype. I too remember seeing this from Game Sauce and G4TV back in the day.
Even without 9/11, the only minor difference caused by the butterflies would probably a be more polished preview of the game.
Also the colors of the LCPD would still represent the colors of the NYPD cars pre 9/11 like it was in the beta.
Also the colors of the LCPD would still represent the colors of the NYPD cars pre 9/11 like it was in the beta.

What a vibe these color scheme gives. These were still around in the 1990s while the new color scheme of the NYPD with a predominant white cruiser with blue stripes was only introduced the late 90s.

I remember seeing these from movies in the 1980s and 90s, especially from Death Wish 3.
Part 12: Differing Visions
Part XII

Differing Visions

The Bush administration had plenty to fear going into the 2002 midterms, the economic recession though receding was still felt by many Americans, combined with the Enron affair and residing hostilities from the 2000 election, Republican prospects were gloomy. However, the Republican party wasn’t the only incumbency that had to worry.


PM John Howard's center-right Liberal-National coalition government faced a tough election in November 2001. All through the year, the coalition was trailing the Labor party in the polls, due to the stuttering economy, high fuel prices, and the populist One Nation party. In the 1998 snap election, the coalition failed to gain a majority of the votes but still retained its parliamentary majority, and now in 2001 John Howard was set for a rematch against Labor leader Kim Beazley

Howard entered election mode, to claw back government support, announcing a set of policy reversals the greatest of all being the government's immigration policy. In August of 2001, a Norwegian freighter (The Tampa) carrying 433 rescued middle eastern refugees entered Australian waters. Rather than seek a political or diplomatic solution Howard opted for a military one and ordered Australian special forces to board the vessel to prevent it from landing. The government then attempted to enact the Border Protection Bill to retroactively make the action legal however the bill was defeated in the senate.


The Tampa Refugees and Prime Minister John Howard

The government’s motives were clear, to turn the election into one of national security and to gain support from working-class Labor and One Nation voters. Globally the actions were criticised as illegal and some accused Australia of shirking its human rights commitments. At home, the actions were more popular but still controversial, some questioned the PM’s decision to take military action or saw it as a cynical ploy to shift issues. The action lifted the coalition's prospects pulling support from the populist right, and the race narrowed.

The second issue that pervaded the election was the collapse of Australia’s second-largest airline Air Ansett. For years an airline boom boosted the competition of the industry but airlines struggled to compete for customers and cut costs, Ansett itself bought by Air New Zealand was unable to keep up and slowly began to collapse selling its assets and laying off its employees. By September 2001 it was clear that the company was in a death spiral and would require urgent state stimulus to avoid collapse. The Howard government refused, on the basis that the companies’ issues were its own fault, this argument fell on deaf ears to the thousands of remaining Ansett employees who, supported by labor unions and the Labor party staged popular demonstrations. The company continued its spiral for months attempting to find a buyer but the airline's debts made it unlikely.

By the time Australians did go to the polls on the 10th of November 2001 they had plenty to decide on, but in the end, the predictions bared out. A narrow victory for the Australian Labor Party. A half a percent swing in favour of Labor mean the party picked up 10 seats from the coalition granting it a narrow 2 seat majority and making Kim Beazley Australia’s 26th Prime Minister[1]


Prime Minister of Australia Kim Beazley


The 2002 French election was different than the Australian one, rather than an incumbent government trying to hold on to power through a bad economy. France was a nation of two men attempting to win the legacy of a strong economy. Since 1997 the conservative President Jacques Chirac had entered a power-sharing agreement with the left-wing Socialist party helmed by prime minister Lionel Jospin. The Cohabitation period angered both parties as they both jostled to take credit for the countries success and blame the opposition for its failures. It was clear that both sides needed the arrangement to come to an end and both men prepared for a presidential rematch to take the full reins of government.

The years of cohabitation convinced many in France that Chirac and Jospin had too much in common, and a vast slate of candidates arose to challenge them, in total 6 more candidates from across the political spectrum ran compared to 1995. turning the entire process into a strange affair, though still devoid of any suspense. Both Chirac and Jospin campaigned as if there was no 1st round and pitched directly for the center, it gave room for the extreme left and right to surge further forward. Neither campaign was especially gripping but Jospin clearly struggled more, the plethora of leftists including Greens, Trotskyists, and Eurosceptics combined with his austere persona and his unwillingness to bargain kept him a few percentage points behind Chirac in the first round polling. Chirac however was slowly accruing a list of financial scandals and championed a defence and foreign policy that energised nationalists.


President Chirac (left) and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin (right)

The results of the first round were just as expected, Chirac placed first with 18% of the vote and Jospin came a close second with 17% followed by Jean-Marie Le Pen and the far-right National Front with 15% (the best performance for Le Pen yet)[2]. Polling for the second round had consistently placed Jospin and Chirac neck and neck as the left and right parties consolidated around them. The election became one of messaging Chirac ran a campaign of law and order following a few high-profile murders, while Jospin managed a traditional socialist campaign focused on inequality.

The final results were a thunderclap for the French government when on the 5th of May 2002, Prime Minister Lionel defeated President Chirac with 53% of the vote to Chirac’s 47% a difference of 1.8 million votes, the results were an upset given the poor campaign of Jospin but his victory was largely attributed to Chirac’s wavering popularity and a failure for the conservatives to turn thanks to the continuing rise of the Far Right. None the less Jospin the embodiment of French bureaucracy bested the charismatic Chirac.[3]


French President Jospin beside soon Prime Minister Francoise Hollande [3b]


The German elections were set to be a blowout, months of recession, anger at fuel taxes, and the introduction of the euro convinced most that the government's ship helmed by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of the left SPD was going down. The opposition certainly thought so when CDU/CSU chancellor candidate Edmund Stoiber declared that "this election is like a football match where it's the second half and my team is ahead by 2–0.” However, the outcome wasn’t as clear cut as Stoiber predicted, his personal popularity was far below that of Schröder and the infamous German coalition system meant that Stoiber would need a coalition partner in the Free Democratic Party (FDP) to perform well in the election and the FDP’s unusual decision not to announce its intention to form a coalition with the CDU endangered that.


Chancellor Schröder (right) debates CSU leader Edmund Stoiber (left)
Then came the floods, in august 2002 just weeks before the federal elections a week of heavy rain tore through Europe destroying thousands of homes, killing dozens, and causing billions in property damages Germany was hit hardest when a decade of infrastructure was wiped out in a single day. The government response was swift, the largest military action Germany had taken since the 2nd world war, the effect was a strong one for Schroder and his popularity spiked by 10 percent and government popularity by 8. After that, it was the debates, in two televised debates where Schröder and Stoiber went head-to-head pitting their issues and ideas. Schroeder a man of supreme confidence charmed the camera and was publicly seen as coming out on top, using the flooding issue, and accused Stoiber's vision as being unrealistic.

The results of the election were as follows, the CDU received a 5 percent boost, since the 1998 election 40% of the total vote (gaining 12 seats) compared to the SPD’s 37% (a drop of 4% and a loss of 53 seats).[4] It meant that the CDU had become the largest party in the Bundestag with 257 seats to the SPD 245. The FDP also received a moderate boost of 5 seats giving it 48 seats combined majority, paving the way for a return to the CDU-FDP coalition to return to power, though the majority was very narrow and analysts believed a swift collapse was possible.[5]


German Chancellor Edmund Stoiber

The United States

The 2002 midterm elections as ever would decide the future political landscape for the US and the Bush administration going forward, deciding the house and a third of the senate alongside a slate of state governorships. The election came at a critical time for the administration to boast its accomplishments (tax reductions and education reform) and to retain its hold on the house and retake the senate. It also gave an opportunity for the opposition to prove its dissatisfaction at the slow economic improvement and long-held grievances over Bush’s mandate to govern and to fully control the legislature, severely hamstringing the White House. For most of the campaign the Democrats were favoured given the midterm tradition as a check on the executive and they held a favourable map, but by mid-2002 the race began to tighten.

Starting with the senate, 34 seats were up for election with about a third being somewhat competitive, The Democrats held a single-seat majority following Jim Jeffords crossing of the floor but narrowing polls made the prospect of significant gains meet the reality of tough battles for both sides. The Republicans needed to defend a few open seats in the south where incumbents were retiring including 99yr old Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. And Democrats needed only to defend Georgia, that was until tragedy struck when Minnesota Senator and liberal stalwart Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash on the way to a steelworkers funeral, the crash killed Wellstone instantly along with seven others including his wife and one of his three children, 2 pilots, and 3 staffers. At the time Wellstone had been the favourite to win re-election and in his place, the party nominated former vice president Walter Mondale to hopefully succeed him.[6]


Walter Mondale campaigns for the open Minnesotan senate seat

The Democrats came out on top flipping 3 Republican senate seats and retaining all of theirs Giving them a 4 seat Senate majority. They won New Hampshire where Governor Jeanne Shaheen bested representative John E Sunuu despite a dirty tricks campaign. Arkansas where incumbent Tim Hutchinson, facing a divorce scandal lost to Mark Pryor (son of former Governor/Senator David Prior) and Colorado where incumbent Senator Wayne Allard lost a rematch to attorney Tom Strickland. However, the Democrats were unsuccessful in unseating any southern Republicans and were forced into a narrow contest to retain Georgia where triple-amputee Max Cleland narrowly won a race that was swimming in dog whistles. However, the Democrats made decent inroads in Texas where Republican John Cornyn was under fire for taking money from Enron, winning by 3 points instead of the usual 10. Additionally, Walter Mondale defeated the Republicans and returned to the senate after a 26-year absence becoming the last vice president to do so since his friend and fellow Minnesotan Hubert Humphrey.

The House elections also went well for the Democrats where they gained a 2.5% swing from 2000 however this translated to moderate gains 11 seats across the country, but it meant a large shift as control of the house shifted from the Republicans to the Democrats who now held a 5-seat majority, and preceded Dick Gephardt’s return as majority leader.

Republicans found a little solace in Gubernatorial elections where big-ticket elections such as Jeb Bush’s 2nd term and NY Governor Patakis third term bid were both successful, those races that drew national attention however that they failed to unseat perceived weak democrats such as Alabama and Georgia Governors Don Siegelman and Roy Barnes and though they made inroads in Democratic states winning Hawaii and Minnesota others such Maryland and Massachusetts alluded them despite extremely tight races allowing the Democrats to gain a majority of state governorships by winning a massive 8 states (6 Republican, 2 Independent)


(left) Senatorial election map, (right) Gubernatorial election map. Darker blue/red designates a flip


(left) Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Right debate between elected Governor Shannon O'Brien and Businessman Mitt Romney [7]

The aftermath placed the legislature firmly in the Democrats hands and clearly showed dissatisfaction with the Bush presidency Gephard marked the victory by mocking the Republicans “We were outspent, but they were outvoted”, “This is a time for the President to reflect on how the country disapproves of his handling of the issues” Bush who hoped that a win would aid a rebound reacted coolly “This one was a bumpy one for us, and that’s never good”[8]


Speaker of the House Dick Gephardt (left) and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (right)

[1] The Australian election occurred in the direct aftermath of 9/11 and John Howard's swift support for Bush aided by his being in the US certainly aided him. In what was a narrow election anyway.
[2] The far-right and immigration policy will certainly shift without 9/11 and while Le Pens victory in the 1st round was shocking it was likely down more to leftist infighting than anything else. Still, this represents the psychological impact of 9/11 more than anything else.
[3] Calculating a Chirac vs Jospin victory is difficult would the left put its cares aside to vote for Jospin, where does the far-right stand we won't ever know. But polling consistently placed them neck and neck and given France's consistent tendency to dislike its incumbents given a viable alternative they go for it in a shock upset.
[3b] Following the tradition of most french legislative elections, the president's party wins a majority.
[4] The Iraq war has entered the fray now. The Bush team started moving on Iraq mid 02 but this hasn’t occurred ITTL, the German electorate was largely against the war providing a considerable boost to Schröder who was firmly anti-war compared to Stoiber. the German election was very close anyway so this outcome makes sense to me.
[5] PS does anyone actually understand German elections, I've been trying for days to figure them out but just couldn’t so I've kept it a little vague and stuck to the OTL Bundestag numbers
[6] I could have butterflied Wellstone’s death, but in a world without 9/11, planes don’t get any safer.
[7] Sorry Romney but the Olympics weren’t enough to win you this one
[8] The 02 US elections have greatly shifted from OTL, without 9/11, Afghanistan, the upcoming Iraq war to name the administration gets knocked by the electorate.
Last edited:
Too bad about Wellstone still dying despite the butterflies and a little surprised T-Paw still got over the line but Gov elections are weird. Rick Perry was able to fend off Sanchez TTL too? Feel like Enron would reverberate a lot more in Texas without Bush’s 9/11 bump, though I’d buy Cornyn still winning (and I presume the legislature didn’t flip in 02 here allowing for the 2003 Delaymander)
Too bad about Wellstone still dying despite the butterflies and a little surprised T-Paw still got over the line but Gov elections are weird. Rick Perry was able to fend off Sanchez TTL too? Feel like Enron would reverberate a lot more in Texas without Bush’s 9/11 bump, though I’d buy Cornyn still winning (and I presume the legislature didn’t flip in 02 here allowing for the 2003 Delaymander)
Minnesota is a strange state and Perry crosses that line Texas is still Texas
Speaker of the House Dick Gephardt (left) and House Majority Leader Tom Daschle (right)

I caught a minor mistake here.
Last edited:
Well this could turn Bush into a Lame Duck (and 1 term President) if he doesn’t carefully choose something to pursue with this new congressional shakeup.


A bit delayed, but I'm caught up now! All of this is fantastic, as we've come to expect. I would just give a particular shoutout to your emphasis on the numerous studies about the Florida vote. I think you're right that they'd receive outsized importance without 9/11 and further doubts about Bush being the rightful president. Excellent attention to a subtle butterfly effect that could have large consequences.
Part 13: The Kashmir Crisis

The Kashmir Crisis

2002 continued to be a year of enflamed tensions across the world, the one that garnered the most attention being the ongoing Indian-Pakistan standoff. Following a series of terror attacks in India and the disputed Kashmir region. Attacks, that the Indian government claimed were sponsored by Pakistani intelligence (ISI), India made a number of demands that included Pakistan banning and arresting members of two terror organisations Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). Pakistan's government and its military president Pervez Musharraf placed the blame on India and refused to alter Pakistan's military or terror policy. Following a review of the Indian/Pakistani militaries and economies, the Indian government and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee came to the conclusion that military action could and should be taken.


(left) Pakistani President Perves Musharraf (right) Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee

India was fully aware of the consequences of its actions, including the possibility of nuclear war and set out a series of boxes that needed to be checked prior to any drastic action. One, that their demands needed to be clear, these being the end of Pakistan's sponsorship of terror organisations in India and Kashmir specifically a decrease in terror activity. Two, global support from western powers and guaranteed non-interference by other powers (China and Russia). Three, that any military action needed to be short, sharp, and contained. Their analysis of the Pakistani army was that it was a paper tiger[1], unable to compete with the Indian Military, proponents cited the Kargil war, a decaying Pakistani economy and some even doubted the readiness of Pakistan’s nuclear capacity[2] and stressed that both leaders would adhere to a no first strike policy especially if the battle was contained to Kashmir and did not become a full-scale conflict across the entire border.[3]

The planned operation dubbed Parakram (Sanskrit for Valour) called for Indian troops to mobilise in Northern India and Indian controlled Kashmir, the demands would be public and should Pakistan not act accordingly and with sufficient global backing, Indian forces would launch an attack on Pakistani controlled Kashmir to root out terror enclaves and force Pakistan’s hand. Once the Pakistanis suffered a significant blow they would back inevitably down, and the Indian army would withdraw victoriously.[4]


Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee inspecting the military

Operation Parakram suffered from various flaws, both hard power and soft. The actual ground operation suffered from a distinct lack of physical objectives. Destroying terror enclaves inside Pakistani territory would involve a mix of cross border raids, heavy artillery/mortar fire and aerial strikes, but still, any military action of that magnitude meant that India needed to prepare for any kind of reaction which meant some level of mobilisation across the whole Indo Pakistan border an operation that would take weeks to actualise. Parakram also gave away any measure of a surprise attack deliberately to prevent an overreaction. The Indian government was split from the beginning between the military, who favoured large scale aggressive action and the civilian government that hoped to stray away from any warfare outside of Indian controlled territory.

The second major obstacle was attaining foreign backing. The attacks in India garnered significant sympathy as the nations of the world lined up to condemn the attackers but no nations were willing to blame Pakistan directly. The reasoning was simple the threat of nuclear war. Western leaders, having escaped decades of the hovering nuclear threat in the cold war saw large scale military action between two nuclear powers as the worst possible outcome regardless of circumstances. The British government, having already condemned Musharraf shuttled its diplomats back and forth between Pakistan and India seeking to mitigate. Musharraf also went on a media offensive accusing India of warmongering while also dropping hints that Pakistan may not adhere to a no-first strike policy. [5]


Pakistani President Perves Musharraf tours the military

The United States however was especially poised to sympathise with India. The Pakistani government was now accused of being a safe haven for the same terrorists that tried to attack the US-on-US soil. Including the alleged architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Pakistan was also the chief aid of the Taliban whom the United States were now involved in fighting against via operation Mercury. Pakistani-US relations further deteriorated in 2002 following the kidnapping of journalist Daniel Pearl. Pearl journeyed to Pakistan to investigate the origins of Richard Reid the deceased aeroplane bathroom bomber. Pearl was accused of being a Mossad agent and kidnapped by a group calling itself The National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty, who released a list of demands including the release of American plane plotters. The hostage crisis didn’t last long as 9 days later, Pearl was killed in what at first was described as an escape attempt but later revealed (and posted online as gruesome propaganda) to be an execution.

The death of Daniel Pearl provoked outrage in the US and the media especially. Coverage of Pearl, his kidnapping, and his disappearance shed a lot of light on the entrenched power of terrorists in Pakistan and further investigations into the Pakistani government's role. All this influenced the US reaction to the Indo-Pakistan standoff, President Bush stated his “shock and sadness” and expressed “our commitment to finding the perpetrators of these barbaric actions and bringing them to justice”. Washington was angry with Islamabad, despite personal assurances from Musharraf to aid any investigations into Pearls disappearance and crackdown on terrorism in the country, he floundered and failed to muster satisfactory explanations, even as the US intelligence investigations uprooted connections between the Pearl kidnapping, Pakistani intelligence the plane plot and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This connection was through British born terrorist Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. Saeed Sheikh had been previously arrested for the 1994 kidnapping of 4 western tourists in India and was subsequently arrested, however was released following a plane hijacking in 1999. He had supposedly run training camps in Afghanistan as well as aiding the financing of the plane plot all under the eyes of the ISI. The US put pressure on Musharraf to act and Sheikh was publicly named as the key suspect. Quickly the names and faces of dozens of terror suspects that Pakistan was accused of protecting flashed across the newsreels, Saeed Sheik, Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed all accused of killing Americans. Still, Musharraf remained unbent, in the face of both the United States and Indian demands. [6]


(left) kidnapped American journalist Daniel Pearl (right) British born terrorist Saeed Sheikh suspected of plotting the kidnapping of Pearl

In May 2002 in Indian Kashmir an upsurge of terrorism broke out, bombing the regional parliament, attacking army bases and Hindu slums totalling 6 dozen deaths. The massacres provoked the Indian government enough that the PM decided “we have got to counter it” and would follow through on its threats and Operation Parakram went into effect and on May 24th India mobilized.

Over a three weeks period, India mobilized over 200,000 soldiers to the Kashmir and Punjab region and placed a further 300,000 troops on standby, all flights to Pakistan were suspended and diplomats were recalled and governments across the world requested their citizens return home immediately a clear sign that India was resorting to hard power. Musharraf again privately promised to crackdown on the Kashmiri violence, but the Indian government had no faith in his words and pushed ahead. They primed Western governments and the media to prepare for a military engagement designed to “destroy militants and terrorists that the Pakistani government has been unable to”. Not to be caught off guard Pakistan mobilized 140,000 troops to the region and moved artillery and missiles closer to the line of control.

Prior to the military strike on June 14th, PM Vajpayee issued a statement “My dear compatriots, as result of unacceptable attacks today I say with fortitude that India shall commence an anti-terror operation in Kashmir, our Army units in full readiness and all systems in operation, we must ensure that the territory under any nation must not be allowed to be used against India, this is a necessary action”. Artillery rang out shortly after.

The Indo-Pakistani War of 2002

The Indian plan revolved around a swift victory, regular army units would largely remain in Indian controlled Kashmir and defend against any Pakistani offensive. While artillery and the air force would strike at terrorist bases and bunkers. Ground warfare would be limited to pre-emptive strikes (ie to prevent a Pakistani build-up) probing attacks to stretch Pakistan to its limits and gaining control over the Haji Pir Pass via parachuting Indian Special Forces. Once these limited objectives had been achieved a ceasefire would be negotiated and India would declare to the world that it wouldn’t be toyed with.


Map of Indian, Pakistan and Chinese occupied Kasmir as well as the Line of Control (LoC)


Indian war plan and suspected Pakistani response

For the first time since the 1971 war, reports of Indian aircraft crossing the line of control and striking Pakistan occupied Kashmir spread across the world. Over a thousand artillery pieces pounding from one side of the LoC to the other one by one attempting to hit target after target.

The Pakistani response began just the same as Pakistani aircraft scrambled to counter the Indian and its own artillery thundered back. A heavy firefight began across both sides of the mountainous line of control. Thousands of civilians began to flee in order to escape the already massive bombardments and casualties rose on both sides. To capitalize India opted for a near-simultaneous ground operation seeking to capture all the territory it needed as fast as possible. The largest mission, the capture of the Haji Pir Pass.


(left) Kashmiri refugees (right) Indian artillery during the 2002 Indian Pakistan War

The Pass was a key hub for infiltration into India, a salient between the cities of Uri and Pooch capturing it would be a significant victory and quickly signify India’s advantage in the conflict while also forcing Pakistan to counter and prevent them from carrying out an assault. But it was much easier said than done, the mountainous terrain, heavily mined with heavy Pakistani presence would be a monumental feat (tougher than the similar operation in 1965) but the military deemed it necessary to prove the war a victory. The Para, Indias airborne special forces would carry out the majority of the operation capturing the Pass piece by piece all the while shadowed by air power. It would be the largest special forces operation India ever undertook.


(left) location of the Haji Pir Pass (right) Indian Para special forces

The global media reacted to the outbreak of war with shock, the escalation having gone on for months teetering back and forth between a war of words, occasional border skirmishes and intense diplomacy and negotiation. The massive and swift escalation of the conflict captured the world's attention and imagination. Dire predictions of a full-scale military campaign ending in mutual nuclear annihilation flashed across the world's screens echoed by Musharraf’s ominous words that Pakistan would be willing to use “all weapons available to her” and again refused to adhere to a first-strike policy. The effect on the American government couldn’t have been more palpable, Secretary of State Colin Powell and President Bush immediately made pleas for a cease-fire and offered to meditate negotiations these calls were followed by Blair, Putin, Zemin, Jospin, Schroder all pressing for and cessation of hostilities and privately urged India to end any open invasion. Pakistan capitalised, Musharraf played the role of reluctant warrior hoping that India would be forced into a swift withdrawal but the first day of battle faded and another would arrive.


Indian soldier deployed along the LoC

Casualties were high, thousands reported on the first day of the conflict resulted mostly from artillery fire with over 1200 dead. And saw the first aerial fatalities when an Indian MIG was brought down (reports differ as to why) and though India’s air force succeeded in destroying a number of terrorist bases it couldn’t determine casualties or if the bases were still occupied at all, The Pakistani army took the brunt of the casualties roughly 2/3rd, seeming to prove India’s belief in the supremacy and accuracy of its heavy guns and jets. As for the Haji Pir offensive, high casualties were estimated on both sides, the Pakistan army was taken by surprise in the Pass and could not match the elite Para but the number of mines in the area and the occasionally impassable terrain in the region, the Indian army advance was significantly stalled. Far from the victory punch, the Indian army hoped to acquire on the first day.[7]


Indian troops called to the front

[1] India clearly suffers from a major intel deficiency constantly under evaluating Pakistan’s it held a superior position but we all know that doesn’t translate to immediate complete victory
[2] Musharraf acknowledged himself that Pakistan was not as nuclear-capable as it projected and didn’t have the ability for immediate nuclear retaliation
[3] Musharraf is a pretty cunning guy, not a radical and I think he’d stay as far away as possible from nuclear solution
[4] Parakram was flawed from the get-go to the point where some believe the entire plan was just a massive feint
[5] Without 9/11 Pakistan is no longer a lynchpin in global foreign policy and remains a key threat, but still, nothing scares people like nuclear war.
[6] The neo-cons were all tough on Pakistan until 9/11 and though they are not crazed enough for a nuclear standoff. The new terror policy pushes them to put the screw on Pakistan and India is all too happy to oblige.
[7] This was basically the Indian militaries plan for a limited Kashmir war that was ended by the strongest possible US ultimatum ( join us or you’re next) Musharraf chose the option that didn’t end in Pakistan’s total collapse and India was forced to back down.