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
Roman    RE:sooner - to Roman   3/23/2004 2:43:47 AM
Forgot to add: Thanks for the explanation.
 
Quote    Reply

scase    RE:sooner   3/23/2004 7:21:27 AM
*If that is the case, why don't you enlighten us? *Please tell us (without revealing classified *information, of course) what capabilities the US *has that we are forgetting? I'll have a go here. 1. The US Army National Guard hasn't been tapped completely- so say 3-4 division equalivants. 2. Inactive Reserves: Every US citizen who enters the service is required to serve for a minimum of 8 YEARS. You serve that however you want. In my case I served 4 years active and 4 years in the reserve. So every GI who has entered service within the last 7 or so years is still eligable to be recalled to the colors and considering that the US turns over something like 30,000 men per year you could be talking about 200,000 plus fully trained and experienced people who can be recalled. 3. I believe that the US has enough divisional 'kits' on hand to assemble roughly 5+ heavy divisions. The US REFORGER stocks still exist (to varying degrees)- plus the US didn't just throw away all of those divisional kits when it went from the 17 or so division force to 10 division in the '90s. 4. If the US was to go to war with Pakistan it would be because of something catastrophic (like a Paki nuke destroying a US city). If that was to happen the US could call on a vast reserve of guys like me who are under the age of 35 and were fully trained (many of us would come back willingly) plus the US could us the draft to soak up literally millions of troops. 5. In WWII the US assembled a force of 90+ divisions that were the equilvant to German Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions (ie either fully motorized or mechanized). The US still has major industrial capabilities and a huge economy. So it wouldn't be too difficult for the US to crank out large amounts of divisional kits (especially for light divisions). 6. The US still has hundreds of military facilities scattered around the US and has the fairly recent experience in raising large militaries from almost scratch (WWI and WWII). The infrastructure is still there in varying degrees. Toss all that in and it wouldn't be a huge stretch to see the US assemble 20+ divisions within a year (with say 2-4 of them being mechanized). These divisions would have a strong cadre of veterans and could be ready for combat quite quickly (18-24 months from mobilization isn't unrealistic). So within two years of a nuclear strike Pakistan would be facing 20+ divisions that would be far better equipped and trained than them. And you might as well face it- the US has a very strong reputation as being both skilled and fierce fighters. Add that to the vast amount of combat experience that the US has acquired since 'peace' broke out in the 90's and I would say Pakistan doesn't stand much of a chance at all. And if the war was because of a catastrophic attack I don't think the US would be in much of a mood to play nice with the Pakis. The whole country would be in ruins (think Germany post WWII)... I wonder if we would be as charitable with the Pakis as we have been with the Germans, Japanese, and Iraqis?
 
Quote    Reply

Try2BUnbiased    RE:sooner   3/24/2004 2:16:05 PM
basically when u compare it to iraq in ur defence that pak. can't be invaded, thatz the point. like in iraq the infrastruture, the pak. backbone would be destroyed before u knew it. i mean lightening fast. don't tell me they can protect themselves against precision strikes. the hi tech stuff they do have is a) in very small quantity compared to the U.S. b) not maintained properly c) restraints such as training etc. limit their effectiveness. then once the air force, navy and all is annhilated, alonge with every major damn army base, the U.S. sends in the large ground forces, in addition to the specialized ones. basically there is no question the pak. defence would be reduced to just men with guns, and no mechanized elements at all in a short time. the u.s. can roll in to the cities just like it did in iraq. and that dude's is definitely succesfully invading a country. there will be still resistence and terrorists scattered around remote areas throughout the country , but they won't be able to save anyone. and another thing, in iraq the U.S. supposedly went in to free the ppl. so they were still careful (not extremely) not to do that much damage. in pak. it might be different and if the war starts cause ofa nuke or something i don't think they would give a damn about who gets hurt.
 
Quote    Reply

strangevisitor    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?   3/25/2004 8:05:06 AM
Pakistan is the most dangerous supporter of international terrorisim in the world. First lets look at the A.Q.Khan affair, A.Q.Khan is more dangerous than a thousand Bin Laden's, Pakistan is a WMDD nation, A weapons of Mass Destruction Distributor, No other nation not even the north Koreans have indulged in distributing WMD's, and what happens in the end, Mushraff pardon's A Q Khan, and the US ....it makes Pakistan a major non NATO ally, If Iran, N.Korea, are the axis of evil then pakistan is the apex. Every major terrorist and organisation has a Pakistan CONNECTION. The Taliban was mid wifed by the Pakistani's, The Al qaeda, The Lashkar Toiba's all originated from Pakistan, Mushraff is more dangerous then Saddam Hussein, he runs with the hares and hunts with the wolves,
 
Quote    Reply

corona_fx    RE:strangevisitor   3/25/2004 8:16:03 AM
That's why Pakistan can't invade and occupy by USA. USA know abt PAK more then U.
 
Quote    Reply

sooner    RE:strangevisitor- to anyone   3/28/2004 10:48:55 AM
I think that you are wrong to a certain extent when you say that occupying Pakistan would be impossible. If our national security was at stake or at the hands of any nation. We would come to fight. Anyone in the world. Whether or not we would be successful or not depends. One way or another, we would be victorious. Would we even need to invade Pakistan? I don't necessarily think so. They are our only non-NATO ally. I'm not sure how this topic even got started. Why in the heck would we invade them anyway? If, God forbid, they was to destroy one of our cities with a nuke, invade? No. we would target their cities with a massive nuclear strike. People like to challenge the US quite ofter. We are the "team to beat." And yes, I think that we could and would invade and occupy Pakistan successfully given proper motive. Thanks.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:AMerica can take over pakistan flawlessly   4/2/2004 4:41:48 PM
"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." When you fear being the victim of a nuclear attack you don't wring your hands and do an impression of Hamlet. You bomb ALL suspected sites, just to be sure. US has enough nukes to throw away a few.
 
Quote    Reply

sanju22    US invasion and occupation of pakistan unlikely   4/4/2004 1:06:24 PM
Any Invasion and ocupation of pakistan by America would be one of the most difficult and testing war for america in its recent history. Before talking about the strategy for the invasion and occupation, we have to ignore three important factors 1) Pakistani nuclear capability 2) Indian troops involvement in the war 3) Chinese involvement Thou the above the factors are very important and will decided the outcome but due to the importance and effect of the above factors an US attack on Pakistan is highly unlikely. For US to successfully invade and occupy Pakistan its needs its complete forces(only possible when american troops are not in iraq). Any successful attack on Pakistan would require use of Indian army and air-forces bases. Alone attack from afghanistan would not help coz of the difficult terrain between the two countries. American's would have to depoly ground forces in India at Kashmir along LOC(line of control),Rajasthan(very imp. to enter heart of pakistan) and Punjab. Aerial assult can be carried from air bases at Pathankot, Jaisalmeir and Bhuj. Air power will play an key role but american would not have much difficulty in that coz of its overwealming superiority. Imp. Pakistani air bases are located in Quetta and Karachi. An naval fleet can be stationed in arabian sea thus ensuring a complete naval blockage. Pakistan have insignificant navy. Pakistan has a standing army of half a million well trained and equipped regular troops. They can raise reasonable amount of jehadi fighters. in short time. This is where america will face its toughest challenge. Ground campaign will last for months and with large number of casualties. Would america be able to make such a commitment? Any occupation by US would not recieve any local support and will face resistance ten times greater than iraq. Thus this entire makes the question of US invasion and occupation highly unlikely.
 
Quote    Reply

Indian    RE:US invasion and occupation of pakistan unlikely   4/13/2004 2:24:37 PM
Sanju's post answer settles a lot,but an important issue that every one is overlooking is that India wouldn't be very happy about having an unopposed superpower right nextdoors.Especially where long-term strategic interests are concerned.
 
Quote    Reply

MetalMan    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?   4/18/2004 8:27:45 PM
The U.S. would not realistically be able to invade and occupy Pakistan. The costs, both in terms of money and lives, would be too much for the U.S. to handle. First, the war would be much more difficult. Pakistan is not like Iraq, where the majority of people hated and feared their rulers. The Pakistanis will put up a much better and more determined fight. Their military is also the best in the Islamic world. The overwhelming majority of the population would be completely opposed to any U.S. occupation. American probably would destroy most of the Pakistani military. But they would never be able to govern the country. The guerrilla uprising would be MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than in Iraq. More people would be willing to fight the Americans, as opposed to a few radicals. They would resist in greater numbers, with better weapons and with more popular support. Any U.S invasion and occupation of Pakistan would be an absolute nightmare. Thousands upon thousands of servicemen would die. The costs would also be enourmous. Realistically, an invasion and occupation of Pakistan would be unfeasible. The U.S. knows this, and that's why it's using the "carrot and stick" approach with Pakstan, rather than using threats.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics