Sir, the simple reason why United States did not consider taking the aggressive stance against your is not because it was scared of your military, but because they ran short of strategic space in Asia. It would have been a different ball game had the Pentagon got bases in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The only constraint that United States Armed Forces have now is to withdraw from one of the other two places that are being ravaged by militants. Seriously, even a child should know the world's sole superpower is only employing different strategies to see which one is the best---something which only it can afford and not like other countries that stick to one plan. As someone on this forum said wisely a few days back-- if the United States goes on a full fury mode war with another country, God help them as it won't take them more than a few weeks to flatten their adversary beyond recognition.
Why would United States order India to launch an invasion into your territory? India is neither a part of NATO nor is a volunteer to the ISAF task force either in Afghanistan or Iraq and is more or less a neutral party. While excellent diplomatic relationship exists between the two, There has never been an instance noticed where either of the countries have taken military action against a third country for the sake of the other, establishing India to be a militarily-neutral country.
United States alone has the world largest navy, world's largest air force and world third largest standing army with a defense budget that dwarfs the following 15 countries' defense budgets combined. A permanent member of the UN Security Council and a leader of many world organizations and alliances, do you honestly think that they cannot take unilateral military action if their national security is at an increased threat?
An act of war at the most in your borders would not be directed towards your government but rather towards terrorist hideouts. However, do you not think that military action directed by Pakistani state against American forces, would give the impression that your government supports and protects these militants? Won't it ruin all the efforts that your soldiers have put in to launch attacks against terrorists themselves? Please think with a cool mind what you have said earlier.
Pakistan will care naught for the negative impression which any uneducated fool would take from its opposition to US boots on ground, only a fool would consider this as something intentionally done by Pakistan to help the terrorists.
Pakistan will oppose such a move because Pakistan Army openly operating in FATA is also something unprecedented and not easy.
We cannot allow such a thing to happen or we lose any prestige and trust we have gained in the eyes of the local Pakistani Tribesmen, the things which are much more important to win here than the most modern weapons.
It has taken Pakistan a total bloodbath to convince a majority of population that we need to take on the terrorists for our own good and not to help the USA conquer Afghanistan since all hell broke loose only after US invasion.
It has taken a huge cost for us to convince many people that this is not a game.
If USA puts boots on the ground in FATA then this thing shall be exploited by the terrorists to devastating effect; with or without Pakistan opposing such a move.
It will not be akin to Pakistan opposing USA for the sake of terrorists but rather USA openly defying Pakistani sentiments and making our operations a joke that is a cause for concern here (
if USA presses for this and decides to do this).
Such an act will do nothing but serve the terrorists since Pakistan cannot let it all pass,
if it happens.
Pakistan is taking action openly in the most toughest terrain possible and we have lost a lot of good men in the process, not to mention the colossal innocent civilian losses as a price for taking this hydra on with utmost seriousness.
However it is not a matter of US boots on ground that shall tilt the balance, it is a matter of time and the relationship with the Tribals that will eventually tilt the balance, USA will ruin this if it attempts such a maverick operation.
I do not think USA can afford to do this from logical perspective and in light of a close relationship which it wants to build with Pakistan.
If USA pressurizes our Government in this, i am afraid all Pakistanis will doubt the intentions of USA and resulting unrest will ensure that our successes against the Terrorists will be for naught.
If logic is thrown out of the window then USA can even attack China for that matter, however the cost for such an adventure is not something similar to Afghanistan or Iraq.
I really doubt USA would ever do this.
However for you to suggest that it is directed against the terrorists so nothing to worry about for Pakistan is not correct.
Drones are a different matter since they provide much more flexibility and staying power, still they remain highly unpopular despite any reasoning due to the fact that it is seen as USA directly acting in Pakistani airspace...why would USA want to add another major reason for unrest that will unhinge the whole operation?
Unless USA wishes to unhinge the whole operation, it would not press Pakistan for boots on ground.
The job of boots on ground can be done better here by Pakistan which also maintains excellent troops who are on the hunt for the terrorists.
From sovereignty point of view, even if our troops are inferior, we reserve the right to refuse any particular type of help.
What we expect from USA is to keep manning its posts along the Pakistan Afghanistan border...we are the hammer here and USA should be the anvil...if the intent is really to go after terrorists.
If the intent is something other than this, anything can happen.
A conflict between USA and Pakistan would tenfold increase the threat to USA's national security from unconventional means.
Reason for this is that in case of such a conflict USA would grant an unprecedented recruitment bonus to the terrorists and supporting militants who will spread everywhere in such a huge landmass and threaten the entire region.
