Invading Pakistan? The Worst Idea Yet

[foxhound]

Patrick Cockburn: Nixon adopted this tactic in Vietnam. It won't work any better now than it did then

Patrick Cockburn: Nixon adopted this tactic in Vietnam. It won't work any better now than it did then - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent
Wednesday, 22 December 2010

Could US Special Forces make a lunge across the Pakistan border in pursuit of the Taliban just as American and South Vietnamese troops briefly invaded Cambodia in pursuit of the Vietcong and North Vietnamese forces in 1970?

The precedent is not good. What US officers have in mind for the Pakistan border regions is much smaller in scale than President Nixon's venture, but is unlikely to be any more successful. Possible military gains are limited, while the danger of a political backlash is acute.

American frustration is great, because so long as the 2,500km Afghan-Pakistan border remains open, the Taliban can retreat to relatively safe havens to rest, re-equip and re-supply. Their fighters can recover from every tactical setback. It was this open border that prevented the Soviet army from crushing the Afghan guerrillas in the 1980s.
But would forays by US Special Forces or associated American-controlled Afghan militias really make much difference?
Even if it wanted to, the Pakistan military could hardly police a frontier through mountainous terrain that is as long as the distance from London to Moscow. Moreover the hinterland, of which the Taliban takes advantage, is not confined to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or the border of Baluchistan. It extends into a much wider area and includes the vast city of Karachi, with its population of 17 million and sizeable Pashtun minority. The purpose of the leaks may be to intimidate the Pakistan army into being more co-operative with the US in making a ground attack on North Waziristan, seen by the US as the main redoubt of al-Qa'ida and the Haqqani network. So far the Pakistan army has resisted this and there is no evidence it is going to change its mind.

The US often focuses its criticism of Pakistan's security policy on the ISI, Pakistan's military security agency, or even pro-Taliban "rogue elements" in it, but in practice, covert support for the Taliban is the policy of Pakistan's 600,000-strong army. Most ISI personnel are regular officers on secondment to the agency.

The White House under President Obama has long been aware that its main problem in the region is with Pakistan, but it has yet to find a way of dealing with it. Military aid – and the US pays a third of Pakistan's military budget – has produced a modicum of Pakistani compliance with US needs, though not enough to tip the balance against the Afghan Taliban.

The army has been prepared to act against the Pakistan Taliban, which it sees as being entirely different. The main military action of the US in Pakistan is through CIA-controlled drones which take off from a base in Pakistan and have been effective.

The CIA also has a 3,000-strong Afghan army of its own across the border in Afghanistan.
The drones are only as effective as the intelligence on which their targeting is based and the CIA has built up an intelligence network in border areas.

At the same time ISI officers claim privately that up-to-date information enabling the drones to attack the houses and vehicles of militants comes from them.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Just before I arrived in Vietnam in 1970, as a young, gung-ho, kill-a-commie-for-freedom, Australian army captain, President Richard Nixon of the United States ordered the invasion of a neighboring nation. Not a neighbor of America, of course, but a place that was neighbor to the country that had been taken over by America.


During the ten years’ war in Vietnam US Presidents and their foolish and supposedly ‘patriotic’ patsies in the House and Senate sent 58,267 of their fellow citizens to their deaths. The Vietnam Memorial in Washington is a wonderful tribute, but it’s also a dire monument to the everlasting condemnation of wicked morons who imagined they were supporting ‘Freedom’ by sending so many of their country’s soldiers to be killed.



Just like in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.



And in the course of this appalling slaughter in Vietnam it was decided that it was vital to bomb neighboring countries, such as Laos and Cambodia, because Vietnamese forces opposed to the US-installed puppet government of South Vietnam were making use of their territory.



US bombers killed countless numbers of innocent people in North Vietnam, South Vietnam and their neighbors, but in 1970 Nixon decided that this wasn’t enough, so he decided to commit both South Vietnamese and US troops to invade Cambodia. And they went in, and Nixon called it “the most successful military operation of the entire war,” which was the absurd “Mission Accomplished” braggart-boy statement of its day, because the operation had little effect on the war against America in Vietnam, which resulted in defeat of US and South Vietnamese forces, and hastened the collapse of Cambodia into anarchy and vicious genocide.



So what’s the parallel with current events? – It’s simple, and just as potentially catastrophic, because the US is fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan and is now bombing a neighboring country, Pakistan, killing lotsa people.

There have also been cross-border incursions that are kept very quiet except when they are so incompetent as to be impossible to disguise, as when US helicopters killed three Pakistan Frontier Corps soldiers a few weeks ago in a missile-spraying spree that was based on incorrect information from a deliberately misleading Afghan source.



The military public relations machines tell us that US Special Forces night raids are wonderfully effective. The New York Times reported that “in a 90-day period that ended Nov 11, Special Operations forces were averaging 17 missions a night, conducting 1,572 operations over three months that resulted in 368 insurgent leaders killed or captured, and 968 lower-level insurgents killed and 2,477 captured, according to NATO statistics.”



But of course there are no details given about these operations. According to official sources, not one of them caused the death of any innocent person. We are told that every single raid has been successful and has resulted only in the killing and capturing of 'bad guys'.

The US is on the course of making the same mistake which it made in the Veitnam War, but luckily Cambodia didn't possessed Nuclear Bombs and the US could easily let it decent into anarchy and went off...!
Didn't the US congress aware of what the US military is going to commit just to secure the objectives by 2014 which it failed to achieve in a time span of almost a decade or are they just blind stooges...!

 

[Hulk]

I have told this couple times and will repeat again. US will keep pushing Pakistan to clear NW and will pressurize it to do so.
If you do not do that and delay it, they will find ways to get more pressure on you.

Sapre us the nukes thing, they are good for nothing, forget about US, in most cases they will remain where they are in the safe.

 

[Donatello]

right, and i don't think pakistan army would also be hiding in those caves during the war. so if you were to talk about face to face war, US will win. accept that atleast.

and btw, fighting those who hides are harder to defeat, because they know that they can't win face to face.

A full out war with USA means, Pakistan attacks and desolates Americans in Afghanistan.

US can't stop much of that, and to be honest, Americans back home are reluctant to see thousands of more dead men heading back home in a matter of days.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

I have told this couple times and will repeat again. US will keep pushing Pakistan to clear NW and will pressurize it to do so.
If you do not do that and delay it, they will find ways to get more pressure on you.

Sapre us the nukes thing, they are good for nothing, forget about US, in most cases they will remain where they are in the safe.

Frankly such an ops would fuel the anarchy and instability inside Pakistan upon which Hostile Nations could easily feed on...!

 

[pak-marine]

why will do it ? its not needed ... unstable pakistan is dangerous to all because of nukes ... an invasion will kick a full scale war and pakistan isnt irak or afghanistan!! they might try those quick missions but thats all

 

[foxhound]

US Threats against Pakistan: Kerry Lugar goodwill wiped outSeptember 28th, 2010

US Threats against Pakistan: Kerry Lugar goodwill wiped out | Tea Break

US threats against Pakistan have been ubiquitous and part and parcel of US policy since the sixties. Pakistan has been used to threats. The Pakistani establishment can discern what is a threat and what is a bluff. The state was threatened by Nehru on the day of her independence. Many think that Liaqat Ali Khan was murdered for working on a plan for a confederation with Afghanistan. Kruschev threatened Islamabad of dire consequences if the US near Peshawar was not closed. Pakistan was threatened by President Johnson when Ayub Khan closed down the US base. Nixon and Kissinger threatened Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto for pursuing a Nuclear Program. President Carter refused to visit Pakistan. Pervez Musharraf was threatened with being “bombed to the stone age” if the Pakistani government did not accept the seven points. Hillary Clinton threatened Pakistan with dire consequences without clarifying what that threat meant. Now there are revelations that President Obama threatened Pakistan and that the US wanted to bomb 150 sites in Pakistan.

Have the threats achieved the results that Washington wanted?
The US base was closed down despite the threats. Islamabad continues to pursue its aims in Afghanistan despite the assassination of a Prime Minister. President Carter was forced to deal with President Zia Ul haq. Pakistan continued to pursue the Nuclear Program despite sanction and threats to the life of the Prime Minister who initiated the program. Pervez Musharraf agreed to the points in theory, but was not totally compliant. General Kiyani, according to Bob Woodward totally rebuffed the US delegation.

•Frustrated over Pakistan’s lackluster response to the war against terrorism, US President Barack Obama, sent his top aides to threaten Pakistan
•The Pakistani establishment in particular the all powerful Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani refused to adhere to any of the four demands.
•” Kayani would not budge very much. He had other concerns. “I’ll be the first to admit, I’m India centric,” he said, according to the book.

WASHINGTON: Frustrated over Pakistan’s lackluster response to the war against terrorism, US President Barack Obama, sent his top aides to warn Pakistan that he would have no other option but to respond, if they do not take decisive action against terrorist safe havens.

Adding to the frustration, the Pakistani establishment in particular the all powerful Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani refused to adhere to any of the four demands the US made through National Security Adviser Gen James Jones and CIA chief Leon Panetta during that trip in May this year, says noted investigative journalist Bob Woodward, in his latest book, “Obama’s War”.
“The President wants everyone in Pakistan to understand if such an attack connected to a Pakistani group is successful there are some things even he would not be able to stop. Just there are political realities in Pakistan, there are realities in the United States.

No one will be able to stop the response and consequences. There is not a threat, just a statement of political fact,” Zardai was told during the meeting, the book claims.

Giving a series of specific instances how terrorists’ leaders are operating unhindered inside Pakistan, Jones told Zardari that Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, the LeT commander if the 2008 Mumbai attacks, is not being adequately interrogated and “he continues to direct LeT operations from his detention center.”

LeT is operating in Afghanistan and the group carried out a recent attack at a guesthouse there. Intelligence also shows that LeT is threatening attacks in the United States and the possibility is rising each day, Jones said according to the book.

After meeting Zardari, US officials met Kayani, wherein Jones told the Pakistan Army Chief that the clock was starting now all the four requests made by Obama.

“But Kayani would not budge very much. He had other concerns. “I’ll be the first to admit, I’m India centric,” he said, according to the book.

Kiyani fully knew that the bluff did not hold water. What would the day after the bombing look like. Several thousand Pakistanis would be dead but the basic threat is not buildings but from men. 180 million Pakistanis cannot be evaporated.
The Day after the bombing– need not be spelled out–but it is sufficient to say that the war in Afghanistan would come to a grinding halt and and Iranian-Pakistani alliance would be unstoppable.

US bases in Pakistan would be history, and the logistical connection through Pakistan would end. US bases in the vicinity could become targets.

The US wiped out any goodwill that it may have created through the Kerry Lugar Bill of the Flood Relief.

 

[Jungibaaz]

The way i see it... they would have to go past the world's 7th largest armed forces, the north western territories and millions of armed patriots.

Such a war would lead to a humiliating defeat for the US and it's allies.

 

[DesiGuy]

i don't know why people are saying that invading pakistan will result in defeat for US. exactly what kind of defeat r we talking about here??

as i mentioned before if it was face to face war, Pakistan stands no chance of winning against US.

 

[foxhound]

Threats have been made on numerous occassions to pakistan. I just don't believe that Paksitan is that weak for any nation to walk over. a massive population with a massive armed forces would be a detterrence for many nations - no matter what they barked!

Pakistan needs to stand firm (to have balls - this is to the weak leadership it has). it needs to send subtle messages to its adversaries....if I am going down, I'm taking all of you with me...this message needs to be sent to the Israelis/Zionist leadership. The only way to STOP BULLIES is to challenge them and threaten them with bloody nose...discretly initially and then publicly if situation deems it necessary.

The US generals arte just warmongers....losing a war they thought they could handle...they attacked Afghanistan because it was seen as very poor/backward with no heavy military equipment - they thought it would be an easy ride.

THE US and NATO due to arrogance did not learn the lessons from the former Soviet Union.......bet they wished they had now. Pakistan needs to send strong signals that the consequences will be greater for the US and ISAF forces.

ISAF forces do not have a stomach for a fight....they were pressurised by the Bigger bully USA and its poodle (UK).....public opinion is against the war....financially its killing them slowly....if Pakistan is firm then I am 100% convinced that no attacks or invasion will be attempted.

 

[Rafi]

i don't why people are saying that invading pakistan will result in defeat for US. exactly what kind of defeat r we talking about here??

as i mentioned before if it was face to face war, Pakistan stands no chance of winning against US.

Maybe the US would win with significant casualties - but what would the day after look like, you would have to administrate a country with 180 million pissed off people armed to the teeth.

That would probably destabilise the whole region, and would require hundreds of thousands of soldiers to occupy the country.

And the subsequent guerilla war - would kill thousands of American soldiers and bankrupt the US economy, even if China did not call on it's debt that the US owns.

And what about the nightmare scenario - the Pak military - thinking it will loose its nukes - went for the Samson option.

A country with more than a hundred nuclear weapons has never been invaded before, we are going into uncharted territory.

There is zero chance of an US invasion - the Americans are not stupid, why would you, to win against a smaller, weaker adversary, attack a more powerful larger adversary.

And the militants would love it, if the US invaded, it will be like Christmas, Eid and the 4th of July all rolled up into one.

 

[DesiGuy]

Maybe the US would win with significant casualties - but what would the day after look like, you would have to administrate a country with 180 million pissed off people armed to the teeth.

That would probably destabilise the whole region, and would require hundreds of thousands of soldiers to occupy the country.

And the subsequent guerilla war - would kill thousands of American soldiers and bankrupt the US economy, even if China did not call on it's debt that the US owns.

And what about the nightmare scenario - the Pak military - thinking it will loose its nukes - went for the Samson option.

A country with more than a hundred nuclear weapons has never been invaded before, we are going into uncharted territory.

exactly that's my point. read my post#19.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

i don't know why people are saying that invading pakistan will result in defeat for US. exactly what kind of defeat r we talking about here??

as i mentioned before if it was face to face war, Pakistan stands no chance of winning against US.

The US would experience a strategic defeat - in the quest for eliminating 'terrorist havens' it would destabilize the country to the point where groups like the Taliban would rise to power, with the active support of a population seething with rage at the West, and therefore create a worse situation from a 'terrorist sanctuary' POV.

That does not even take into account the possibility of Pakistan resorting to nuking India, Israel and the Gulf oil supply chain as it sees its existence threatened- the repercussions on the global economy from such events.

 

[prototype]

Maybe the US would win with significant casualties - but what would the day after look like, you would have to administrate a country with 180 million pissed off people armed to the teeth.

That would probably destabilise the whole region, and would require hundreds of thousands of soldiers to occupy the country.

And the subsequent guerilla war - would kill thousands of American soldiers and bankrupt the US economy, even if China did not call on it's debt that the US owns.

And what about the nightmare scenario - the Pak military - thinking it will loose its nukes - went for the Samson option.

A country with more than a hundred nuclear weapons has never been invaded before, we are going into uncharted territory.

There is zero chance of an US invasion - the Americans are not stupid, why would you, to win against a smaller, weaker adversary, attack a more powerful larger adversary.

And the militants would love it, if the US invaded, it will be like Christmas, Eid and the 4th of July all rolled up into one.

Thier is a big difference between invasion and making it a colony,American's suffered in both Iraq and Afghan due to their desire to stay back their,if U.S was only interested in getting back after hitting back this wars should have been noted as American conquests in history.

Pakistan can never win against U.S in a direct military confrontation,whomever think so,think to far,the only possible scenario is a guerrilla war and that if U.S plan to stay otherwise their is no stopping U.S

P.S-Ur nukes against them r of no use

 

[Jigs]

i don't know why people are saying that invading pakistan will result in defeat for US. exactly what kind of defeat r we talking about here??

as i mentioned before if it was face to face war, Pakistan stands no chance of winning against US.

That isn't really the point. If they crippled the Pakistani Military which i am sure they can you would let loose a insurgency and terrorism far worse then what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. It would be a complete mess. There would be simply no way the U.S. could stabilize Pakistan at all and it would spill over into other parts of Pakistan too. This is not what the U.S. wants . They want Special Forces guys in FATA since the drone attacks are not enough to combat the terrorism in the area. I am guessing something similar to the early days of the Afghanistan campaign.