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
capitalist72    RE: bestdefence   2/27/2004 11:36:43 AM
"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 a hurry to start a major war." I doubt America would get involved in the difficult business of defending Pakistan. Even in the past, when Pakistan was an overt ally and India firmly in the Soviet camp, the US did not get actively involved in Indo-Pak wars. In the recent near-war scenarios of Kargil '99 and full mobilisation, the US didn't get involved (in terms of supporting Pakistan) other than to push for peace. Also, economically, India is potentially a large future trading partner of the US. Politically, it is a secular democracy, flawed as it is. Militarily, it is a much stronger and more challenging proposition than Iraq. Of course the US can defeat India militarily, but it would need a much stronger incentive than the defence of Pakistan to do so.
 
Quote    Reply

celebrim    RE: Who said anything about boots on the ground?   2/27/2004 12:58:30 PM
"I doubt America would get involved in the difficult business of defending Pakistan." Just because we've solved the last two problems with direct show of arms you think we've forgotten all our other tools? Did I say anything about a military alliance with Pakistan? Did I say anything about directly fighting the Indians? We supported Afganistan against the Soviets, that doesn't mean we sent in the troops and directly engaged the Soviet army. Use your imagination. We aren't promising to bomb Bombay if India and Pakistan get into a war. We are promising to do things like a) to use our political influence to keep India from deciding on war, b) denouncing attempts to claim Kashmir by force, c) military or economic aid to Pakistan should India attack, d) not to join forces with India or otherwise attempt to betray Pakistan to it. It's not like any such support is particularly far fetched. We've done it in the past with far less pretext. To you and me of course the whole scenario of India deciding to invade and take over Pakistan sounds pretty far fetched. But I'd gather that it sounds much less far fetched to the Pakistanis, and if I was Pakistani one of the conditions of my full cooperation would be some signs and assurances this wasn't some American trick to cripple Pakistan so thier Indian allies could safely invade. Of course, if Pakistan attacks India or otherwise goes beligerent, then all bets on a Pakistani-American partnership are off. As you say, we'd far rather be closely allied with India in the future anyway. Just at the moment though, we have alot to gain from Pakistani cooperation and little to lose by that cooperation if we can steer Pakistani politics away from siding with terrorists. Even if India is resentful of our 'siding with Pakistan', they can hardly complain if the result is fewer terrorist attacks and a more stable border.
 
Quote    Reply

capitalist72    RE: Who said anything about boots on the ground?   2/27/2004 2:10:12 PM
okay - makes sense. guess i misinterpreted what you said
 
Quote    Reply

On Watch    PAKs bagged the most ...    2/29/2004 1:03:51 AM
A U.S. defense official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that Pakistani forces have killed or captured more al-Qaida members than any other U.S. ally. "We continue to aggressively pursue the remnants of al-Qaida and the Taliban," the official said. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040229/D810LCH00.html
 
Quote    Reply

PacEMakeR    RE:PAKs bagged the most ...    2/29/2004 3:22:07 AM
more al-Qaida members than any other U.S. ally That's because they are all in Pakistan.
 
Quote    Reply

On Watch    RE:PAKs bagged the most ...    2/29/2004 8:04:50 AM
>>...more al-Qaida members than any other U.S. ally >That's because they are all in Pakistan -- Pacemaker I think you're on to something PM ! Although, it's arguable as to whether or not the "Tribal Lands" are in reality a governable part of the Pakistani state. For sure they were downstream when USMilfors flushed them out of Tora Bora etc.. Beyond that run of wahhabi spawn--the madrassahs apparently continme schooling the nextGen of fundamentalists. Still, Gen. Musharraf gets credit for making progress in that theater of the WOT. Also true, he was highly motivated by Don Rumsfeld, and recently by a few assassination attempts on his life. Time will tell where Pakistan will stand in the community of nations, but for now it seems they're part of the solution to the world-wide terrorism problem. That's my take anyway...
 
Quote    Reply

JJFS    RE:PAKs bagged the most ...    2/29/2004 12:46:41 PM
I'd personally be more worried about Musharraf than an Islamic coup. We know how to handle governments like the Taliban. You can always trust hardline Muslims to be hardline Muslims. Dictators who seemingly embrace the United States, on the other hand, are not doing it because of our shared values. They are doing it because they believe it to be to their advantage. Supporting the United States in the "war on terror" is a low risk, high pay off proposition for someone like Musharraf. He gains exactly nothing by supporting them, and would stand to lose a great deal in doing so. However, by taking a firm stand against them, he appears to be friendly to the west. This is a force multiplier. I believe that most nations (and all dictatorships) have designs for conquest, and war. Those that we label as "rogues" such as Iran, North Korea, and Syria are the only nations who have been foolish enough to have their true natures exposed to the everyone else. Others are no doubt smarter than that.
 
Quote    Reply

On Watch    RE:PAKs bagged the most ...    2/29/2004 11:00:57 PM
>Those that we label as "rogues" such as Iran, North Korea, and Syria are the only nations who have been foolish enough to have their true natures exposed to the everyone else. Others are no doubt smarter than that. - JJFS No doubt, and getting smarter by the minute! I smell a sea-change wherein more of our enemies will mask their intentions (China-RF)etc etc etc. Sorta like the new strategy of the Islamic Prisoners in Egyptian jails -- forswearing violence as as a "dead-end" in order to perfect more effective methodologies for war against the West. Truly though, covering the spots on a leopard will never change the nature of the cat...
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Scenario - celebrim   3/2/2004 6:58:02 PM
Celebrim, well researched and well analysed. It may also be useful to add that Iraq's PPP GDP (which represents economic capacity of the country) was only $60 billion, while Pakistan's is about $300 billion - 5 times higher than Iraq's. "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

Roman    Note   3/3/2004 3:09:48 PM
Thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion (I am not implying it has ended - anyone who has something interesting to add is more than welcome to do so). I have found it very interesting and it inspired me to create a similar topic on USA and Iran. If you are interested in that, you can find it here: http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/34-687.asp
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics