Invading Pakistan? The Worst Idea Yet

[Spring Onion]

Please send your ground troops we are waiting. Its been a long time we have seen US forces uniform on cheap sale here in Gun market.

darn the prices gone up we want to bring them down again

 

[Karachiite]

Well America invaded Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan etc but the outcome has been the same. Thousands of Americans sent back in caskets. We are a nuclear armed country. Another enemy tried to invade Lahore in 1965 but they were humiliated and defeated.

 

[Donatello]

I don't think USA will invade pakistan..! May be they take permission from GOP to operate in there territory in persuit of terrorists.

What better tactics or weapons do they have at their disposal, that Pakistan doesn't have?

I mean, they had everything, yet they failed in Afghanistan.

 

[DesiGuy]

What better tactics or weapons do they have at their disposal, that Pakistan doesn't have?

I mean, they had everything, yet they failed in Afghanistan.

Pakistan can't stop US from invading and being defeated if US decided to, but the question is Than what??

US will be making same mistakes like they made in AF and iraq. US WILL suffer A LOT too.

 

[unicorn]

But one has to remember that attacking Iran is still on the table.If they take any such step how will it effect Pakistan because our army neither our establishment has given any indication what they will do if any such scenario is being created.

 

[Avatar]

US will never directly invade Pakistan in the sense that it invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. The current economic situation cannot allow such a war without having consequences that will be felt by every US citizen and the US treasury. Simply put, the benefits of invading Pakistan can in no way be justified by the costs. This is why US could not do much even when their supply routes were blocked by Pakistan.

 

[unicorn]

Pakistan can't stop US from invading and being defeated if US decided to, but the question is Than what?.

USA have already being deep fried by the caveman living in Afghanistan.First get rid of them then talk about invading.

 

[RoYaL~GuJJaR]

Well US can invade pak, because they have everything ,power,money,force etc.

But they can't..! I can't see any reason that US will invade pak at this point of time while they are dealing in afg and next in line, IRAN, NORTH KOREA.!

 

[DesiGuy]

USA have already being deep fried by the caveman living in Afghanistan.First get rid of them then talk about invading.

right, and i don't think pakistan army would also be hiding in those caves during the war. so if you were to talk about face to face war, US will win. accept that atleast.

and btw, fighting those who hides are harder to defeat, because they know that they can't win face to face.

 

[Parashuram1]

On what grounds and what possible reasons do you think that Americans are interested in invading your country? Let the correct terms be put; invasion is usually used when the sovereignity of a country is breached for the purpose of either annexing it or controlling it. So far the indications that Pentagon seems to be given, certainly it does not seem to show any interest in annexing your land.

The point however about NATO forces entering your borders would be most likely in pursuit of militants and that would only be possible through either tacit agreements with your government or through demanding a joint operation with your forces where NATO and Pakistani security agencies will comb throughout your country to find militant hideouts and eliminate them.

So I would not be so upbeat on any invasion plans by Americans for the sake of invading Pakistan, if I were a Pakistani. A lot of people are fed false information that NATO is interested to see Pakistan like Afghanistan and Iraq. But that is totally nonsense. You are a nuclear armed country which means even if they manage to destabilize you for some unknown reasons, it will only make the matters worse for all your neighbours since your armed forces would have grown weaker from wars and militants would be thriving.

From what I see, I.S.A.F is interested in getting rid of fundamentalist breeding grounds that are essentially run in shadows to avoid the eyes of your security forces as well as to eliminate any possible safe havens.

 

[foxhound]

US military pushes Obama to allow more Pakistan raids
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

US military pushes Obama to allow more Pakistan raids - Asia, World - The Independent
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Share
Close
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00521/pg-20-pakistan-raid_521170t.jpg
US soldiers on patrol in Chowkay district near the Pakistani border in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan


In a move that would stir intense Pakistani anger, US military chiefs in Afghanistan are pushing the Obama administration to expand cross-border commando raids against Taliban and al-Qa'ida militants hiding in Pakistan's remote tribal areas.


The plan, if implemented, would be a significant escalation in the nine-year war, and a bold gamble to create conditions that would allow US combat forces to leave Afghanistan by the target date of 2014, with an initial draw-down starting next summer.
But it also would place a heavy new strain on Washington's delicate and sometimes fraught relations with Pakistan. Officially, Islamabad is the vital ally of the US if the conflict is to be brought to a successful end – but it also has longstanding unofficial ties with the Taliban, and is deeply resentful of anything that suggests it is not master of its territory.

Word of the proposals, first reported in The New York Times yesterday, comes less than a week after the White House released its latest policy review for Afghanistan. The report declared that Pakistan was "central" to US success in Afghanistan but noted that ties between Washington and Islamabad remained "uneven". Unpublished US intelligence reports are said to strike a still gloomier note. They warned that the war could not be won unless Pakistan stopped the insurgents from launching attacks against allied and Afghan government forces from their sanctuaries in the tribal areas.
The plan to step up special operations raids by US and Afghan units into these areas – above all North Waziristan, base of the al-Qa'ida affiliated Haqqani network – would signify the US had concluded that Pakistan was either unable or unwilling to do it and was taking matters into its own hands. But, experts here say, that could be a very high risk strategy – especially if it is publicly acknowledged.

The Pakistan government is weak at the best of times, not least because of its public alignment with the US, highly unpopular among the ordinary population. It would be weakened further if the US were seen to be treating supposedly sovereign Pakistan territory as its own.
In a sign of the issue's sensitivity, Islamabad recently shut a key border crossing into Afghanistan for 10 days, in retaliation against a Nato helicopter foray in which two Pakistai soldiers were killed. The closure stranded Nato supply convoys and almost 150 trucks were destroyed in raids by militants.
In fact the Obama administration has sharply increased the number of unmanned cross-border drone attacks against suspected Taliban targets in the tribal areas. But it refuses to give any details for fear of offending the Pakistan government whose support it so badly needs.

Yesterday, perhaps for the same reason, officials in both Washington and Kabul flatly denied the plan outlined in The New York Times. There was "absolutely no truth" to reports that US forces are planning to conduct ground operations into Pakistan, said Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, a top Nato spokesman. A Pentagon official also said the alleged proposals were not true.
At the same time Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador in Washington, said his country's security forces were perfectly capable of handling the militant threat inside its borders. The "material support" of allies, especially the US, was appreciated, he said, but "we will not accept foreign troops on our soil – a position that is well known."
Ostensibly, that remains the view of the US as well. Last week, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said the Pakistani military could close down the Taliban sanctuaries, and that he was "encouraged" by actions it had already taken against the militants.

Unofficially though, the approaching deadlines appear to be hardening US determination to extract itself from an unpopular war that is costing an annual $113bn (£73bn) that the country can ill afford. "Come hell or highwater, American troops will be out of Afghanistan by 2014," Vice President Joe Biden said at the weekend.

Washington still seeks an accommodation with at least moderate elements of the Taliban. On cable TV, Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Carter, said some such deal was essential if the US was to disengage as it hoped. "We have to face the fact that Pakistan has a vital interest in a pro-Pakistan Afghanistan." Unless Washington accepted that reality, a solution would be impossible, he said.

 

[foxhound]

some views.......

Pakistan is trying to build on the gains in made in 2010, building up the local police force etc Pakistan also has troops engaged in flood relief

I dont think Pakistan should take lessons on military tactics from failed US army generals

Also if Pakistan followed US policy blindly it will be left with a hostile neighbor when NATO leaves in 2014


For 10 Years US Forces have not been able to pacify the Taliban within Afghanistan, and now they want to increase cross border raids into neighboring countries like Pakistan, who they believe to be incompetent.
With trillions in spending, the ineffectiveness of US and Afghan forces is the real failure. Eventually, the American people will see this war as not a winnable, because the Generals will keep juicing this for all its worth.



Actually, imperialism and neo-colonialism are good descriptors of American foreign behaviour, and arrogance is also. The latter goes with American exceptionalism, which many people, including Pakistanis are getting pretty sick of. You know, we are the "city on the hill" or words to that effect, we have the best values, the best intentions, etc. We therefore can do no wrong.

Pakistanis do not want the American army launching raids on their territory undoubtedly because they know the raids will be counter-productive, producing more enemies and making life more dangerous for the Pakistani government. It is also evidence to Pakistani civilians that the Pakistani government does not have sufficient sovereignty over its territory to keep out the Americans.

It is an indisputable, or at least a widely known, fact that the American armed forces kill a lot of civilians. They call it "collateral damage". Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and so on could not/cannot be so blasé. It was/is their family members being killed. The American armed forces calculate that civilians are expendable if the target to be attacked is important enough. Take the example of the huge bombs dropped in a Baghdad residential neighbourhood at the outset of the American invasion of Iraq. The idea was to kill Saddam Hussein. Saddam was not in the neighbourhood, but lots of civilians were and they were vaporised or blown to bits. Well, the Americans reason that the target justifies the unfortunate civilians losses. We know we are going to kill them, but it can't be avoided and anyway they are A-rabs, ragheads, Muslims. They don't value life the way we do. Racism by the way is an indisputable component of imperialism and (neo-)colonialism.

 

[foxhound]

If you put military advisers at the top of your foreign policy, their advice is going to have a military aspect to it. The problem with America is that it worships war, military, soldiers and weapons. If they could listen to civilian authorities and organisations that work in the name of peace and humanity, then they probably would have more success in the world.


When 50% of Afghanistan is out of NATO control, why doest Obama tackle to core issues of why the afghan campaign is failing
Corruption in Karzai Govt,
Drug Money
,Taliban Infiltration of Afghan Army
Brutal Civilian Killings by NATO AirStrikes

before Blaming Pakistan, for not going all guns blazing into tribal lands.

Pakistan has already launched 2 major offensives in the west in the face of huge threats from its larger neighbor to the east. Not all countries have unlimited resources on war


When the Pakistan Govt was complaining about Osama Bin Laden funding anti govt activities in 1994 , America wasnt interested



"US policy and actions seem to have been based on a collective fantasy about their own moral superiority in the overwhelming face of evidence to the contrary for so long, what chance is there of change"

usa is deep in debt but the military does not give up.
below is a link to to see the usa´s national debt every increasing second.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


Yet again propelled by the arms manufacturers the Americans plough forward into a totally unimaginable and pointless combat situation in which they haven't a snowballs in hells chance of securing a victory.

The body bags wend their way home to grieving families whilst the blood sucking arms manufacturers feast like vultures on the carcasses of the dead stripping away the flesh and crunching the bones whilst they, the arms manufacturers pile high their profits and shed crocodile tears concerning the the dead.

Surely America has not yet learnt its lessons of Vietnam.

Ah well, the bankers and the arms manufactures control the economy, body bags are cheap and the workforce. i.e. the military aren't on their payroll so the balance sheet is not affected and the shareholders sleep well at night.

Indeed the biggest terrorist state in this modern world is America and its endless quest to establish an American empire.




Armies and their military commanders are programmed for battle and only find solutions through war!

 

[Omar1984]

Maybe an invasion can be a good thing for Pakistan because maybe it can unite all Pakistanis against US forces like when we all put our differences aside and united against india when india invaded Pakistan in 1965 and then we kicked the indians out.

 

[foxhound]

views......

Except America is alot weaker since 9/11 and Pakistan is alot stronger and world opinion no longer is as sympathetic to America

America has no chance of invading FATA when its entire supply route is through Pakistan and its Army cant even clear Helmand. FATA is the most dangerous place in the world, only the pakistan Army with local help with huge loses can clear small parts of it. With out PAK ARMY and Local support no one can clear FATA


"Well many of their population already and without reason despise the US"

Are you congenitally stupid? The USA is the biggest rogue, terrorist nation on the planet. Your very next statement out of your own mouth confirms why Pakistani's and most decent people of the planet rightly despise the USA.

"The drone attacks must me stepped up, particularly if there is targeting information on British or US terrorists. They must be hit hard in a sustained way"

That is absolutely insane. It is totally unwinnable and all you do is create more enemies each and every day.


I'll part quote from an article in Asia Times Online recently, "The value of a nuclear Iran" By Chan Akya, Dec 18, 2010:

"This snake of religious terrorism is the one that bit the US on 9/11. Most of the hijackers on September 11, 2001, were of Saudi origin and despite nominally falling under the leadership of Osama bin Laden it stands to reason that they were mainly disenchanted due to the stifling anti-democracy of Saudi Arabia and the inherent hypocrisy of Wahhabism in a country that spent most of its time kowtowing to the Americans"

So why the hell we are in Afghanistan and fuelling further dissent and animosity across Pakistan simply defies belief.

Stupid policy, from stupid people who believe their own BS propaganda. Meanwhile thousands die and the world becomes an even more dangerous place than ever before.