Pakistan- Why invasion or even large scale targetted strikes are a bad idea -

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: Pakistan- Why invasion or even large scale targetted strikes are a bad idea -
Necromancer 12/13/2008 7:04:11 AM

There is enough outrage over Pakistan from 9/11 to Mumbai to Xinyiang in China and world over. But its a country of 100 million with massive debts and they can barely pay their debts without IMF dole outs. Imagine getting into that mess and then trying to clean it up. Now even if large cruise missile type strikes or such targets as terrorists only were conducted the civilian government would be removed causing an even bigger problem. Here are key steps in resovling Pakistan- 1) Prop up the civilian government until it truly becomes strong- say 25 more years and economic turnaround required 2) Pressurize military to control militant camps, and outright bribes to knock out the key terrorists. Remove radicals from Military and ISI. 3) Increase intelligence for possible strikes outside(one must remember that Mumbai was also a failure of Indian intellgence and response). 4) Control Saudi funding 5) Let Iran go nuclear (Shia Sunni balance of power is a must). I always thought that Iran would get Osama before NATO. 6) All else fails start a civil war- None of my suggestions require significant military intervention. If you have similar ideas that would be interesting. How to win a war without a gunshot!!!

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Necromancer Nasty, Kashmir is a dead issue 12/13/2008 8:45:37 AM

It was an issue, but since 2002 after India almost attacked(or postured heavily) and 9/11 Kashmiri's have not too many sympathizers and generally the whole affair has very well been put in the "terrorist" bag of events. Whatever goodwill Pakistan had built up in India Kashmir that erupted in a civil war in Kashmir India in 1989 has died. Evidence a few months ago hindus got some Kashmiri Moslem land, the Kashmir valley almot closed dow and the armed forces in India were powerless. Pakistan didn't say a thing-imagine that. Also recnet elections in Indian Kashmir had 60% turnout in th most radical areas. Pakistan's economy is fallen apart- Kashmir is a dead issue except for the formal demarcation of the disputed border as the real border.

Pakistan today is more like the movie "Face-off" its more Islamic Mafia and Talebans that are the issue, and there is the Islamic fundamentalism angle to it and thats anti everybody. Second is corruption and Mafia type territory protection.

Fundamentalism, terror are just a great business as the Somali pirates just discovered(They may bailout Citibank- a joke).

Always follow the money.

Quote Reply

DGreat1 12/15/2008 12:59:11 PM

Necromancer

You don't prop up the government of a state sponsor of terrorism who has nuclear weapons. If you did, what do you think they would do once they obtain economic viability? Do you think a state sponsor of terrorism would respect your interests in return? They would not, as their terrorist inclinations and the moral deficiencies that come with them will lead the terror sponsoring nation to take your kindness for weakness, therefore, motivating the terror sponsoring nation to display an unparalleled level of provocative actions in the future with regard to terrorism. America has been giving economic assistance to Pakistan for years, yet Pakistan is still a state sponsor of terrorism that has significant Al Qaeda and Taliban friendly contingents within its government and civilian population. Military intervention is necessary. You also suggested that we allow Iran to go nuclear to establish a Shiite/ Sunni balance of power. Iran has crossed sectarian boundaries in their support of terrorism, as they currently support Al Qaeda(a Wahabi/Sunni based Organization), Hamas (an Orthodox Sunni Organization) and Hezbollah (a Shiite Organization). So you see, Iran currently has almost total control over a multi sect insurgency/terrororist group operation. You think things will get better if Iran is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons on top of all that? Your talking points are seriously flawed.

Quote Reply

DGreat1 12/15/2008 1:24:40 PM

Necromancer

You don't prop up the government of a state sponsor of terrorism who has nuclear weapons. If you did, what do you think they would do once they obtain economic viability? Do you think a state sponsor of terrorism would respect your interests in return? They would not, as their terrorist inclinations and the moral deficiencies that come with them will lead the terror sponsoring nation to take your kindness for weakness, therefore, motivating the terror sponsoring nation to display an unparalleled level of provocative actions in the future with regard to terrorism. America has been giving economic assistance to Pakistan for years, yet Pakistan is still a state sponsor of terrorism that has significant Al Qaeda and Taliban friendly contingents within its government and civilian population. Military intervention is necessary. You also suggested that we allow Iran to go nuclear to establish a Shiite/ Sunni balance of power. Iran has crossed sectarian boundaries in their support of terrorism, as they currently support Al Qaeda(a Wahabi/Sunni based Organization), Hamas (an Orthodox Sunni Organization) and Hezbollah (a Shiite Organization). Iran does not want to capture Osama bin Laden. Iran is harboring over 100 Al Qaeda operatives as we speak. So you see, Iran currently has almost total control over a multi sect insurgency/terrororist group operation. This is a major paradigm shift concerning terrorist activity. You think things will get better if Iran is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons on top of all that? Your talking points are seriously flawed.

Quote Reply