Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What do we do with Pakistan?
RockyMTNClimber    11/28/2008 11:04:42 AM
Pakistan is a nation now at the center of many problems. It's AlQueda's home as well as the Taliban's. Indeed the Paki intelegence services are largely credited with having invented these two murderous institutions. Although the nation of Pakistan asserts they had nothing to do with the Mumbai attacks, it is entirely possible that Pakistani based leadership and financial assistance helped make it possible. Many in Pakistan want the benefits of a western culture and economy while others are openly attempting to start a war with neighboring India and even the US (at the same time).All of this and they have nuclear weapons. What should the world do? Check Six Rocky
 
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 13   NEXT
HERALD1357       12/8/2008 11:47:38 AM

India has no incentive to risk the costs. 

We don't have the money and won't for at least for ten years. 

And nobody is going to rein in ISI short of boots on the ground. 





Herald


 

Respectfully Herald, doing what we have been doing is getting US closer to a hot war (both US andd India). What would you do given the realities of today. (don't tell me what Obama will do, tell me what you would do)

 

Check Six

 

Rocky



Play an honest strategy and admit our limits. For now, we snuggle up to India like a new found friend and tilt toward them heavily. Start treating Pakistan exactly like the enemy they are. We can't invade them yet and they know it, but we can give India the help she needs to avoid PRC/Pak encirclement. 

Low cost US help for now is aid in training India's internal security forces to avoid another terror attack like Mumbai. Another tilt we can do is start buying and selling from India and shut the PRCs out of US markets.India is a depressed PACRIM opportunity. Their banking laws and free market EXIST. Why we continued to do business with PRC bandits who don't even have a well regulated stock market or enforceable business law once the Russians collapsed always puzzled me.
 
If we get the means, the opportunity, and THE EXCUSE to take the Paks apart as an object lesson to the rest of the Mideast bandits-namely Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Iran-seize it. The best means at hand is to encouragte Pak civil war via indirect means [economics for starters]. Most of the Pak nuclear stuff is around Rawalpindi as is most of their rocketry. Center of decision and all of that. Split that off from the rest of the Pak country south along their fractured tribal lines and start chewing off a leg or an arm. Digest them a piece at a time. But in the meantime, play for time and use leverage. Liddell Hart, not von Schlieffen.   
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       12/8/2008 1:26:17 PM

Reexamine our interest in Afghanistan. -Respectfully this is fluff. Not an action item.

 It most definitely is not fluff. I learned this is Iraq 1st hand. You go fight in some village or town as loyalties and alliances shift in the wind and you will wonder WTF you are doing there too. What happens to Afghanistan is not even remotely connected to US security interest other than killing AQ prime members. What you see in Afghanistan now is called mission creep.


Withdraw from Iraq IOT reinforce the European theater and OEF. -This will probably make AlQueda stronger, supporting Pakistani goals instead of weakening them. Even Obama is saying the draw down in Iraq should be made in a sensible manner while respecting the current status of forces agreement with Iraq.  

It will not make AQ any stronger whatsoever. THEY ARE DEAD. Trust me. Iraq is a bunch or warring clans now who really could care less about what we do so long as National Guardsmen in Gub Trucks aren't harrassing them as the move up and down MSR Tampa. I'm not calling for an immediate mass exodus. I support Obamas phased conditional withdrawal. Make no mistake, I had fun doing my job there. But when it went from stopping insurgents hell bent on pushing Iraq into Irans sphere of influence and AQI to settling local disputes I knew it was a done deal.

Position significant naval forces near Pakistan. -International waters, to what end is this? Driving our DDGs around in the Indian Ocean will accomplish what? 

 The water way is a major ingree/egress route for bad guys. Also, its crucial to our SLOC and needs to be secure all the way to the port as a contingency. Moreover, having the firepower there to launch massive strikes into and against rogue elements of the Pak Gov is going to be an eventual necessity.

Strike GWOT targets in Pakistan with US Air and Special Operations forces. -Agreed


 

Use the Indians to do the heavy lifting and be the public face of any open conflict. - This is a problem for me. India needs to be brought into a larger group of nations instead of being made to go out on its own (even just for public appearances sake). That would make this the same old conflict they have been fighting since 1947. Here is another thing I support: India submits to a similar set of standards that the Pakistani are asked too. This establishes India as the aggrieved party v. Pakistan whom is plotting against all of US.

I don't mean unilateral action. I mean use the recent attack and the international system to build justification for an Indian centric coalition capable of direct retaliation against Pakistan.

-DA




 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       12/8/2008 2:00:16 PM




If we get the means, the opportunity, and THE EXCUSE to take the Paks apart as an object lesson to the rest of the Mideast bandits-namely Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Iran-seize it. The best means at hand is to encouragte Pak civil war via indirect means [economics for starters]. Most of the Pak nuclear stuff is around Rawalpindi as is most of their rocketry. Center of decision and all of that. Split that off from the rest of the Pak country south along their fractured tribal lines and start chewing off a leg or an arm. Digest them a piece at a time. But in the meantime, play for time and use leverage. Liddell Hart, not von Schlieffen.   


 

Herald



Can't do that. Pakistan is a key component of our OEF strategy and with the PAK armed forces absolutely stretched to a minimum any civil war would leave thousands of NATO/US troops in a very tough bind logistically and legally as the PAK 3 corps available to help would be pulled. The other 6 corps would have to remain on high readiness against India and with good reason because the Indians would have no way of Knowing what the outcome of a PAK civil war would mean for them. It's absolutely crucial that Pakistan's Gov remain in control of it's military. If not we certainly don't have the troops to make up any losses as long as OIF is still ongoing at current levels. Even a direct war with Pakistan would be better than this from certain points of view.
 
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Welcpome to my Herald Trap, Darth.   12/8/2008 2:06:00 PM









If we get the means, the opportunity, and THE EXCUSE to take the Paks apart as an object lesson to the rest of the Mideast bandits-namely Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Iran-seize it. The best means at hand is to encouragte Pak civil war via indirect means [economics for starters]. Most of the Pak nuclear stuff is around Rawalpindi as is most of their rocketry. Center of decision and all of that. Split that off from the rest of the Pak country south along their fractured tribal lines and start chewing off a leg or an arm. Digest them a piece at a time. But in the meantime, play for time and use leverage. Liddell Hart, not von Schlieffen.   






 



Herald









Can't do that. Pakistan is a key component of our OEF strategy and with the PAK armed forces absolutely stretched to a minimum any civil war would leave thousands of NATO/US troops in a very tough bind logistically and legally as the PAK 3 corps available to help would be pulled. The other 6 corps would have to remain on high readiness against India and with good reason because the Indians would have no way of Knowing what the outcome of a PAK civil war would mean for them. It's absolutely crucial that Pakistan's Gov remain in control of it's military. If not we certainly don't have the troops to make up any losses as long as OIF is still ongoing at current levels. Even a direct war with Pakistan would be better than this from certain points of view.


 

 

-DA


SNAP.
 
That is why you cannot do much in Pakistan.
 
QED. Thank you for proving MY original point.
 
 
Herald

 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Let me get this straight   12/8/2008 2:32:18 PM
People feel confident enough to advocate encouraging/fomenting a Pakistan civil war while having exactly the same public available information on Pakistani nukes I have.
 
And what do you think would happen if the wrong people win that civil war *1) and suddenly have unrestricted acess to these nukes? Does anyone even consider what can happen then? Crap thousands of times worse than Mumbai could suddenly become a reality. You know, like a nuke going off and several hundred thousand people dead.
 
Why do you think I say I don't have enough info? It really is a no brainer to first consider how you're gonna secure these nukes. And that's why I cannot suggest a viable strategy for Pakistan, because I do not have the info to even say wether securing those nukes is even possible. I'm also pretty sure that the people that do have that info will not be posting it here.

*1) I guess the possibility that a strategy fails and having the wrong guys win something as chaotic as a civil war is a novel concept here.
 
There's being bold in strategy and there's charging an enemy position with bajonets in broad daylight across a minefield covered by several enemy machinegun positions. Sure the enemy will never expect this and they will be suprised, pleasantly suprised that is.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       12/8/2008 2:38:22 PM










If we get the means, the opportunity, and THE EXCUSE to take the Paks apart as an object lesson to the rest of the Mideast bandits-namely Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Iran-seize it. The best means at hand is to encouragte Pak civil war via indirect means [economics for starters]. Most of the Pak nuclear stuff is around Rawalpindi as is most of their rocketry. Center of decision and all of that. Split that off from the rest of the Pak country south along their fractured tribal lines and start chewing off a leg or an arm. Digest them a piece at a time. But in the meantime, play for time and use leverage. Liddell Hart, not von Schlieffen.   





Herald






Can't do that. Pakistan is a key component of our OEF strategy and with the PAK armed forces absolutely stretched to a minimum any civil war would leave thousands of NATO/US troops in a very tough bind logistically and legally as the PAK 3 corps available to help would be pulled. The other 6 corps would have to remain on high readiness against India and with good reason because the Indians would have no way of Knowing what the outcome of a PAK civil war would mean for them. It's absolutely crucial that Pakistan's Gov remain in control of it's military. If not we certainly don't have the troops to make up any losses as long as OIF is still ongoing at current levels. Even a direct war with Pakistan would be better than this from certain points of view.



-DA


SNAP.

 

That is why you cannot do much in Pakistan.

 

QED. Thank you for proving MY original point.


Herald

Herald,
 
Herald trap? Here we go again with the ego. I really hope you aren't digressing back to personal flame threads. If not then disregard the last sentence. I know what your point was. I have been arguing that. for a LONG TIME. I've been screaming to get out of Iraq in large numbers for over a year now. It's also come up in other post as well. In particular with another person, AE, who is familiar with events on the ground there as we discussed Russia recently. And you are quite wrong when you say we cannot do much in Pakistan. Rather, we can do much in Pakistan. The key is a change in strategy. Changes that are underway now.
 
I'm not advocating full scale invasion of Pakistan by the U.S. Military. Its not necessary. What I am advocating are RAIDS/STRIKES against our enemies there and securing the MSR as we did in Iraq. I'm also advocating a reevaluation of our interest in Afghanistan. Christiane Amonpour makes compelling heart felt journalism as she walks among the impoverished oppressed Afghani kids through war torn streets but how is that in our interest. We went there to get at AQ sanctuary. Mission accomplished except now those sanctuaries have moved into Pakistan where they are sheltered. Now a large portion of what we are doing is nation building rather than fighting AQ and allied Taliban. I say allied because any Taliban not affiliated with AQ are not our concern. By reorienting our forces and focusing on our objectives. We will gain much. The means more troops and a willingness to strike into Pakistan itself.
 
 
-DA

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       12/8/2008 2:43:58 PM

People feel confident enough to advocate encouraging/fomenting a Pakistan civil war while having exactly the same public available information on Pakistani nukes I have.


This is probably one of the worse possible things that could happen. It would be better to actually go to war with Pakistan where their C3 can be monitored and preserved while specific targets are struck with high precision and steady constant pressure is applied to the government to force a general crackdown on Militants and purge of rogue elements within the Government. There are a lot of ways to make this happen some of which have the Indians carrying the ball most of the way.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Reality Check....   12/8/2008 2:54:31 PM

People feel confident enough to advocate encouraging/fomenting a Pakistan civil war while having exactly the same public available information on Pakistani nukes I have.

 

And what do you think would happen if the wrong people win that civil war *1) and suddenly have unrestricted acess to these nukes? Does anyone even consider what can happen then? Crap thousands of times worse than Mumbai could suddenly become a reality. You know, like a nuke going off and several hundred thousand people dead.

 

Why do you think I say I don't have enough info? It really is a no brainer to first consider how you're gonna secure these nukes. And that's why I cannot suggest a viable strategy for Pakistan, because I do not have the info to even say wether securing those nukes is even possible. I'm also pretty sure that the people that do have that info will not be posting it here.



*1) I guess the possibility that a strategy fails and having the wrong guys win something as chaotic as a civil war is a novel concept here.


 

There's being bold in strategy and there's charging an enemy position with bajonets in broad daylight across a minefield covered by several enemy machinegun positions. Sure the enemy will never expect this and they will be suprised, pleasantly suprised that is.
 

The wrong people control the Pakistani nuclear technology now as is evidenced by the transfer of said technology to N.Korea, Tehran, Libya, ....? who else? Now that that silly notion that Pakistani nuclear technology is secure is out of the way, what do we do about the nuclear armed terrorist state that is Pakistan?

 
Quote    Reply

FJV    You need the reality check   12/8/2008 3:11:33 PM
The strategy advoacted here is similar to rolling a six sides dice and on a roll of 1 to 3 the Muslim fundamentalists obtain a nuke. Of course they will be much easier to control than a bunch of bribable crooks! 
 
And people think it's strange that am I not sold on this idea.
 
This one is to be handled by the best professionals provide with thge best info we have!

 
 

 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       12/8/2008 3:23:59 PM

The strategy advoacted here is similar to rolling a six sides dice and on a roll of 1 to 3 the Muslim fundamentalists obtain a nuke. Of course they will be much easier to control than a bunch of bribable crooks! 

 

And people think it's strange that am I not sold on this idea.

 

This one is to be handled by the best professionals provide with thge best info we have!



One of the reasons NOT to cause a civil war. Far better to make war directly or preferably with India than the have a fragmented nuclear armed state at war with itself and you.
 
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics