Obama might send troops into Pakistan

[Neo]

Thursday, August 02, 2007

US won’t go into Pakistan after Al Qaeda: Cheney​

* US vice president says Pakistan is a sovereign state, has reason to go after Qaeda
* White House reiterates support to Musharraf government


WASHINGTON: US Vice President Dick Cheney has discounted the possibility of American forces going into Pakistan to hunt Al Qaeda even as they work closely with Islamabad.

“Well, we work closely with President Pervez Musharraf and his government in Pakistan. We’ve captured and killed a lot of Al Qaeda in Pakistan. But it’s obviously a sovereign state. They’ve got reason to go after Al Qaeda,” he said in an interview on Tuesday with CNN’s Larry King.

In response to a question if Pakistan had asked the US to come in, Cheney said, “Well, I don’t expect that to happen. I think the relationship we have at present is a good one. We have been able to collaborate closely together on a wide range of operations. And I think we’ll be able to continue doing that.”

In recent testimony before the US Congress, defence and intelligence officials have conceded that tribal areas in the North Waziristan area of Pakistan had become a “safe haven” for the terrorist organisation with a peace deal signed by Musharraf with tribesmen last year not working.

Meanwhile, at his regular media briefing White House spokesman Tony Snow reiterated Washington’s support to the government of Pakistan. “What we have seen is that there has been a real commitment, especially going into the tribal areas and trying to take care of the trouble spots – Al Qaeda and Taliban – and to go after them.

“And that is something that is absolutely critical and we’ll continue to support them in doing it,” he said.

Asked about the US still getting no access to Dr AQ Khan, Snow said he could not say what’s going on with the AQ Khan network, but “it is important that he has been apprehended”. online

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\08\02\story_2-8-2007_pg1_1

 

[roadrunner]

First of all i said that the US will NOT invade Pakistan on the ground. They do not have any political capitol or manpower left for it. But it seems there is a certain underestimation of the American juggernaut here, and a grand fantasy of owns strength. I will not even try to reason or argue on this. Make no mistake, if the US decides to go into Pakistan, it will wipe the floor clean. PA or no PA. There has never been a war machine so overwhelmingly powerful in the history of the human race like the present day US army. The best Pakistan can do is stage an Iraq style insurgency, or pre-emptive nukes [but thats suicide]. So with that cleared out, we can move on.

Now occupying Pakistan is not something even they can do, or want to do.

If the US goes into Pakistan on the ground it will not wipe the floor clean. It's not possible to invade a country of 160 million people with a government that has access to the sorts of technology Pakistan has. They can flatten the place, undoubtedly, but they can't go in on the ground.

 

[blitz]

A little brain storming exercise for you roadrunner.

Operation Desert Storm: start by comparing the 1991 Iraqi Army with present day Pakistani army. Then compare the 1991 USAF and US army with present day USAF and US army. And finally look at the results of that campaign.

You will get your answers.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

First of all i said that the US will NOT invade Pakistan on the ground. They do not have any political capitol or manpower left for it. But it seems there is a certain underestimation of the American juggernaut here, and a grand fantasy of owns strength. I will not even try to reason or argue on this. Make no mistake, if the US decides to go into Pakistan, it will wipe the floor clean. PA or no PA. There has never been a war machine so overwhelmingly powerful in the history of the human race like the present day US army. The best Pakistan can do is stage an Iraq style insurgency, or pre-emptive nukes [but thats suicide]. So with that cleared out, we can move on.

I don't think most Pakistanis are underestimating U.S military power. The points they are raising are that in the event of an invasion, forget an occupation (In such a case U.S forces will leave Pakistan much like the Russians did from Afghanistan; broken and tattered), the U.S will create a monster that will dwarf any other.

You are reducing the discussion to a purely military one, and a purely "air campaign" based one, because as soon as U.S troops set foot on Pakistani soil, it is an occupation. And even if the U.S were to take out all the mechanized assets we have from the air, they will be fought tooth and nail in the deserts, waterways and mountains, and forests. And then they will face the ensuing insurgency. The ONLY military victory they can accomplish is one through the air. Set foot on Pakistani soil, and the "mission accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier will actually have seemed appropriate, compared to the nightmare they will find in Pakistan.

 

[blain2]

A little brain storming exercise for you roadrunner.

Operation Desert Storm: start by comparing the 1991 Iraqi Army with present day Pakistani army. Then compare the 1991 USAF and US army with present day USAF and US army. And finally look at the results of that campaign.

You will get your answers.

Pakistan unlike Iraq is not a vast open space. There is some very difficult terrain. Secondly, the results of GWI/II are not lost on the Pakistan Army. If things are tough for the US in Baghdad, then Karachi and Lahore would make Baghdad look like a joke.

May want to focus in on Ralph Peter's comments in the earlier post. There is only so much that you can do from the air. This is something that both NATO, USAF and even IDFAF (after their failed shock an awe campaign in Lebanon) have learned.

Without boots on the ground, US cannot accomplish what it perceives to fix. With any direct US intervention, the vast silent majority of the Pakistani population will switch sides in a hearbeat.

 

[blitz]

Ofcourse the US cannot occupy Pakistan. The massive insurgency would wreak havoc. Iraq would look like a picnic. I know that.

 

[Ababeel]

That is the point I raised in one of my post.
Scraped the bottom of barrel possibly is the phrase I used.

Cost is no concern to the US. They are selling hi tech weapons and aircraft to KSA, Israel and Egypt.

We are all paying for them to wage war wherever they like!

There problem is that they don't have soldiers and most of them don't enjoy the soldiering they are doing. They like it only when they win! Practical chaps?

They are not practical chaps but stupid most of the time in their adventures in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korean Peninsula etc.

 

[roadrunner]

A little brain storming exercise for you roadrunner.

Operation Desert Storm: start by comparing the 1991 Iraqi Army with present day Pakistani army. Then compare the 1991 USAF and US army with present day USAF and US army. And finally look at the results of that campaign.

You will get your answers.

It's a joke isn't it? Forget about USAirForce. Iraqi Army had nothing like the technology Pakistan has right now. I'm not talking about the big things you can take out by air, it's the little things that count, the hand held missile launchers and so on. The Iraqi Army had nothing like what Pakistan has in its arsenal, and Iraq is also one eighth the size of Pakistan (population). It is predominantly desert, the trouble lies in urban warfare. Pakistan is not just simply open desert (exception Balochistan), the terrain in the North, the West cannot be taken without absorbing huge casualties. If this situation arose, PA would arm the people in the mountains with much better technology than RPG's and Kalashnikovs (which are proving to be difficult to beat even in Afghanistan). The technology the US has on the ground and with small weapons, can be matched by Pakistan (an indigenous producer). The US has a major advantage only in combat craft and surveillance (though I'm not sure whether Pakistan would have satellite surveillance..China would provide in this event anyhow). An invasion on the ground is impossible.

 

[Keysersoze]

A little brain storming exercise for you roadrunner.

Operation Desert Storm: start by comparing the 1991 Iraqi Army with present day Pakistani army. Then compare the 1991 USAF and US army with present day USAF and US army. And finally look at the results of that campaign.

You will get your answers.

Little more brain storming for you.......now look at the terrain around Iraq and Kuwait and look at how they attacked....look at how long they had to prepare and Iraqi readiness and equipment and training in fact scrub the whole comparison..........The Iraqi army was at best mediocre. Their airforce was a joke.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ofcourse the US cannot occupy Pakistan. The massive insurgency would wreak havoc. Iraq would look like a picnic. I know that.

Then whats the point? I think you need to define U.S objectives in the region before you start your "brain storming" sessions. Do they want another Iraq? Do they want another Afghanistan? Because those are the sorts of scenarios that will occur if the U.S destabilizes Pakistan. So if instability in Pakistan is completely counter to their objectives, the scenario you played out, realistically no chance of occurring.

 

[IceCold]

Ground invasion seems impossible but in a scenario like this pakistan will loose so much that we wouldnt be getting up again for a long long time, and if us somehow US manages to destroy our nuclear asserts, then the remaining of our life we will have to live on the mercy of India.
I dnt believe US will ever put ground troops on pakistani soil, they'll use the fire power and let india do the rest means ground invasion.

 

[blitz]

Then whats the point? I think you need to define U.S objectives in the region before you start your "brain storming" sessions. Do they want another Iraq? Do they want another Afghanistan? Because those are the sorts of scenarios that will occur if the U.S destabilizes Pakistan. So if instability in Pakistan is completely counter to their objectives, the scenario you played out, realistically no chance of occurring.

Pakistan would become Iraq^10 if the US destabilizes it, and stays put. But what if they destabilize it, and then leave ? Pakistan would agains remain Iraq^10 except only no more NATO troops to shoot at. So they will shoot each other.

 

[blain2]

Little more brain storming for you.......now look at the terrain around Iraq and Kuwait and look at how they attacked....look at how long they had to prepare and Iraqi readiness and equipment and training in fact scrub the whole comparison..........The Iraqi army was at best mediocre. Their airforce was a joke.

Well Key I think the PAF would be hurting real bad in the face of a USAF led air campaign, however Pakistan's trump card would be the boots on the ground. The Army knows very well that it would be suicidal to face the US air campaign, so they will disperse into the population (very much like what Iraqi RG and regular Army cadres have done) and will use their training to train others and wage a long un-ending campaign resulting in massive US casualties and non-achievement of goals (at a very high cost of Pakistani lives, massive instability in all of the surrounding regions including India, Afghanistan, Iran and more threats of attack on the US soil if this idiot obama were to lead the US foreign policy along these lines).

Net loser = US.

 

[Adux]

Ground Invasion wont be there!!!!!
But why, When everything is just a phone call away, US sees it nothing less than its 51st state

 

[Keysersoze]

Pakistan would become Iraq^10 if the US destabilizes it, and stays put. But what if they destabilize it, and then leave ? Pakistan would against remain Iraq^10 except only no more NATO troops to shoot at. So they will shoot each other.

So they would destablise a nuclear power? take a chance that Nuke warheads might full into the hands of Osama or one his successors? Old Barrack might talk tough before a election but when the generals sit down with him and explain maybe he'd realise the foolishness of his claims and back away from it. bear in mind he would be in a position to make good on his threat for a least 2 years anyway.