Pakistani Army ordered to retaliate against (US) raids

[LEGALEAGLE]

A full scale invasion and occupation of Pakistan is beyond America's capabilities.

I do agree though that a systematic campaign of bombing of Pakistan and destruction of it's facilities is completely possible unless the Pakistani army makes it clear that it will regard any such action as a declaration of war.

Pakistan has the potential to end up like Cambodia.

[oFoShOuKnO]

mekrob said

Link

Pakistan will not bite the hand that feeds it. If it wasn't for the U.S. arms sales in the 1980's, the Pakistani Army would still be using World War II tanks.

[jinnzaman]

LEGALEAGLE said

A full scale invasion and occupation of Pakistan is beyond America's capabilities.

I do agree though that a systematic campaign of bombing of Pakistan and destruction of it's facilities is completely possible unless the Pakistani army makes it clear that it will regard any such action as a declaration of war.

Pakistan has the potential to end up like Cambodia.

America wouldn't be able to do a large scale invasion of Pakistan. For one thing, that would require a strong military presence in central asian states (Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Krygistan, etc) which would be pretty difficult given the hostilities of the local population to such an action. Iran is out of the question as well, although I'm sure that India would be happy to oblige. However, the Pakistan army is more then able to deal with an Indian invasion.

What would be more likely is an attack from all sides with most of the special operations happening on the Western Afghan border given its porous nature, air attacks coming in from the Central Asian states, major troop movements from India. But a full fledged invasion would take months to prepare for and that would only be after a military confrontation was already in the way.

In terms of Pakistan, they can stir things up in Kashmir and the Pathan areas in Afghanistan, but do little much else. While they have a top notch air force that have been able to take on the Israelis, I doubt that they can take on the US air force given the technological gap.

While there may be a few Pakistani successes here and there, the armed forces would eventually lose out. I don't think the Americans have any intention of occupying the country. What's more likely is that they would destroy the main military forces and encourage factionalization, arm all the sides, and watch them destroy each other (similar to how they tried dealing with the Mujahideen after the Soviets left in Afghanistan).

The only thing that America needs to worry about is the use of nuclear weapons - but if the Pakistanis used it, they international opinion would be shifted to the side of the Americans.

The Americans have everything to gain in invading Pakistan and very little to lose.

[TrentReznor858]

A large amount of Pakistani warplanes are American F-16s.

Hmmm, an F-16 vs a F-22 Raptor? Yea, I think American would pwn them, in a relatively short amount of time.

[IbnMardhiyah]

jinnzaman said

The Americans have everything to gain in invading Pakistan and very little to lose.

I disagree.

America has a lot to lose if that area of the world became any more unstable than it already is. If they mess Pakistan up, then they directly threaten their own selves and their partners next door in Afghanistan, and India will feel the pain as well. Having trigger-happy anarchists running amok in Pakistan means unpredictability and no one to rely on to rein in such elements. Not to mention that they'll have just expanded the lawless territory for the terrorists to operate out of by tenfold.

America is already suffering from imperial overstretch as it is. They're not going to be so retarded and create more problems for themselves.

[TrentReznor858]

IbnMardhiyah said

America is already suffering from imperial overstretch as it is. They're not going to be so retarded and create more problems for themselves.

Then how do you explain their interest in war with Iran, as well as angering Russia?

[IbnMardhiyah]

TrentReznor858 said

A large amount of Pakistani warplanes are American F-16s.

Hmmm, an F-16 vs a F-22 Raptor? Yea, I think American would pwn them, in a relatively short amount of time.

No one is arguing that in a head-to-head military conflict, Pakistan would lose. But the ISI is brilliant way beyond what America would think of or plan for. If any serious military conflict happened, the ISI may likely determine that it would be in the best national interest to engineer chaos in order to create a greater mess for America to get bogged down in. When it comes to grinding, asymmetrical conflict, America will get stuck.

And then, no one gives a damn who's got the better Raptors or Abrams. All that matters is who has the stronger political willpower and resolve.

[TrentReznor858]

IbnMardhiyah said

No one is arguing that in a head-to-head military conflict, Pakistan would lose. But the ISI is brilliant way beyond what America would think of or plan for. If any serious military conflict happened, the ISI would likely determine that it would be in their best interests to engineer chaos in order to create a greater mess for America to get bogged down in. When it comes to grinding, asymmetrical conflict, America will get stuck.
.

I agree - this is why they were at such a loss in Iraq, as they are so arrogant and ignorant of local customs and politics because of their perceived superiority in firepower.

IbnMardhiyah said

And then, no one gives a damn who's got the better Raptors or Abrams. All that matters is who has the stronger political willpower and resolve.

Well, all the will power aqnd resolve in the world will not win a war for you if you have vastly inferior weapons and firepower.

[jinnzaman]

IbnMardhiyah said

I disagree.

America has a lot to lose if that area of the world became any more unstable than it already is. If they mess Pakistan up, then they directly threaten their own selves and their partners next door in Afghanistan, and India will feel the pain as well. Having trigger-happy anarchists running amok in Pakistan means unpredictability and no one to rely on to rein in such elements. Not to mention that they'll have just expanded the lawless territory for the terrorists to operate out of by tenfold.

America is already suffering from imperial overstretch as it is. They're not going to be so retarded and create more problems for themselves.

If Pakistan collapsed, I think the Indians would be the biggest beneficiary. They wouldn't have to worry about anymore invasions or state financing and training of militant groups. Cross-border terrorism will probably drop down after a few initial spikes.

What evidence do you have that America is suffering from imperial overstretch? They've met with success in Iraq and Somalia. They've patched up relations with Libya got the international community to take their side on Sudan. The only place they're having trouble is in Afghanistan and thats primarily because of the Pakistani government's not being able to take down the tribal areas. If the government is out of the way, the Americans can bomb the crap out of those areas and bring things down.

Whats likely is that there will be various Islamist and ethnic factions emerge in the event of a Pakistani defeat and arming them to the death and getting them to fight each other isn't so unpredictable. The Americans did it in Iraq against al-Qaeda, did it in Afghanistan against the Taliban, not to mention in various Latin American countries back in the day.

[TrentReznor858]

jinnzaman said

I
What evidence do you have that America is suffering from imperial overstretch? They've met with success in Iraq and Somalia. .

I wouldnt exactly call Iraq a "success"

[LEGALEAGLE]

In the event of a war Pakistan is able to create security nightmares that no 'great power' is able to cope with without losing it's position in the rankings...

Reminds me of Fanon's argument against Engels in 'Wretched of the Earth'

[Foxhole]

jinnzaman said

I7

My personal opinion is that America is intentionally trying to cause state fragmentation in Pakistan in order to clear up India's western border so that it can focus on engaging in China. The war on terror is probably nothing more than a guise for America to re-organize the world as it sees fit in order to contain Russia, China, India, and Europe.

Possibly, or we might be fighting against militant Islamists.

[jinnzaman]

TrentReznor858 said

I wouldnt exactly call Iraq a "success"

The insurgeny's pretty much dead. The country's infrastructure is functioning. It has a relatively stable government and the army and police are beginning to fill in for the Americans. I'd say its fairly successful compared to what it was before.

[jinnzaman]

Foxhole said

Possibly, or we might be fighting against militant Islamists.

But it supports two terrorist organizations, Jundullah and Mujahideen e Khalq and it armed the Awakening Council in Iraq? Also, what about the northern alliance, which was just as militant as the Taliban?

[dreamdeferred]

Foxhole said

Possibly, or we might be fighting against militant Islamists.

nah....not really.

"Militant Islamists"..though not entirely imaginary, are the new bogeyman used to sustain public incredulity to continue operations as usual. The military industrial complex, an adventure which costs taxpayers some $550+ billion dollars a year requires a state of perpetual warfare. Eisenhower's nightmare has come true.......and it's uglier than he ever imagined it could be.

The other part is exactly as Jinnz stated....containment of regional powers etc.