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
celebrim    RE:Scenario   2/25/2004 10:21:05 AM
First, the problem with a small arsenal of nukes as a deterent is that it is reasonable to assume that it doesn't necessarily fulfill the first requirement of a deterent - keeping your enemy from attacking you. Granted, it might in the case of Pakistan vs. India, but in other cases the nuclear program is only increasing the chance a superpower like the US is going to look at you like a problem that needs solving. Also, while there is huge public support for the nuclear program in Pakistan, I honestly don't think the average Pakistani has any clue what a nuclear war means or the scale of devastation involved. But that's all tangental to the point. Ok, here is what the US would do in that scenario. 1) The US would go into immediate talks with the government of India to procure an alliance for the duration of the crisis, citing the very real threat to India that Pakistani Islamic radicals with nuclear bombs represent to India and the India government in particular. Using a nuke to blow up the Indian parliment would be almost as big of a success as far as the Pakistani extremist are concerned as smuggling one into DC or NYC, and it would be far easier to do. Assuming the Indians could be got on board, the remainder of the plan becomes quite straight forward. If they cannot, then the whole thing becomes alot tougher, and its possible to assume then that the US would be at least partially paralyzed until a triggering event occurred to give the US clear justification. I will assume, because I think that the Indian people and government would be at least as worried about the above described senario as we would be, that we would be able to get the full cooperation of the Indian government. 2) The US would need to surge resouces into the Indian theater with the maximum degree of secracy. I think the US would institute a total press blackout for the first time since WWII. Five US carriers would be brought into theater, and probably 200 or so ground based strike aircraft/bombers. The US would hide troop movements by covering them as reutine troop rotations in Afganistan while building an invasion spearhead of 2 Marine Expediationary forces and 2 Army Divisions plus whatever Special Operations forces could be spared. These forces would be intended to handle missions which Indian army is ill-equipped to face. The bulk of the ground forces would be provided by the Indian government itself. 3) The US would devastate the transportation resources of Pakistan and would attempt to destroy enemy nuclear resources in place using if necessary (due to confusion over the location of those resources) nuclear weapons. The result could be immediate casualties of 5-10 million Pakistani's. The US would begin a two pronged air campaign. The first prong would be isolate Pakistan from the rest of the world. Strike aircraft would operate along the Iranian border to interdict all traffic between Iran and Pakistan. If moves, kill it. Bridges would be blown, roads cratered, etc. All shipping vessels in Pakistani harbor would be destroyed, including vessels down to the size of sailing vessels. If necessary, this would be accomplished with nuclear weapons. Coast guard vessels currently stationed in the Persian Gulf and Horn of Africa would surge to interdict all traffic leaving Pakistan.
 
Quote    Reply

celebrim    RE:Scenario   2/25/2004 10:46:27 AM
Opps, accidently posted. continued. The second prong would be a more typical air campaign such as we associate with the Gulf Wars - obtain total air superiority, and destroy command and control resources. 4) The President would of course have to explain why we just killed a few million people. In the case of the triggering event scenario, this might be really easy - the US just lost a major city to a terrorist smuggled nuclear bomb, or else we captured a nuclear bomb on its way here, or else India just lost a major city and we are acting to prevent it. In the case of the preemptive scenario, this becomes alot harder. Still, if it were me I'd rather be giving the speach on why we took preemptive action than explaining why we waited until a city got smoked. 5) In all likihood, the American press would have leaked this story before it happened. This would triggering event for the Islamic radicals, so I seriously doubt that by the time this US acted, all the bombs are going to be in Pakistan. So, my prediction is sort of a damned if you do damned don't situation where losing a major population center is all too likely, and if you don't, well its pretty much a divine miracle. The real story of the war would be trying to find all those bombs. 6) Meanwhile along the Indian border, the US and Indian airforces are trying to destroy the Pakistani army in place. Since the usual assumption is that the Indian could do this by theirselves, I don't imagine that the Pakistani Army would hold out for more than six weeks or so, before being routed and the Indian army pushing into Pakistan. The American army, if it had not already, would push South out of Afghanistan and occupy the tribal lands where we've been wanting to look for sometime now and the marines might end up conducting the first amphibious assault in quite a while so that the seabees could secure a port in Pakistan so that we could open up the possibility of moving heavier ground forces into place. 7) It's an open question whether Iran gets into this by nuking our troops. Whether they would be successful and whether we'd end up preemptively nuking the Iranians depends alot on what the state of their missile/nuclear program would be at the time. 8) It's also an open question whether even faced with the sort of scenario you envision, the US president would have the fortitude for such an operation. There are probably writers out there that could write with some justification that the US would rather surrender than get involved in one of these WWIII scenarios where we are inflicting millions of casualties on a populace. Of course, Osama Bin Ladin is one of those writers and you see how his predictions have turned out so far... 9) Assuming we have used our nukes, engaged in a six to eight month long total war, and utterly devestated the country, I think that the obstacles to occupation would be so totally different than those in Iraq that there would be no real comparison. Instead we would be taking control of a humanitarian nightmare - a sick, starving, population of walking wounded in the wasteland of a former nation with the progress of the previous few decades totally destroyed. My suspicion is that everyone who wanted to die would already be dead, and while there would be some holdouts the scale would be no worse than Iraq despite the fact that the occupation would be a order of magnitude larger. The problem in Iraq is that the campaign was so swift and relatively undestructive that alot of the Baathists don't feel defeated. In in conquered Pakistan you wouldn't have that problem. Also, considering how enflamed public opinion was at are relatively small show of force in Iraq, I can't imagine the foaming at the mouth the haters of America would have if we did engage in total war. Splitting the world asunder and leaving it with another cold war in place is not at all out of the question. I wouldn't even want to speculate how those lines would be drawn though, except to say that I hope the Poles would be on our side because they are doing a kick @$$ job in Iraq right now.
 
Quote    Reply

xementalist    RE:Scenario   2/25/2004 10:48:34 AM
celebrim for both historic reasons [the partition of india /pakistan] and the on going conflict over kashmir any indian involvement would be the one factor that could unite pakistan and fuel a massive resistance . the two parties of interest here are the jihadists , whom you'd want to get too and the pakistani army who would be holding the nukes and through whom you may have to go to get the jihadists . if the army could be divided and part of it bought off with the promise of regional autonomy you could reduce the war to a small coup , remove the nukes and the whole kashmir ,border issue and then go for the jihadists which was why you went in there . my guess is yes the U S could invade and forcibly change the regime and yes it could occupy enough of pakistan to secure it . i'd guess the effort would not be any greater than either of the 2 previous campaigns
 
Quote    Reply

celebrim    RE:Scenario   2/25/2004 11:48:36 AM
There is absolutely no comparison between an invasion of Iraq and an invasion of Pakistan. Iraq has a territory of 437,072 sq. km. It has an elevation change of 3,611m, but is mostly broad flat desert plains. It has a population of 24,000,000, and perhaps 4,000,000 men fit for combat By comparison, Pakistan has 803,940 sq. km. nearly twice the size of Iraq. It has an elevation change of 8,611m. and its terrain is highly varied and frequently rugged. It has a population of over 150,000,000 - some six times that Iraq (and more than half that of the US itself). It has nearly 24,000,000 men fit for combat, more than the entire population of Iraq. More importantly, Iraq was hardly a hotbed of radical Islam. The radical islamists and baathist holdouts have the support of probably less than 5% of the population and they don't have any common goal other than hurting the occupation forces. Pakistan by contrast is home to some of the largest, most radicalized, Wahhabi populations you could find due to the influence of Saudi missionaries and the religous schools that they founded. Also, after years of oppression, Iraq was hardly a hotbed of nationalist sentiment either. Most Iraqi's were far disillusioned with thier own circumstances to bother fighting. The Pakistan scenario presupposes that those Islamic nationalist forces are in ascendancy. Instead of having to suppress 5% of the population, you are dealing with a situation where you might have 30-50% of the population radicalized and nationalized under a jihadist banner. The situation would be comparable to ascendancy of the Nazi party in the '30's and not something that you could quickly shake off, particularly since any action against the government would trigger a certain degree of nationalism even amongst those that wouldn't consider themselves supporters of the radicals. On top of this, Pakistan has a functioning nuclear weapons program, a functioning arms manufacturing industry, and a much more intact and functional military than Iraq. So the idea that we could do to a radicalized Pakistan what we did to Iraq or Afghanistan is ludicrous. You have six times the population Iraq and possibly six to ten times the resistance to US occupation. The differences in scale here are just enormous. If we had to go it alone, forget going in with 200,000 troops and basically 3 combat divisions. Try 2,000,000 troops and 30 combat divisions. As such, I see no hope of being able to occupy Pakistan _fast_ without blowing the heck out of them or relying on India for manpower or both.
 
Quote    Reply

xementalist    RE:Scenario   2/25/2004 12:41:45 PM
celebrim with gratitude for correcting the flipancy/over simplification of my last remark , i proberly am not giving enough weight to the differences in terrain or the reletive sizes of forces . unfortunatly we do not have great indicators as to pakistani support for the fundamentalist tendancy ,too few elections ! this may be the deciding factor in assesing how large a force an invading force would face [amplified or decreased by the reason for, or intent in , invasion ]. i should add that in the post zia al haq elections the islamisist parties saw no rise in support despite zia's 'islamisation' program nor did the mosques see an increase in congregation . that is however over 20 years ago and times no doubt have changed. my remarks are based on the presumtion that a fundementalist take over would not be supported by large sections of the pakistani army or populace which is in conflict with the supposition of the scenario.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Scenario   2/25/2004 11:51:32 PM
Celebrim, thanks for the very detailed posts. I basically agree with your analysis of what the U.S. would try to do and that (provided that the nukes were all taken out in the initial phase) it would ultimately succeed. However, I am not so sure that India would get overtly involved. Remember that India is closer to Pakistan and has much more to loose from a nuclear exchange as Pakistan can immediately target India's population centers, while it can 'only' target US forces not the mainland (except with smuggled nukes, the likelihood of which is the main cause for this scenario in the first place). Without direct Indian support (though India would probably give the U.S. overflight rights and permit the basing of special forces and perhaps even some conventional forces [strike aircraft, patriot air defence assets, and even some ground troops] on its soil), the situation for the U.S. would be much more difficult. Also, I do not think that the U.S. would be the first to use nuclear weapons in the conflict. With total mobilization, the U.S. would still be able to occupy Pakistan even on its own, but with current forces (especially given the entanglements in Iraq) I do not think it would be possible.
 
Quote    Reply

hindustani pathan    ATTN SIKHWARRIOR   2/26/2004 4:58:49 AM
i dunno when will peple like u stop doubting indian muslims. well, go ahead, keep muttering ur mumbo jumbo. let the war come and then we'll see who is loyal to india and who is not! many of my family r in the indian army, and it hurts when comments like this come.
 
Quote    Reply

bestdefence    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?   2/27/2004 7:51:45 AM
Most, in this forum, forgot the history of India. India was ruled as one country (the present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) by the British. Although I do not wish to bring here the repeated inavsion by rabs for thousands of years, the fact is various indian kings ruled those present-day nations. The creation of present day nations was a political outcome after the WWII. It took 12 days for India to force a surrender of 90,000 pakistani army men just 23 years ago. While pakistan was developing its defence technologies, Indians were not sleeping. India has one of the finest scientists-force in the world. It detonated a nuclear bomb in 1974 whereas it took another 25 years for the pakistanis to detonate one. Indians still think that Pakistan-Bangladesh-India is one country and they can rule the united part very well. Remember, India is currenly ruling more muslims than Pakistan and Bangladesh are ruling. But make No mistake! India is not Hindu-a. It means muslims, christians, and another 100 different religious people rule themselves. That is why the person Hindustani Pathan was angry when some one said Indian Muslims hate India. It is not true. India has/had muslims in all positions from President to top military personnels to scientists. Indians are Indians no matter what religion they belong to. Therefore it is purely an imaginary problem that Americans can not occupy Pakistan. They can, and if they have Indian support, they can very well unite all the three and leave it to India to manage as was done by the British. For India it is not at all a problem. The only difference will be an increase in its muslim pouplation. The muslims in India have freedom, education, technical know-how and political power more than any muslim in any muslim country, lincluding Pakistan. Militarily, India can take over and occupy Pakistan, and for US it will take even for little time. That is all the difference. Nuking is purely an idiot's weapon. It has been used by Pakistani politicians in a manner a child being threaten with a word ghost. Pakistanis know very well that the entire pakistan will be wiped out before one tenth of India being wiped out. Pakistan survived Indian attack because of one country, that is USA. During 1965 war and in 1971 war, almost all muslim countries suppplied their top weapons to Pakistan. But they are nowhere in comparison to to what Americans gave to Pakistan. Pakistan failed to make use of their American weapons which were far superior to the ones Indians had from USSR. After Sep.11, the situation is different. US although suppplied a few like C130 and some logistic weapons, stopped giving Pakistan any modern air crafts or other weapons. At the current situation, India can very well take over Pakistan in months. For US, it will take far fewer months. Occupation of Pakistan is not at all an issue to US, as was Iraq. It is not like Iraq where the neighbours do not have the strenght and willingness to do. For India, it is not new, it is like pushing the years to pre 1947. That is all. Please read this to know about current Indian pilots' capability. http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Indo-US+Air+Force+exercise+ends&id=49559
 
Quote    Reply

bestdefence    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?   2/27/2004 7:51:47 AM
Most, in this forum, forgot the history of India. India was ruled as one country (the present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) by the British. Although I do not wish to bring here the repeated inavsion by rabs for thousands of years, the fact is various indian kings ruled those present-day nations. The creation of present day nations was a political outcome after the WWII. It took 12 days for India to force a surrender of 90,000 pakistani army men just 23 years ago. While pakistan was developing its defence technologies, Indians were not sleeping. India has one of the finest scientists-force in the world. It detonated a nuclear bomb in 1974 whereas it took another 25 years for the pakistanis to detonate one. Indians still think that Pakistan-Bangladesh-India is one country and they can rule the united part very well. Remember, India is currenly ruling more muslims than Pakistan and Bangladesh are ruling. But make No mistake! India is not Hindu-a. It means muslims, christians, and another 100 different religious people rule themselves. That is why the person Hindustani Pathan was angry when some one said Indian Muslims hate India. It is not true. India has/had muslims in all positions from President to top military personnels to scientists. Indians are Indians no matter what religion they belong to. Therefore it is purely an imaginary problem that Americans can not occupy Pakistan. They can, and if they have Indian support, they can very well unite all the three and leave it to India to manage as was done by the British. For India it is not at all a problem. The only difference will be an increase in its muslim pouplation. The muslims in India have freedom, education, technical know-how and political power more than any muslim in any muslim country, lincluding Pakistan. Militarily, India can take over and occupy Pakistan, and for US it will take even for little time. That is all the difference. Nuking is purely an idiot's weapon. It has been used by Pakistani politicians in a manner a child being threaten with a word ghost. Pakistanis know very well that the entire pakistan will be wiped out before one tenth of India being wiped out. Pakistan survived Indian attack because of one country, that is USA. During 1965 war and in 1971 war, almost all muslim countries suppplied their top weapons to Pakistan. But they are nowhere in comparison to to what Americans gave to Pakistan. Pakistan failed to make use of their American weapons which were far superior to the ones Indians had from USSR. After Sep.11, the situation is different. US although suppplied a few like C130 and some logistic weapons, stopped giving Pakistan any modern air crafts or other weapons. At the current situation, India can very well take over Pakistan in months. For US, it will take far fewer months. Occupation of Pakistan is not at all an issue to US, as was Iraq. It is not like Iraq where the neighbours do not have the strenght and willingness to do. For India, it is not new, it is like pushing the years to pre 1947. That is all. Please read this to know about current Indian pilots' capability. http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Indo-US+Air+Force+exercise+ends&id=49559
 
Quote    Reply

celebrim    RE: bestdefence   2/27/2004 8:31:02 AM
I did not mean to imply that the use of nukes in Pakistan, or even a US invasion of Pakistan was in anyway likely. Even if we were to invade Pakistan, and that's extremely unlikely in itself, nuclear weapons would only be an option if a series of events had occurred that left us with no other option. Those events are themselves unlikely under the circumstances. 1) The Pakistani military would have to be taken over or at least seriously splintered by Islamic militants. 2) Those militants would have to be overtly and suicidally anti-American - for instance, making public proclamations that the Pakistan nuclear assets would be used in 'martyrdom operations' against 'the Great Satan'. 3) The Pakistani military would have to be unable to secure or destroy its nuclear assets to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. 4) The US would have to fail to secure, exacuate, or destroy the nuclear weapons prior to the Pakistani military losing control of them. 5) The US would at the time the nuclear weapons 'go rogue' have to have no specific knowledge of thier location, but have more than no knowledge at all. And despite the lack of specificity, the US would have to have a high degree of confidence in this general knowledge. The only scenario that I think this applies to is that we knew exactly where they were a few minutes ago, but feared that they would be moved. But that whole sequence of events is somewhat unlikely. For one thing, it is my personal opinion that the US has contingency plans and agreements in place with the Pakistani government to prevent this scenario from unfolding. My point is that there really is a point at which the nuclear option comes on the table and under Roman's 'nightmare scenario' (which included Indian reluctance to act, which I ignored even in my 'nightmare responce') the nuclear option stops being unthinkable. There are people to quick to respond 'just nuke them', but just because sane people don't think that way doesn't mean that the option is forever closed. It is precisely because someone thinks up these scenarios, and because we wish to avoid being placed in a position where we might have to take that course, that I think we have created contingency plans. In return for these assurances, the Pakistan government gets the comfort of knowing that we aren't planning a premptive strike against them, assurance of continued aid and recognition, and the assurance that we would support them if India launched an aggressive war (and especially a premptive nuclear strike) against them. Not that I actually think India is an hurry to start a major war. And if I'm wrong or right, I don't need to know about it. It is highly important that the Pakistani government be able to save face by not admitting to the agreement it has entered into. That would itself have to be part of the agreement.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics