I don't think so, considering Al-Qaeda terrorism has increased,
Media speculation. Not concrete evidence.
& the US was driven out of the country & has virtually no military presence there today.
Another baseless assumption from you. US forces were not driven out of the country but were pulled out because their was no need to continue the occupation.
And the Maliki regime is not a friendly regime, it is in the cahoots with Iran, they are considered Iranian proxies.
Maliki regime is not a threat to US interests in the region. And it is good that Maliki is seeking to amend its ties with Iran. This does not proves that he is an Iranian stooge.
They use pretty much the same techniques in rougher terrains as well. And if they use explosives, IEDs; they are still challenging their enemies, & still resisting them. So your argument is moot.
This kind of resistance accomplishes nothing and neither it damages US military much. US forces will leave Afghanistan at the time of choosing by US administration in the end. They will not be driven out by Taliban.
Who has hyped Taliban's inadequacy?
Check the history of debates in this forum. Where have you been all this time?
They are pretty adequate, because even with a low % of Afghans actively participating in the insurgency, they still have a good amount of indirect support from many of their fellow countrymen.
It is not adequate. Resistance can only be adequate if it accomplishes its objectives. Taliban cannot defeat US military and force it out of Afghanistan. And under US umbrella, Taliban cannot defeat Karzai regime and ANA either. Do the math now.
When the Pakistani people feel they have nothing to lose, they will fight. Look at the aftermath of the Salala checkpost incident a few months ago, most Pakistanis were out on the streets ready to fight.
I did not see such a thing in Lahore where over 10 million people live.
Most of the Afghan people were never ready to fight in the aftermath of the 9/11 incident.
Yes. And when the bombing started, most crawled back in to their homes.
You seem to be assuming that anti-state elements only exist in Pakistan. And the rest of your post is clearly hypothetical with no substance in it. All over the place.
I never stated that anti-state elements only exist in Pakistan. My point is that they do exist in Pakistan and it is intended to counter this comment of yours;
There are no divided opinions in Pakistan about the US
Now here is another thing; many rich people in Pakistan have dual nationality as well. Can you expect this segment to pick up arms? Unlikely.
And if you assume that people living in urban regions are not materialistic then you need to see a Psychologist. I see lot of materialistic people in Lahore and Karachi.
Most idiotic question yet from you. US military is second largest in the world.
Who will accommodate them? If they want to start a full, direct war with Pakistan; who will accommodate them & their supply routes/bases? Afghanistan is a landlocked country, India with its rising Islamic extremism/militancy all over the country, as well as Pakistan's nukes would not indulge in such foolhardy activities. Russia will not let arms be passed through its territory to be used against Pakistan, & will not support an invasion of Pakistan; just like it vetoed an invasion of Syria.
US can come through Arabian Sea. God! Common sense is not very common indeed!
And of course! I expect no invasion to occur in the first place because of some reasons that I have already mentioned. We are discussing a 'hypothetical scenario' here.
You are correct but you are discounting the deterrence effect of pakistan's nukes. Pakistan can and do quite a lot of damage to US interests so unless it is very desperate, it will not go for a direct military confrontation with pakistan.
Now should I remind you that how big of a nuclear power USA is in comparison? And unfortunately for Pakistan, it cannot damage US interests without targeting other Islamic nations, which is a big dilemma for military planners.
Have the USA ever taken on an army our size? Due to our beloved neighbours one thing Pakistan has got is an adequate military machine. The resources that the USA would need to pump would match no other investment they have ever made in ANY war.
Remember Persian Gulf War 1991? Why do people not look back at history?
And World War II was the most expensive war for USA. And it was conflict of gigantic proportions. Pakistan is just a single country.
Clearly the recent financial activity that has blessed their economy hasnt registered on you.
It has actually. And regardless of any economic setbacks, US has been able to fight 3 major wars in WOT till date. Doesn't this give you any hint?
They really are on the brink - 1 out of 6 are on food stamps and over 20% are unemployed - do they really want to start another war?
This is speculation. Unemployment rate is at 8%.
Also, check this:
http://www.brecorder.com/world/glob...-job-creation-heralds-stronger-recovery-.html
I am certainly not underestimating or under the impression their military might may be but at the same time give us some credit.
You are severly underestimating US military capability. We get a very skewed picture of US military prowess on media sources. And I greatly admire Pakistani accomplishments. However, I am not blind to 'ground realities' around me.
Our forces would be something they havent encountered before and the losses would dwarf anything they have ever seen before. I dont think the average joe american would be able to take that on the chin....
Military capability wise, their is no comparison between US and Pakistan. Even intelligence officials share this view. Even China is decade behind US military might in capabilities.
