Is The U.S. Going to Occupy Pakistan?

[Abu Zolfiqar]

by the way -- the US doesnt need to ''occupy'' Pakistan

actually, we are occupied by corrupt --inept --criminally-incompetent rotten political system......so if Pakistani want true change, it must come from within

 

[DARKY]

Hopefully the gun culture will still be thriving in Pakistan for another hundred years. So Pakistanis can fight the occupiers with weapons and not just stones like Palestinians and Kashmiris do.

The bullets won't price their Bullet proof jackets........guns would be out ranged by their superior weapons......the rifles would be ineffective against gunships/tanks/APVs......they'll shoot you before even see them........power and arms wont win you a war against a far superior enemy........people tried and failed.......but the courage and stubbornness to fight them will.......without any weapon.....win you the war !!
I would've liked to mention a line quoted by a very famous urdu poet for Indian revolutionaries......but I don't want to offend any one.

 

[LeGenD]

if ''occupý'' means boots on the ground -- then the answer is no. Pakistan's population is more than the combined populations of both Iraq & Afghanistan. The people of even the rural areas in the north were always known for their resistance to occupiers (e.g. Britishers) --but even in urban areas there are armed people who wouldnt tolerate occupation

People are armed in every society. Afghani resistance is specially renowned in the world.

Iraqi resistance during OIF also has been legendary. Entire cities were turned in to battle-fortresses during peak times of resistance.

However, civilian resistane is effective to a certain limit. A highly trained and professional army can overcome civilian resistance.

Pakistani society has significantly less exposure to occupational war in comparison to Afghani and Iraqi societies. While, our Tribes typically have some fighting experience, the populations in other regions are rather inexperienced. TTP easily managed to subdue the so-called brave civilians in many regions of Pakistan unless it was stopped by the Pakistan army.

Also, US power projection capabilities extend far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

US is (logically) occupying several other states: Germany, Japan, and South Korea are prime examples. While these states now have a free representation, they are still under military check from US.

~116,000 US troops are stationed in Europe.
~35,000 US troops are stationed in Japan.
~28,000 US troops are stationed in South Korea.

In addition to these occupations, US has demonstrated the capability to independently perform military operations against Libya and Yemen.

Just imagine the scope and complexity of all this power projection. If all of this is channelled towards a single state; one can only imagine the possibilities.

Occupation of a country the size of India is also possible with such power projection.

Now for jokes:

Their is one aspect which we can utilize to defeat the US. Our exceptional begging pressure. Their is no chance in hell that any nation can afford to feed 180 million hungry people. The occupation will end in a matter of months.

if occupation means leverage -- then to some extent -- possibly. It goes down to the people Pakistani elect to be their leaders. If they choose weak ducklings, then yes it's possible. If they elect honest, disciplined and non-corrupt people --then NO its not possible.

Pakistani leadership cannot do much as long as this nation is dependent on US assistance in various sectors. No matter whom you would like to seat in power, sooner or later that person will be forced to bow towards the pressures of dependency.

This is why you see that many faces have come to power in Pakistan but all of them could not stand against US pressure.

US has an interest to maintain some presence in the general region. However i dont see them or any other countries willing or able to occupy Pakistan.

It depends upon geo-political situation.

After 9/11, US was ready to hit Pakistan hard. However, thanks to Musharraf's grasp of ground realities, he changed the circumstances from being hostile to Pakistan to favorable for Pakistan.

You must admit; he has decent foreign policy management abilities.

they sure werent able to do it for too long in other war-zones --whether it was Vietnam or Afghanistan.

We should forget Vietnam. US military power projection capabilities are significantly better then they were during times of war against Vietnam.

Also, both these countries have geography highly suitable for resistance movements.

the US would be best served by treating Pakistan like a partner or ''ally'' and both sides working to benefit from eachother...rather than pretending to be allies but having mutuallly shared miscomprehension and mistrust of eachother behind closed doors.

otherwise it becomes a toxic relationship; and lately it seems that is direction in which the 2 are headed....when relations become toxic, it is difficult to get out from that trend and it only worsens --like what happened with Iran.

Agreed here. It is in the best interest for both nations to maintain friendly relationship with each other.

 

[Arunpillai]

If America wants to conquer Pakistan, all it has to do is take out its nukes. India will take care of the rest

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

If America wants to conquer Pakistan, all it has to do is take out its nukes

and its so easy to do that?

India will take care of the rest

put your rupees where your mouth is kiddo....the empty talk gets so boring after a while. We've heard these lines over and over again.


cold start anybody? Or cold curry.

 

[LeGenD]

If America wants to conquer Pakistan, all it has to do is take out its nukes. India will take care of the rest

And you think that this is so easy?

Here is the reality: India cannot defeat Pakistan without direct assistance from US. Pakistan is not like Bangladesh in terms of military capabilities. And your top brass knows this very well. And I doubt that this development will go unnoticed by China.

Though I would admit that India-US alliance would be a strategic nightmare for Pakistan, if Pakistan and US ties sink.

 

[AmberDutt]

cold start anybody? Or cold curry.

I'd rather have a cold BENGALI Rassogolla

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I'd rather have a cold BENGALI Rassogolla

according to Wikipedia, it's a dairy-based favourite, a serving (10g) of which contains ''186 calories, out of which about 153 calories are in the form of carbohydrates. It also contains about 1.85 grams of fat and 4 grams of protein''

sounds like you could definitely use some! Perhaps a nice long rest as well!

 

[Arunpillai]

and its so easy to do that?

why not.. Surgical strikes with correct intel could easily take out the nukes

put your rupees where your mouth is kiddo....the empty talk gets so boring after a while. We've heard these lines over and over again.


cold start anybody? Or cold curry.

man, after 3 wars and a bloody partition your confidence is amazing..
and some people seems to have put their whole hopes in china intervening.. :d

 

[DelhiDareDevil]

Doubt it as China said a attack on Pakistan is an attack on China.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

why not.. Surgical strikes with correct intel could easily take out the nukes

yeah you're right....we have these big bunkers at ground level, in clear sight, with a big red-X on them labelled ''Pakistan nukes''



why talk about intel? Where was actionable intel on 26/11?

man, after 3 wars and a bloody partition your confidence is amazing..
and some people seems to have put their whole hopes in china intervening.. :d

exactly....3 wars of good battle experience, now more self-reliance, nuclear capability and no stress of having to defend an eastern wing which from the very beginning was a seperate nation.

we are no superpower....we are a nation with people whose aspirations and capabilities exist but are not 100% realized....but when it comes to war against india --people do become confident and all political and ideological differences get tossed aside.

what's the crime in recognizing the enemy and being fearless of fighting them (in the event of war, of course)


it isnt even about confidence -- but rather the stupidity of ''the other side'' when they talk PUBLICLY about ''cold starts'' ---only to be countered and made to look like fools subsequently (by a smaller country, at that!)

2002 seems to come to mind again and again

 

[LeGenD]

why not.. Surgical strikes with correct intel could easily take out the nukes

Sir, it would be a very complex operation. A decent Intel setup on the ground would be also required. The US likely possesses the capability to perform this operation but it will not do so unless geo-political scenario is favorable for such an action which I find highly unlikely.

Terrorist activity (of significant scale) may provide the excuse but I believe that Pakistani military establishment has implemented excellent security measures to protect our nuclear assets and terrorists will not find any opening to exploit. They have not at least up till now.

It is apparent that CIA has attempted to establish a strong foothold in Pakistan during the course of WOT. It has managed to significantly reduce its dependency on ISI for Intel gathering, which is certainly a commendable and eye-opening feat. However, this is an alarming development for us and ISI is not sleeping. It is trying to ensure that this setup does not expands by putting pressure on US military establishment and Pakistani leadership and CIA is already feeling the heat.

man, after 3 wars and a bloody partition your confidence is amazing..
and some people seems to have put their whole hopes in china intervening.. :d

Pakistan has experience of fighting wars with India. We certainly performed bad during 1971 but we did fine in other military engagements.

Though I admit that India is currently stronger than Pakistan but not by a big gap. India cannot project power on the scale of USA. It has long way to go.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Pakistan Armed forces are primarily a defensive force. As long as the countries borders are defended, then they have suceeded. There are threads upon threads on the subject; a far larger indian air force failed to achieve any gains in ALL wars (71 included) --due to the PAF.

these wars consisted of different battles; some which we won, some which we lost...there were brave men who laid down their lives for Pakistan and their sacrifices are never forgotten


to get back on subject -- there are at times a war of words; e.g. Admiral Mullens assertion that Official elements in Pakistan were responsible for journalist Shezads death (and things like that).....the confrontation course may grow or it may wane. We'll have to wait and see.

I don't think the countries of any of these NATO countries have the willpower to open any major front against a country like Pakistan....war/occupation of Pakistan would have severe ramifications, even being a lesser developed country with smaller budgets for armed forces.

and in fact, such a thing would create even more terrorism in the world and be counter-productive.....


as i said earlier -- they can have leverage over people in Pakistan (people like Zardari) -- but physical occupation of Pakistan I dont think it would ever be possible.

 

[VCheng]

Pakistan Armed forces are primarily a defensive force. As long as the countries borders are defended, then they have suceeded. There are threads upon threads on the subject; a far larger indian air force failed to achieve any gains in ALL wars (71 included) --due to the PAF.

these wars consisted of different battles; some which we won, some which we lost...there were brave men who laid down their lives for Pakistan and their sacrifices are never forgotten


to get back on subject -- there are at times a war of words; e.g. Admiral Mullens assertion that Official elements in Pakistan were responsible for journalist Shezads death (and things like that).....the confrontation course may grow or it may wane. We'll have to wait and see.

I don't think the countries of any of these NATO countries have the willpower to open any major front against a country like Pakistan....war/occupation of Pakistan would have severe ramifications, even being a lesser developed country with smaller budgets for armed forces.

and in fact, such a thing would create even more terrorism in the world and be counter-productive.....


as i said earlier -- they can have leverage over people in Pakistan (people like Zardari) -- but physical occupation of Pakistan I dont think it would ever be possible.

AZ: Why fight militarily when goals can be achieved by economic strangulation and downfall? Therein lies the biggest weakness.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

AZ: Why fight militarily when goals can be achieved by economic strangulation and downfall? Therein lies the biggest weakness.

that's very true....well why do you think even common-man Pakistanis are against so-called aid (read bribes) to Pakistan (government) ?

''aid'' which has had little visible benefit to the PEOPLE of Pakistan? ''Aid'' which isnt even required by a country that survived (albeit with challenges) during a period (a decade) of economic sanctions --imposed by the very same nation's government we are talking about here.

the ''aid'' itself acts as some sort of leverage.....something we should do away with. Ultimately it is Pakistani peoples' obligations to pay their dues (taxes) and it is the governments job to ensure that the funds are collected & expended appropriately

trade is one thing...''aid'' (bribes) is another. Pakistani mangos will make their way to American market. I'm sure American people will enjoy our mangos. I'm sure the Pakistani farmer who grows these mangos and the land-owners for whom they work will benefit. Americans will benefit. That is called good business.

bribing politicians using American tax-payer money is not ''business'' and in fact has been most counter-productive.

accepting the ''aid'' (bribes) is unpatriotic and in fact has been most counter-productive