Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
India Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?
Roman    2/14/2004 2:27:05 PM
First of all, I should mention that I am not advocating that kind of invasion at all. In fact, I think it would be a horribly bad idea. I am asking because someone on another forum suggested it and I would simply like to clear up whether the U.S. even has the capability to do it. I do not think United States of America does have the capability. Here is my response on that forum: invading Pakistan would be an exceptionally bad move. First of all, Pakistan has nukes which it might well use to defend itself - although the U.S. would undoubtedly try to destroy them (as well as any nuclear facilities) with surprise air strikes in the initial stages of the war. Second, the U.S. would loose Pakistan's cooperation in the War on Terror thus enabling terrorists to regroup. Third, the U.S. does not have the capability to invade Pakistan. The U.S. military is already somewhat strained in Iraq (although troops are ready for another major theatre war in Korea...) so getting enough troops to invade and occupy Pakistan would be impossible. Even assuming the U.S. successfully took care of Pakistan's nukes and other WMD early on, Pakistani conventional military is vastly more powerful than the Iraqi one. On top of that, imagine the guerrilla war that would ensue... Pakistan has 150 million people the vast majority of whom are Sunni and hate the U.S. Compare that to Iraq's 25 million people of which only 20% (5 million) are Sunis that do the fighting. The word 'impossible' to occupy springs to mind... in fact, it would be impossible even if the U.S. did not have 25% of its army entangled in Iraq and did not have to stand by for another major theatre war. In any case, how would even the invasion (not to mention the occupation) of Pakistan proceed? No neighbouring country except perhaps Afghanistan would allow the U.S. to station troops on its soil for the purposes of the invasion - not even India. The U.S. would have to airlift everything to Afghanistan - but how without being allowed to use surrounding airspace? No, an invasion from Afghanistan could at best be an auxiliary, diversionary thrust - the main force would have to come from the sea, as would the majority of aircraft. It would then have to move 2,000 kilometers north through Pakistan to get to Islamabad - the capital. On top of that, large parts of Pakistan are very difficult terrain for armour and mechanized infantry to move through... Again, the word 'impossible' manifests itself prominently in my mind. Basically, the U.S. does not have the capability to even invade, not to mention occupy, Pakistan.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
Phoenix Rising    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?   2/21/2004 11:59:06 PM
Roman, You're making one cardinal mistake when you look at the difficulty of conquering Iraq and then rule out the possibility of occupying Pakistan: you're assuming that the rules of engagement would be the same. Obviously, if nukes are on the table, all bets are off. Pakistan's nukes cannot hit the USA yet but they could do incredible damage to any of our forces spread throughout the CentCom/PacCom areas of operations: Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Iraq, the 5th Fleet HQ at Bahrain, Al-Udeid in Qatar, you name it. However, like you, I will start out with the [dubious] assumption that America could remove Pakistan's strategic arsenal as a viable threat in the opening salvo of such an operation. Ground forces went in first in Iraq. However, that was not only not essential, but was neither expected nor customary. It was certainly not standard operating procedure. An attack against Pakistan ... as you noted, more than twice the area, six times the population, and thirty times the Sunni population of Iraq ... would almost certainly not begin with insertion of ground forces, save for elite special ops whose primary mission objective would be to remain invisible. We could not win against Pakistan with our current order of battle and force deployments (commitments in Iraq). However, since we're in the realm of wild speculation anyway, we cannot hold those constant. The kind of thing that would convince the USA that a war against Pakistan was worthwhile would likely be the kind of event that convinced the American public that we were in a *real* war ... not a glorified police action. The most common example (and most likely scenario) is an Islamist coup with bin Laden supporters getting their hands on Pakistan's nukes. Note: in the opening phases of such an event, there could even be a window where the destruction of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would be more than an armchair general's fantasy, if senior secular military supporters of the Musharraf regime saw that the end was nigh and decided to give up the coordinates of their secret storage facilities. The United States might decide to risk a preemptive strike against those facilities if such an event occurred, since we would never have a better reason and a better opportunity combined. The American people would most likely not be cool with an administration dragging us into a serious shooting war with a preemptive strike, but if the administration could point to a civil war in Pakistan being won by forces loyal to Osama bin Laden, I don't think even many Democrats could suggest that preventing Islamist forces from getting their hands on the openly known Pakistani nuclear arsenal was a careless decision. In such an event, I'd expect our order of battle to increase dramatically over time while targeting bombing of Pakistani infrastructure ensured that by the time we actually *did* send in ground forces, your statement that Pakistan's forces are not as weak as Iraq's might still be true, but would be less true than it is at the moment. If the triggering event is not an Islamist takeover in Pakistan but a "lost" Pakistani nuke showing up as the "smoking gun" the antiwar crowd has always wanted in Los Angeles, change those expectations to certainties, and add in strategic bombing (certainly conventional, possibly nuclear), and a nearly instantaneous marginalization of the useful idiots here who would still maintain that "it wasn't Pakistan who nuked us, just terrorists using Pakistani nukes ... in response to the Bu$h administration's blatantly unilateralist policies and disregard for the U.N blah blah blah ..." In that case, the fact that Pakistan has an army of over 600,000 is a moot point. It would shrink quickly. After all the real question here is not what we could do to Pakistan *now.* The question is what we could do to Pakistan *if we had to do something to Pakistan.* If America were convinced that occupying Pakistan were necessary, I wouldn't start mouthing the "i" word ("impossible") so callously. America has a nasty habit of redefining that word in very dramatic ways when we get worked up enough. Quick summary: 1) Don't assume that the rules of engagement we would use if convinced that an occupation of Pakistan were necessary would be identical to the current rules of the counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq; 2) Don't assume that the order of battle America currently has at its disposal is the sum and total of what would be available to us if such a campaign were necessary, save at the very beginning before production and recruitment can be increased. --Phoenix Rising
 
Quote    Reply

Phoenix Rising    RE:AMerica can take over pakistan flawlessly   2/22/2004 12:00:32 AM
FH, Do you really believe that? I believe SP has run several stories about the nightmare the US intel community is having trying to pin down the locations of the North Korean and Iranian arsenals and programs. I doubt the story is any different with Pakistan. Without senior-level defectors, I don't think we would have that kind of knowledge. --Phoenix Rising
 
Quote    Reply

xementalist    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?   2/22/2004 1:55:57 PM
the assumption that pakistan does not have competing regional interests is false . the punjabis by far the wealthiest state compete with the sindhis, baluchies pashtun etc . in fact one of the prime political influences in pakistan is this conflict of regional influences. the idea of a solid muslim identity doesn't stand up to examination either , the orthodox deobandi [the madrasses from whence the taliban came] consider the sufi /sunni majority apostates . the theological difference lies in the majority pakistani muslims love of pirs [islamic saints or gurus] and the deobandi orthodox interpretation of islam seeing mohammed as the last prophet and any other man claiming a closeness to god above the congregation being an apostate [punishable by death according to the sharia] the deobandi schools emerged in the last decade of the 19th century the islam of the pakistani majority is a happy marriage between islam ,older pagan religions of the area and hinduism a mix that has been going on since the introduction of islam by arab traders a thousand years before. i couldn't possibly pass an oppinion on the miltary question , i know too little about it which i guess is why i'm here ....to learn .
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?   2/22/2004 10:41:19 PM
Hmm, are there any unclassified versions of contingency plans to invade Pakistan in case of Fanatic Islamist takeover? I mean something like the unclassified parts of the plans for North Korea. How many troops do you think the takeover and subsequent occupation would require (assuming the U.S. is on its own)? When I mean that the U.S. does not have the capability to invade Pakistan, I obviously mean current capability. Surely, assuming no uses of nuclear weapons, the U.S. could invade and even occupy Pakistan given a massive WWII style mobilization and the reinstatement of the draft, but I don't think the U.S. would be willing to resort to that even if a Radical Islamist Government took over Pakistan.
 
Quote    Reply

ArrowGuns    ATTN: Roman   2/23/2004 6:08:59 AM
All the President Bush has to do is ask for India's help to neutralize Pakistan. I think the contingency plan is already in an advanced stage. If Musharraf gets assasinated, the US will have no option but to clear an Indian attack with direct military support. It will happen if Osama is not caught by Election Day in the US and a simultaneous heinous act of terror against India.
 
Quote    Reply

celebrim    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?   2/23/2004 8:48:01 PM
The short answer is 'No.'. The longer answer is, "Well it depends on what you mean by 'invade' and 'occupy' and exactly what time frame we are talking about." The US no longer has the capacity to fight a multi-front war against a marginally capable enemy. During the Clinton years, the Navy and Army shrank by 1/3rd to 1/2 of there cold war era size (and they'd been shrinking at a slower rate all throughout the cold war). We are already say 66% committed in Iraq and the troops we just rotated out are tired and not at peek efficiency. Moreover, Pakistan is a much larger and much more populace nation, with a public which is much more nationally motivated and much more likely to resist at a popular level. So a surgical operation and relatively calm occupation as was seen in Iraq is highly unlikely. But, if we first assume that we had to invade Pakistan and do it quickly, I would not expect the rules of engagement in such an emergency to remain as tame as the ones we used in Iraq. Most importantly, Pakistan has decided to join 'the nuclear club'. This is a club with a very exclusive membership, and the members of it have very high standards with regards each others behavior. The US would probably never consider its full options against any nation which stayed out of the nuclear club, but once a nation is in it all those options come on to the table. It always boggles my mind. The US carries its nukes like a very expensive burden, and whenever possible (like now) undertakes to downgrade its arsenal. Given the fact that you can't eat a nuclear bomb, build anything with a nuclear bomb, sleep under a nuclear bomb, heal you children with a nuclear bomb, and there is almost nothing in the world more expensive to make than a nuclear bomb, I can't imagine why any struggling people would want one. You can't actually even use one. If you did, everyone else that owned one would likely take very ill to it and it would go badly for you, and the only way to really get a deterence value out of them is build enough that you can go the 'mutually assured destruction' route - and we know how that turned out for the USSR. Heck, why in the world would you want one? Of course, I'm not niave. I know that when it comes to all these little empoverished nations its not the citizens that build the bomb, but a few rich and powerful few for thier own purposes. But still, even that seems calculated only to get the US and a good portion of the rest of the world to go from looking at you as something they could ignore to something that they need to squash before it reproduces and starts taking over the place. I can't imagine what the attraction is to anyone who isn't a megalomaniac. But then, there is that. Anyway, back on topic, any discussion of an invasion of Pakistan is basically a discussion of how many civilian casualties would the US be willing to inflict to accomplish its objective. Maybe we might first want to describe what the intended objective of such a conflict is?
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    Scenario   2/23/2004 10:23:55 PM
Ok, you can assume the following scenario: Musharaf is assassinated and the Islamic parliament elects a fanatical Muslim leader with wide popular support among the fanaticized population. One of the first moves of this leader is to cease all cooperation with the U.S. on hunting terrorists. Daily proclamations about the U.S. as the Great Satan are issued by public officials on TV, which also captures the massive demonstrations by extremists in support of the new government. The demonstrators burn us flags and carry pictures of Osama Bin Laden and of the planes smashing into the WTC. U.S. intelligence then acquires information from credible sources indicating that Pakistan is extending sanctuary to Islamic terrorists of all stripes including the top leadership of Al Quada. There are intercepts of communications between senior Pakistani and Al Quada officials about the transfer of nuclear weapons to the terrorists. Repeated U.S. warnings to Pakistan have no impact other than to sharpen the diplomatic confrontation. India has decided to stay out of this overtly, though it is also worried about the situation in private. On the basis of the above the U.S. decides that it has no option other than to invade, occupy and transform Pakistan like it is now doing with Iraq in order to prevent WMD falling into the hands of terrorists, deny terrorists a safe haven and support and dismantle a breeding ground for terrorism. Take it from here. BTW: Celebrim, nukes can sometimes be a cheaper deterrent than building a conventional army. It is also a mistake to assume that ordinary people in Pakistan do not want nuclear weapons - there is HUGE public support for nuclear weapons in Pakistan.
 
Quote    Reply

xementalist    RE:Scenario   2/24/2004 6:53:07 PM
first of all , the idea [though widely accepted in the west ] that fundamentalism is rife in pakistan i would challenge . so from the scenario . 1 secure the nukes 2 having heavily assaulted the army from the air secure the urban cities ie karachi and lahore . the urban population isn't heavily armed [unlike iraq] 3 offer same deal as afghanistan locals walk ,foreigners die or get handed over . 4 reset up the democratic institutions and elections preferably disolving power to regional assemblies 5 unite kashmir as an independant state under the protection of the U N . 6 go home afghanistan 2 i think
 
Quote    Reply

AtillaHun    RE:Scenario   2/25/2004 12:48:16 AM
Xentimentalist, your measures in this scenario couldn't have been more comprehensive. The question is of logistics. Pakistan is no Iraq, as you stated correctly. Securing the nukes would require cooperation from Musharraf loyalists (If they haven't fled the country in fright) as well as a few ISI guys. The support of the latter would not be guaranteed either. Though the urban population isn't well armed, there is no denying that these are bomb zones as previous blasts have occured in upmarket Karachi areas and the like. The US marines shouldn't have much of problem though as they (hopefully) would have learnt to deal with it from urban warfare experiances. I'm not aware of how the problem was dealt with in Afghanistan, but the hardliners have a huge backing among the downtrdden masses in the western parts of Pakistan as was demonstrated by the hardline laws enacted in NWFP. The whole Zia-CIA-Bhutto removal drama would be somewhat reenacted though the roles would be reversed slightly. Elections would have to be monitored carefully while defending against retalliatory strikes. I don't think the US can secure the whole 800,000 km sq country that fast. There will deffinately be retalliation against the 'ghaddar' (traitor) ally that is the USA. Making Kashmir independent could lead to civil strife if not civil war. Once given independence, the Kashmiris could turn on the Punjabis for revenge.
 
Quote    Reply

AtillaHun    RE:Scenario   2/25/2004 12:49:26 AM
sorry your name is xementalist is it?.. i may have misspelt it..
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics