Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
India Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?
Roman    2/14/2004 2:27:05 PM
First of all, I should mention that I am not advocating that kind of invasion at all. In fact, I think it would be a horribly bad idea. I am asking because someone on another forum suggested it and I would simply like to clear up whether the U.S. even has the capability to do it. I do not think United States of America does have the capability. Here is my response on that forum: invading Pakistan would be an exceptionally bad move. First of all, Pakistan has nukes which it might well use to defend itself - although the U.S. would undoubtedly try to destroy them (as well as any nuclear facilities) with surprise air strikes in the initial stages of the war. Second, the U.S. would loose Pakistan's cooperation in the War on Terror thus enabling terrorists to regroup. Third, the U.S. does not have the capability to invade Pakistan. The U.S. military is already somewhat strained in Iraq (although troops are ready for another major theatre war in Korea...) so getting enough troops to invade and occupy Pakistan would be impossible. Even assuming the U.S. successfully took care of Pakistan's nukes and other WMD early on, Pakistani conventional military is vastly more powerful than the Iraqi one. On top of that, imagine the guerrilla war that would ensue... Pakistan has 150 million people the vast majority of whom are Sunni and hate the U.S. Compare that to Iraq's 25 million people of which only 20% (5 million) are Sunis that do the fighting. The word 'impossible' to occupy springs to mind... in fact, it would be impossible even if the U.S. did not have 25% of its army entangled in Iraq and did not have to stand by for another major theatre war. In any case, how would even the invasion (not to mention the occupation) of Pakistan proceed? No neighbouring country except perhaps Afghanistan would allow the U.S. to station troops on its soil for the purposes of the invasion - not even India. The U.S. would have to airlift everything to Afghanistan - but how without being allowed to use surrounding airspace? No, an invasion from Afghanistan could at best be an auxiliary, diversionary thrust - the main force would have to come from the sea, as would the majority of aircraft. It would then have to move 2,000 kilometers north through Pakistan to get to Islamabad - the capital. On top of that, large parts of Pakistan are very difficult terrain for armour and mechanized infantry to move through... Again, the word 'impossible' manifests itself prominently in my mind. Basically, the U.S. does not have the capability to even invade, not to mention occupy, Pakistan.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
bestdefence    Yes. US can invade and hold Pakistan   3/4/2004 7:18:43 AM
Hi Roman, I have detailed the reasons in my earlier posting how US can invade and hold Pakistan. It seems you have your conclusion that US can invade and win and hold only countries which are replica of Iraq in ethnic/geopolitical/economical configurations. That is completely false. Read my ealier posting one more time. I have negated all your statements there.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Yes. US can invade and hold Pakistan   3/4/2004 1:31:34 PM
Best defence, I agree that the US can invade and hold Pakistan with Indian help, which is what your post says. I do not agree that it could do so alone - the resons for that have been stated before (much larger (690,000 men if I remember correctly) and better army than Iraq's, several orders of magnitude bigger population, 25-100 (deliverable?) nuclear warheads and so on. The US simply does not have enough troops to invade and occupy Pakistan (especially the latter). Remember that there are 100,000 troops still needed to occupy Iraq - that is perhaps 3 or 4 divisions out of the total of 10 US divisions. These troops will stay in Iraq for a long time to come. So what forces could the US use to occupy the vastly larger Pakistan on its own? Even if the US did not have any troops in Iraq, it would not be possible for America alone to hold Pakistan.
 
Quote    Reply

celebrim    RE:Yes. US can invade and hold Pakistan   3/4/2004 2:28:34 PM
"It seems you have your conclusion that US can invade and win and hold only countries which are replica of Iraq in ethnic/geopolitical/economical configurations. That is completely false." Yes it is, but it is also not my conclusion. "Read my ealier [sic] posting one more time. I have negated all your statements there." You have? Well, if you really insist on me commenting on your post, here goes... "It took 12 days for India to force a surrender of 90,000 pakistani army men just 23 years ago." Yes? Your point is? If Pakistan is such a push over, and India is so anxious to hold it, why didn't they do so 23 years ago? And 23 years is actually a fairly long time at that. "Indians still think that Pakistan-Bangladesh-India is one country and they can rule the united part very well." That's a very broad statement. Do all Indians regard Pakistan as part of India? It hardly matters, because I can assure you that Pakistanis do not regard Pakistan as part of India. In the last few decades, Pakistani's have created a strong national identity. If you need evidence of this you only have to watch a cricket match between India and Pakistan with a few Pakistani's. After discussing India's religious tolerance for some time, you launch this statement: "Therefore it is purely an imaginary problem that Americans can not occupy Pakistan." The one does not follow from the other. India could be the most religious tolerent nation in the world and it wouldn't have a thing to do with America's ability to invade or occupy Pakistan, and would only have a slight bearing on India's ability to invade or occupy Pakistan. You have so far offered no evidence supporting your position, and it will still be some time before you do because you immediately go back to talking about India's vast experience managing diverse populations. So freaking what. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether India has no real objection to governing Pakistan. The real question is how strongly would Pakistani's object to being governed by India. I'd guess the answer is 'Pretty strongly.' But please go on to tell me how the Pakistani's are just dying to be ruled by India. "Militarily, India can take over and occupy Pakistan..." Even though you spend almost the entire rest of your post discussing India's capabilities, the question of what India can or cannot do has never been at issue. The question of what the US can or cannot do is at issue. It is unquestionable that the US 'can' invade and occupy Pakistan. It is nearly as unquestionable that India 'can' invade and hold Pakistan. But those sorts of answers are meaningless if we do not constrain them. Roman's question I took to be much more specific. The implication was, "Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan [now or in the near future at an acceptable cost]?" Yes, India probably could force its way into Pakistan and occupy it. The cost would not be acceptable. In the case of the US, we are actually even more constrained than India. Not only is the cost of invading and occupying Pakistan unacceptably high in all but the most nightmarish of scenarios, but without relying on nuclear force or Indian man-power or both, the US lacks the capability to invade Pakistan much less hold it. Why? Well, on this site you can see where all US divisions are deployed. Where are you going to find the manpower to conduct an invasion of Pakistan while still occupying Iraq, fighting in Afghanistan, operating in Haiti, and containing North Korea? Even if we didn't have most of our combat forces tied up in Iraq or recovering from a tour of duty thier, the US lacks the manpower to conduct an invasion of Pakistan in the same fashion it invaded Iraq. The reasons for this are as I outlined. The troops are arguably stretched thinner than the ideal in Iraq. Imagine how much more stretched thin they would be in a country twice as large and 5 times as populace! Imagine how much more strectched thin they would be if they were dealing with an actual popular revolt rather than a few holdouts and terrorists. Arguably, if the people of Iraq really wanted to get rid of US, the small force we have really couldn't stop them much less govern the country and see to its economic recovery. US forces may be well suited to nation building, but the very traits that make them so good at nation building, make them horrible at empire building. The US simply lacks the will to persecute a civilian population sufficiently to crush that populations will to resist. If the US is to crush a populations morale, it must do so prior to invading it because US forces have little stomach for executing civilians and killing children. So the lack of a mandate by the Pakistani people for our presence is highly significant. In Iraq we are operating with - if not exactly the blessing of a majority of the population - at least the acceptance of the ma
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Yes. US can invade and hold Pakistan - Celebrim   3/4/2004 2:47:54 PM
Celebrim - well said - you said it much more eloquently than I have. I find your posts a pleasure to read and always learn something when I do so.
 
Quote    Reply

Pashtun    Most likely no.   3/10/2004 9:04:04 PM
celebrim, and Roman, where are u from just wondering. Pretty good posts u guys put up. Its been a long time since i read some useful comments. I agree with most of comments and points u made but i probably think the U.S. will not be able to "hold" Pakistan. Pakistan has an army of 620,000 strong. The U.S. has 495,000. Though the U.S. army has much better equiptment one huge weakness in their army is their lack of toughness against civilians and easy going. Thuogh they can be the fiercest army in the world if they need to they almost always underesimate the enemies capability and total strenght. The U.S. might be able to defeat the army but it would be the most difficult thing to hold on to it, which they would not be able to do most probably for long. Plus the U.S. wouldn't even consider going to war with Pakistan unless they were willing to lose atleast 200,000-300,000 men. And someone else(i forgot who it was) said that Hamid Karzai/Afghanistan don't like Pakistan. I wonder where u got that from. I'm 50% Afghani and i know for certain thats not true.
 
Quote    Reply

AtillaHun    RE:Most likely no.   3/11/2004 2:47:43 AM
Have to agree with you here Pashtun. While the US can most certainly invade Pakistan, holding it is another matter alltogether. The US has had it tough in Iraq, where most of the public favoured the 'invaders'. However, Pakistan thanks to competition from its mighty eastern neighbour, has over the years developed a well oiled military machine. Besides, national sentiment is much greater than that in Iraq. But where friendship with Afghanistan is concerned, that relationship has become somewhat strained. Especialy with comments like those by their (Afghan) minister Abdullah Abdullah saying that Pakistan is not doing enough to stop the remnants of the ousted Taliban. Yes there are diplomatic relations and nearly most of ethnic Afghans, about 75% see Pakistan as a friend and not an enemy. However abt the others.. Tajiks etc, I cannot say. Anyway getting back to the topic at hand, Pakistan is also a nuclear power. (Nucular as mr. Bush would say) A low yeild weapon as a deterrant can not be ruled out. If push comes to shove, it will be used.
 
Quote    Reply

strategylogic    No need to hold for long !   3/11/2004 7:13:20 AM
If the US is ever goin to invade pak, it would be for one and one purpose only, to denuke it, it could possibly take the form of a swift strike to destroy their nuclear assets and could probably involve india and maybe isreal. It is pertainent to mention that isreal had for long detailed strategies on how to strike pakistan with the aid of india and take out its nuclear assets.
 
Quote    Reply

strategylogic    The stakes would be higher !   3/11/2004 7:31:08 AM
However, in most future scenarios, it seems plausible that there will be a military confrontation involving India, Pakistan and if it becomes a major conflict then probably US too. The reason for such conclusion is that neither India nor Pakistan are going to let go off kashmir. Most pakistanis are taught right from their births that kashmir is more important to them than the air they breathe. Kashmir is like a religion to them and they won?t budge for anything in the entire world. And perhaps that will be their downfall. It is interesting to note that any involvement of US in any future battle involving India and Pakistan would also mean involvement of China and herein lies the recipe for World War III. China would not sit quite if it sees pakistan being wiped off as it perceives its interest being hurt by a tremendous increase in US power in its own backyard. Conversly, the US would be more than willing to use India to counter a growing Chinese threat, since India is the only nation that can be a counterweight to China and China is the only major threat to US. So the equation is very disturbing, with china using pakistan to counter india and us using India to counter china and the stakes are high as, although all 4 nations are nuclear, 2 of them are democracies and the other 2 theocracies or dictatorial regimes.
 
Quote    Reply

JJFS    Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy India?   3/11/2004 8:53:00 PM
Any thoughts?
 
Quote    Reply

sivadreams    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy India?   3/11/2004 11:42:42 PM
Impossible, is the simple answer. Even if they join hands with Pakistan and then invade, They end up taking some land yes thatis likely to happen, but cant really take on to the extent of bringing in their own puppet govt etc. There is every possiblity a repeat of Vietnam, if this happens. But, Strategically US had burnt its fingers in the past in nurturing jihad groups, so they will not entertain such groups against any country. And, that is the only way India can be shaken. Like in 80's of Afghanistan, US may have to encourage the Pakistanis to enter into India. Saying all this, US and India are the two major democracies to which each admire. And this very reason India and US are joining hands on many defence to non-defence co-operation. All these are long term co-operation. Whereas, if you look at Pakistan-US relationship, its historically a need of the hour relationship. So both can betray each other at anytime at any level. And if it is India being invaded by US, China is out of it. So India can handle it, still abiding to its No-First Use of WMD. Hmmmmmm! But, why should US invade India. Any Reasons? I think there are other compelling priorities even if they find any reasons.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics