What's new

Pakistan president tells US to stay out

Energon,

Sir, you are mistaken---2001---2003 was the time when u s army found out that it was a failure it high altitude warfare. It was caught with its pants down at tora bora when the mighty tripped and fell on their faces---there were more news crew at tora bora than the u s milltary.

MK, this is inaccurate. In Tora Bora, as with all the operations leading to it, the US armed forces advanced rapidly with the assistance of heavy interdictions. The mistake they made was having a small number of troops and heavily relying upon local Northern Alliance Forces on the front lines who in turn facilitated the escape of many AQ commanders into west Pakistan in exchange for money. AQ and the tribal fighters were in no way able to really put up a major long lasting challenge. A large chunk of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were captured in this conflict.

If you ever get the chance, read Gary Brentsen's "Jawbreaker"; it is a very good resource on this matter.

The whole problem however is just this, that nobody other than US or close NATO ally troops can really be trusted to carry out these operations. But rest assured, the US armed forces are more than capable of carrying out devastating operations in this rugged terrain.

However even this to me will not really provide a final solution. USAF fighters and bombers will blast every human settlement in sight if need be. But these guys will just run into major Pakistani cities. So unless the PA is able to block this migration, the problem will only be transferred from west Pakistan into central and eastern portions of the nation.
 
.
Mujahideen,

Re-read my post ;). I said that folks from all over Pakistan WOULD go and fight against an invasion of the tribal areas.

I am so sorry. It happens sometimes you know but the important part is you corrected me.
 
.
the last thing the U.S needs is a war with pakistan, iran is enough trouble as it is, and should **** hit the fan, id guess that theyd be the first ones to receive a pakistani nuke.
 
.
the last thing the U.S needs is a war with pakistan, iran is enough trouble as it is, and should **** hit the fan, id guess that theyd be the first ones to receive a pakistani nuke.

Yes, if there is a new war, it would be with Iran and not Pakistan.
 
.
the last thing the U.S needs is a war with pakistan, iran is enough trouble as it is, and should **** hit the fan, id guess that theyd be the first ones to receive a pakistani nuke.

What are you talking about? Stupid generalizations!
 
.
Ever since the sacking of the Chief Justice, it has been a downslide for Musharraf's apparently unassailable position in Pakistan, be it domestically or internationally.

The position of Musharraf had become precarious with the Opposition going hammer and tongs and ganging up against him and blaming him for all the problems of Pakistan. Apparently, there were people who were listening to this accusation and possibly believing it too! This, obviously, would not bode well in the looming elections.

Internationally, his position was getting compromised with the criticism cascading by the day on his handling the internal political situation and the terrorists.

There was media speculation that the US is planning to attack Pakistan. Obama, the US Presidential contender, openly advocated the same!

There appeared a concerted effort to isolate him and denigrate his position as the President of Pakistan, both internally and internationally.

All this broke the camel's back.

Musharraf had to react the way he has reacted, to show all, more so, domestically, that he still is around and calls the shots.

His statement has gone down well with the Pakistani people; a large majority of them being averse to the collusion with the US against fellow Moslems.

Thus, Musharraf has snatched his prime position in Pakistan back from the jaws of ignominy! QED.

The election outcome of his nominees hence has become brighter than before.

The US will not barter away the pristine position it enjoys currently with Pakistan. From the US point of view, it cannot get embroiled in another large scale operation, especially whose outcome is open to question. If it fails in such an operation, it would compromise her position as the only superpower of the world. Therefore, the thought of the US attacking is far fetched and ridiculous.

However, such a thought being given credence, is ideal for the political advantage it gives both the US as also Pakistan.

The idea to attack Pakistan would serve to calm the critics back home in the US who are griping about Pakistan not doing enough against terrorism, and in Pakistan, the angry and tough reaction, would shore Musharraf against the daily upsurge of the Opposition accusations. It will also give a 'feel good' feeling to the vast majority who oppose the collusion with the US against fellow Moslems.

The coup de grace would be putting the fear of God in the terrorists operating in the border belt of Pakistan and Afghanistan. This would be ideal for both, the US and the Pakistani govts.

This anti US tirade will also allow Musharraf the moral stick to launch effective operations against the terrorists. A large majority of the Pakistani population would be assuaged that a Pakistani operation and not that of a foreign power is calling the shots and that Pakistan or Musharraf, is no longer an appendage in the Bush's GWOT and instead is on its own! The influx of Pakistani troops in this region would also give the impression that there is the necessity to have them positioned there to avert any US aggression! At the same time, such troops would sanitise the area of terrorists with repeated operations being the order of the day.

The critical point to note is that Bush, personally, has never given any indication that Musharraf is not doing his bit in the GWOT. Instead, Bush has always praised Musharraf and Pakistan even when there has been the tirade against Pakistan in the US.

This point is very critical and the woods must not be missed for the trees.

And Bush calls the shots in the US!

This new scenario would keep both the US and the Pakistani population pleased as Punch, while the govts would merrily go along with whatever they were doing.

A good move!
 
.
Energon,

My comments are not in-accurate---I have done my footwork as well---remember excuse is like an a--hole---everybody has one. The so called dependence on northern alliance was one of those. The tribals don't fight pitched battles----high altitude warfare is different than mountain climbing---it is also different than fighting a battle in iraq---america was not ready to spill the blood of its soldiers at that time---at that time arrogance of shock and awe and high tech toys was very well enforced in the mind of the american troops---go back and check the interviews of high ranking officials at that time---they didnot want to send it american troops because they didnot want casualties---also no american troops were ready to do battle at 10k ft + altitude---if you have proof---post it here.
 
.
What are you talking about? Stupid generalizations!

seems like you dont want to understand anything I say. let me explain my point a little more clearly thus making it easier for you to comprehend.

-U.S does not need a war with pakistan, heres why.
they have a lot of resources tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan incase you haven't noticed, pakistan is no small country, its pretty well armed and has a huge population. going to war against such a nation given the present scenario would be a disaster. even if the united states does cripple/destroy the military, regime change will be impossible if there is anything to be learned from iraq.
the current war in afghanistan and iraq (especially) hasn't gone down well with the general population here in the United states, convincing the populace for another war against a nuclear armed nation will be impossible. just look at all the propaganda they have working against iran.

-should **** hit the fan.........
say they do attack pakistan, if that doesn't constitute **** hitting the fan i dont know what does. a country with a bad rep. of proliferating nuclear technology is fighting a full blown shooting war against the people who got them to stop selling their nuclear secrets. you guys already have the network in place, next thing you know everyone from palestine to north korea will be test firing baburs. suicide bombers will be taking out thousands. and after all pakistan trained the mujhahideen, kashmir has given the PA ample opportunity to hone their guerrilla warfare skills.

webmaster, i dont spend my entire day on this site and others reading about geo-politics and warfare, however, i still have a pretty decent comprehension of the world around me. now given your tremendous 'rep power' id like to see you counter my argument, come now you didnt spend the last two years earning 21000+ 'rep. points' for nothing. for your sake sir, i do hope you are retired/in the military/or some political activist.
 
.
.
However even this to me will not really provide a final solution. USAF fighters and bombers will blast every human settlement in sight if need be. But these guys will just run into major Pakistani cities. So unless the PA is able to block this migration, the problem will only be transferred from west Pakistan into central and eastern portions of the nation.

And the part in bold is what this essentially boils down to, and was the conclusion others and myself came to when discussing a potential NATO presence in FATA. Lets assume for a moment that NATO can put together the required number of troops and make up the remainder with well trained Afghan troops, they already have the air power - as soon as they expand into FATA, all of Pakistan becomes a shelter for the militants, as well as a never ending supply of them. The only option at that point will be to go to war with Pakistan, defeat its military (if the Nuke threat can be overcome) and then proceed to try and replicate change ala Iraq - except that there will be no reviled figure like Saddam to concentrate support for an occupation around (Musharraf's unpopularity stems from his perceived association with the West and specifically the US, who will be the occupier). What a field day the fundamentalists will have with this scenario!

But back to reality, NATO does not have the manpower to bring about any effective change in Afghanistan at this point in time either. They are undermanned militarily, and their development program seems to be going nowhere (judging by the reports in the WaPO and NYT, and other papers a few months ago). Almost half the Pashtun population trusts the Taliban over the US (according to the last poll I saw, also a few months ago).

2000 Taliban were able to occupy Musa Qala, only about 200 killed last I heard. And they repeatedly keep occupying areas after NATO leaves. I don't see NATO even in control of its own part of the conflict, let alone taking on FATA. Their problem is not just the movement of people into FATA, a major part of their problem is the fact that they have not been able to win over such a large number of Pashtun "hearts and minds". That is the predicament Pakistan does not want to find itself in, because we have no huge resources to spend in a war spanning decades. If the situation is bad now with only the Taliban being fought, it could be a lot worse if the PA presence is perceived an occupation by all the Tribals, and becomes a "Pashtun cause".

As others have often said, Pakistan does not have the luxury of being half a world away while fighting this war - we do not have the luxury of destroying a country, its infrastructure, economy, institutions and spirit, before rebuilding it and claiming success when that change occurs. When you are at the bottom of a pit, there is no place to go but up, and that is essentially the "success" being touted by the US in Iraq right now.
 
. . .
Hi,

Americans are so ignorant about the topography of our northern areas---part of it is our problem as well for not showing documentaries about the inaccessability of that area.

So the american troops take on one valley, then what about the next wadi, how about the wadi after that and the next and the next---what about the 100 that they could not get into---where is the supply line---how about food and bullets for the troops---most of the helicopters cannot fly to that altitude---what about heavy weapons---can they win without heavy weapons---who is going to carry their heavy weapons---where are the american troops going to hide at night time---where would they go to take a break from constant combat---what about the dead and the injured---the standard 80 lbs carry on kit has already been reduced to 20 lbs maybe less. 10 to 15 thousand feet altitude---you have difficult time carrying yourself forget about carrying extra load---THE ONUS FALLS ON PAKISTAN to tell the americans evertime they talk to them about the mission impossible stuation----

To the question what does Mushy have to stop u s from attacking-----just the wild ride of price of oil from $250 to $500 a barrell. The attack gets into unpredictable response area---unpredictable response from a nuclear power would create a lots of chaos---chaos leads to instability---not only in pakistan but the rest of the world as well---at $250 a barrell, most of the 3rd world countries would be totally bankrupt---the wonderful economies of the 1st world countries would hit a brick wall---there will be reccession all over the world---pragmatic leaders don't like to get into the unknown unkowns.
 
.
There is a reason why Pakistan is not allowing Americans in. It's not just the question of sovereignty. It's the method America is going to employ. It will start bombing from the air and basically blast away, one village after the other.

It won't send a single soldier on foot till a full fledged tribal genocide is not complete. Basically in their minds they are already convinced that the only solution to this is to kill everyone out there. Well it IS a solution, it would end the AQ problem but of course it's unacceptable to us and they just don't see it that way.

It's a globally accepted observation that Americans don't mind "wasting" other people's lives as long as it protects American lives. So what really is a Pakistani genocide for America to prevent a possible, hypothetical 9/11 like attack on them?

They would go trigger happy in a blink of a second once we allow them anything like that.
 
.
Energon,

My comments are not in-accurate---I have done my footwork as well---remember excuse is like an a--hole---everybody has one. The so called dependence on northern alliance was one of those. The tribals don't fight pitched battles----high altitude warfare is different than mountain climbing---it is also different than fighting a battle in iraq---america was not ready to spill the blood of its soldiers at that time---at that time arrogance of shock and awe and high tech toys was very well enforced in the mind of the american troops---go back and check the interviews of high ranking officials at that time---they didnot want to send it american troops because they didnot want casualties---also no american troops were ready to do battle at 10k ft + altitude---if you have proof---post it here.

Mastan,


What you have written makes sense.

The only disconnect, I am still to know as to why, the US and others have undertaken High Altitude exercises in Ladhak, including HAHO as per the news reports.
 
.
Hi,

Americans are so ignorant about the topography of our northern areas---part of it is our problem as well for not showing documentaries about the inaccessability of that area.

So the american troops take on one valley, then what about the next wadi, how about the wadi after that and the next and the next---what about the 100 that they could not get into---where is the supply line---how about food and bullets for the troops---most of the helicopters cannot fly to that altitude---what about heavy weapons---can they win without heavy weapons---who is going to carry their heavy weapons---where are the american troops going to hide at night time---where would they go to take a break from constant combat---what about the dead and the injured---the standard 80 lbs carry on kit has already been reduced to 20 lbs maybe less. 10 to 15 thousand feet altitude---you have difficult time carrying yourself forget about carrying extra load---THE ONUS FALLS ON PAKISTAN to tell the americans evertime they talk to them about the mission impossible stuation----

To the question what does Mushy have to stop u s from attacking-----just the wild ride of price of oil from $250 to $500 a barrell. The attack gets into unpredictable response area---unpredictable response from a nuclear power would create a lots of chaos---chaos leads to instability---not only in pakistan but the rest of the world as well---at $250 a barrell, most of the 3rd world countries would be totally bankrupt---the wonderful economies of the 1st world countries would hit a brick wall---there will be reccession all over the world---pragmatic leaders don't like to get into the unknown unkowns.

Do be kind to explain it to Icecold in the thread where he claims that India want the US to attack Pakistan!!

And he believes that it is as smooth an operation as pinching a baby's bottom!
 
.
Back
Top Bottom