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   3/12/2004 12:23:06 PM
Hi Celebrim, "It took 12 days for India to force a surrender of 90,000 pakistani army men just 23 years ago." You wrote: 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. My answer: That is the whole problem. India is not anxious to invade and hold any countries. It has a democratic system. Political power in is distributed among many minorities like different ethnic groups, and many but small regional political parties. Majority, if not all, are against invasion policy. India never invaded any country. Surrender of Pakistan Army is a historical fact I referred to, not a fantasy and dreams and guesses. ------ "Indians still think that Pakistan-Bangladesh-India is one country and they can rule the united part very well." You wrote: 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. My Answer: Whom do you call Indians? The people who lived in united India before 1947 or those who live after 1947? Both are Indians, am I correct? If British can rule united India, why not Indians? Pakistanis are not from Arab or from US. They are all Indians. When Arabs invaded, some of the Indians changed their religion into islam. They are otherwise purely Indians. Do not forget that. ----- You wrote: 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. My answer: First understand whom you call as Indians and India. If you want to read about past wars between Pakistan and India, you better read and know about the true capability of each country. You better be aware of history and past events. I do not talk about religious tolerance of Indians. I talked about the history that you never learned or knew. Indians were living happily among themselves. They had all the spices and the gold. The arabs invaded India many times neither to have friendly business relations nor because India was giving problems to any of those arabs. Indians never invaded arabs. Arabs invaded India and converted some of the Indian people by force to follow islam. These are the people now you call as muslims, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Kashmiris. Rather think about doing the same thing to US, and divide USA into Islamic, jewish and other religious states. Will the world (or USA) accept and tolerate? But, Indians tolerated the same when British did it to them. Is that correct? Who asked the British to invade India? Who asked them to divide that country in to Islamic and non-islamic countries? What about 20-50 other religions that are there in India? Why did n?t the British divide India in to 50 countries and give each religion a separate nationhood? The creation of Pakistan was entirely due to the selfishness of some political leaders of India (Jinnah, Nehru etc). Every country including US that has a diverse population, has the experience to manage. India is not special. You are trying to pose as if India and Pakistan are different. Yes. They are different countries after 1947. No they are not before 1947, and may be not after they are united. We have seen it in history that many countries have been created and many others destroyed. But people move on. Many do not even mind whether they are ruled in the name of a new united country or in the name of separate countries. As long as they ruled by good persons, they will feel happy. You are talking about cricket. Yes. When superbowl was won, the Bostonians celebrated. It is remarkable that they won it two times in 3 yrs. That does not mean the Bostonians like to be separated from the rest of the Americans. Just because Musharaf?s parents moved from India during the separation he
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy India?   3/12/2004 8:05:07 PM
"Any thoughts" I think the answer is a rather definite "no!" and I cannot even think of any possible scenario why it would want to.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Most likely no.   3/12/2004 8:10:04 PM
Pasthun, I am from Slovakia and thanks for the compliments... and just to add to your comments, the 620,000 Pakistani army has 20 infantry divisions and 2 armoured divisions (the USA has only 10 divisions in total, but they are larger). Furthermore, Pakistan has at least 150,000 official paramilitary forces that could conduct military operations on top of the various militia that would undoubtedly form to resist. I have no idea how many tanks or aircraft Pakistan possesses, but these would not be crucial for Pakistan's defence - guerrilla action would be by far most significant (assuming nukes were destroyed at the outset of the war)
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Yes. US can invade and hold Pakistan   3/12/2004 8:15:57 PM
bestdefence, you make a valid point about the much smaller Britain occupying the entire then India (now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) as well as a multitude of other countries, but it was a different era. When these countries were conquered, nationalism did not yet exist as a social force, so many Indian princes even allied themselves with the Brits and the general population did not resist. Of course, nationalism later developed in Europe and then spread to India too. This is completely different nowE. Even if it wanted to, Britain would not be capable of occupying India today and it could not conquer it either. Neither could the US do so. Of course, conquering and occupying Pakistan would not be as dificult as India, but it still could not be done, or at least not without massive mobilization on the part of the US.
 
Quote    Reply

ArrowGuns    ATTN: Bestdefence   3/12/2004 9:47:30 PM
Would South Korea want the burden of North Korea? Hell, no! Likewise, India does not want additional liabilities like Pakistan and Bangladesh. May God be with them and drive some sense to their people. BTW, Pakistanis are fiercely patriotic people who would eat grass but would develop a nuclear weapon. No true Pakistani would want to merge with India. India has no intention of invading Pakistan. They will self destruct anyway.
 
Quote    Reply

JJFS    RE:Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy India?   3/12/2004 11:00:49 PM
"I think the answer is a rather definite "no!" " Without a world war II esque military buildup, I agree, I suppose. "and I cannot even think of any possible scenario why it would want to" Me either.
 
Quote    Reply

bestdefence    Good, now, we have understanding   3/13/2004 5:09:54 PM
Hi Roman, Good, now, we have understanding You wrote: bestdefence, you make a valid point about the much smaller Britain occupying the entire then India (now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) as well as a multitude of other countries, but it was a different era. My answer: Yes. You are correct. Now it is different story and different technology. Also it is a different world. Therefore although US can invade and occupy Pakistan , the world will not let US do such things. But if US goes ahead neglecting the world order, then it can do what it like to do. You wrote: When these countries were conquered, nationalism did not yet exist as a social force, so many Indian princes even allied themselves with the Brits and the general population did not resist. Of course, nationalism later developed in Europe and then spread to India too. This is completely different nowE. Even if it wanted to, Britain would not be capable of occupying India today and it could not conquer it either. Neither could the US do so. Of course, conquering and occupying Pakistan would not be as dificult as India, but it still could not be done, or at least not without massive mobilization on the part of the US. My answer: You correct to some extent. Nationalism is not the issue to occupy India. Nationalism was there even at the time when British entered in to India. But India is country with different ethnic people. Even now British can enter in to India and divide its people based on the language (racial) issues and make them to fight with each other. There are groups like PWG, khalistan liberation force, Kashmir force (to name a few) which may help this process. But the major problem is India?s continuing growth in technology and economy. In another 5 years, if there were a war between UK and India, India may win and occupy UK on one-on-one war situation and not the other way around. US helping UK against India cannot happen as there is Russia. Then we invite a WW3.
 
Quote    Reply

Pashtun    To Roman   3/14/2004 6:56:15 PM
Slovakia..<
 
Quote    Reply

DrCruel    Does the U.S. have the capability to invade and occupy Pakistan?   3/15/2004 5:41:03 PM
Yes, but that's not the proper question. The US could easily conquer Pakistan, for starters. The occupation would be more problematic. About 1/5 of Pakistan is fundamentalist, and these people absolutely hate the Americans. Pakistani madrassas have been training orphans and poor children to instinctively despise us. Thus, our stay would be fraught with terrorist attacks. Any government we established there would be shaky at best. Probably the most cost-effective means of establishing US control, short of a spontaneous change of culture in the region, would be to exterminate or otherwise displace the population and recolonise the territory with new people, perhaps from India. The Russians tried exactly this sort of thin in Afghanistan, with very mixed results, but they would have likely eventually succeeded without US and Pakistani interference. Likewise the PRC has had considerable success with this technique in Tibet. Even if the Pakistani IIS managed to smuggle all their nulear weapons into the US, as a means of retaliation, at best they would only be able to partially destroy a mere handful of cities. In a material sense, we could easily rebound from such a setback. The proper question however, given that we are a democratic capitalist society, is whether conquering and occupying Pakistan would be cost-effective. To that I must answer a resounding "no". There isn't much in the way of natural resources in Pakistan, teh population would be extremely hostile and a poor source of dependable labour, and whatever profits there would be from such a venture would be quickly used up simply on payroll for the occupying troops necessary. Perhaps we could, for a time, play the same sort of "divide and conquer" game the British used, but the situation would be very touch-and-go and we would need a great deal of co-operation from the indigenous Hindu. The most cost-effective soultion, mass extermination coupled with an ethnic cleansing program, would be a tremendous detriment to our world image (such as it is). Thus, I suggest that we will end up working through local surrogate thugs like Musharraf. Until he is eventually assassinated, of course. Probably our best course is to do as we did in Afghanistan - allow for the indigenous factions to devestate the country, allow teh situation to devolve into outright anarchy, wait for teh population to go down about a million or so, then step in as "white knights" and save the day. We could also allow the Indians to have the honour of "saving" Pakistan. This last scenario has the considerable advantage, in that all we need to accomplish this eventuality is to do absolutely nothing. It is our most cost-effective option, and to some limited extent it will likely be the one we eventually end up settling on (as any aid money granted to the present regime will go down a big, black hole - at best).
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:To Roman   3/16/2004 5:21:45 PM
"Slovakia..<" Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. For more information... Slovakia is a small country in Europe bordering on Poland in the north, Hungary in the south, Czech Republic in the west, Austria in the southwest and Ukraine in the east. Our capital city is Bratislava (about 500,000 inhabitants) and the overall Slovak population is about 5.4 million people and declining due to very low birthrates. Our nominal GDP per capita is about $4,000 and PPP GDP per capita is about $10,000.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics