US will forget Vietnam if it attacks 'FATA'

[VCheng]

How come that did not work in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia?

Okay, if you don't mind Pakistan being like Somalia or Afghanistan.

They are rooted in an exaggeration of US abilities and an ignorance of the wars of occupation fought so far - for some reason you expect a US occupation to buck the trend of her previous wars of occupation, and that despite the fact that in Pakistan (unlike Iraq and Afghanistan where the majority could be argued to have hated Saddam and the Taliban) it is the US that is reviled the most and the military that is respected the most.

All the wars that you think US lost, have achieved their goals. Further, there is no need to occupy Pakistan, for the same goals can be achieved by a slow managed implosion.

They will do what the Iraqi, Afghan and Somali insurgents and religious extremists have done. There will be no "Anbar awakening' in Pakistan.

And what exactly might that be?

 

[53fd]

You are assuming that it will be possible to grow crops, and that there will be water to drink. Add in other the lack of things like fuel and energy, and the thirst for jihad will take a back seat for sure.

Of course crops will grow, there will be water to drink. The resolution of the energy crisis is in process with the Iranian pipeline, which will be operational in 2013-14. So no, Jihad against America will not take the back seat, unless America is given a hammering in the region.

Please tell me me what will they do? Walk over to Bagram with sticks and stones to avenge the destruction of the Army?

There won't be Bagram or any bases left, because they will be bombed back to the Stone Age. Almost all the US bases are in Eastern Afghanistan anyways, so the Pakistan Army will in addition launch missile strikes & all the bases will be covered in rubble. The US won't be able to have aerial warfare after that.

Did Vietnam ever destroy a US carrier? For that matter, have any carriers been destroyed after WW2? Zero.

Information about the US carrier losses, as well as other Aircraft losses:

Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[53fd]

All the wars that you think US lost, have achieved their goals.

Yes, they have advanced the goals of a certain section in America, but the American people, & most of the US has been going downhill since.

Further, there is no need to occupy Pakistan, for the same goals can be achieved by a slow managed implosion.

It's interesting that you say this, because almost every other US official I have heard speak says they want anything but the implosion of Pakistan.

 

[VCheng]

Of course crops will grow, there will be water to drink. The resolution of the energy crisis is in process with the Iranian pipeline, which will be operational in 2013-14. So no, Jihad against America will not take the back seat, unless America is given a hammering in the region.

There will not be enough resources to prevent total social chaos.

There won't be Bagram or any bases left, because they will be bombed back to the Stone Age. Almost all the US bases are in Eastern Afghanistan anyways, so the Pakistan Army will in addition launch missile strikes & all the bases will be covered in rubble. The US won't be able to have aerial warfare after that.

So Bagram is the only resource to wage warfare? Or all of US assets in Eastern Afghanistan? Or are you saying that ALL the bases will be destroyed? Really?

Information about the US carrier losses, as well as other Aircraft losses:

Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of US carriers destroyed = ZERO.

---------- Post added at 08:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 AM ----------

Yes, they have advanced the goals of a certain section in America, but the American people, & most of the US has been going downhill since.

Just like in Pakistan, the elites carry the day.

It's interesting that you say this, because almost every other US official I have heard speak says they want anything but the implosion of Pakistan.

My comments apply only IF Pakistan does not changes its path, and I hope they do.

 

[King123]

Information about the US carrier losses, as well as other Aircraft losses:

Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was because US wanted to invade Vietnam. Also, Today, Their defence is many times better.

Their intention is not to invade Pakistan. Why they will do that ?? Pakistan is not oil rich country like Iraq. Also, They have direct access to central Asia through Afghanistan. They don't have any intention to invade Pakistan.

They want to destroy all location where terrorist are hiding as per their sources. May be, They want to destroy other strategic assets in worst case scenario. They don't need to put the feet in Pakistan to attack Pakistan. They have strong bases in Afghanistan, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq. How you will stop 300 F-18,15, F-22 with 1,000 Missiles ? You can't stop. How you will stop Missiles which is coming from Afghanistan ? You can't. They have capability to destroy all strategic asset in a single day without entering Pakistan.

Will they do ? I don't know. May be or may be not. But they have capability to do more than you think.

 

[Tshering22]

its time we attack them

I sincerely think you should quit the drab and declare war on US forces in Afghanistan. At least, it will be an open show of intentions rather than masked friendship that is getting neither of you any benefit.

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

Pretty strong words..the worst US nightmare is an action gone wrong and rouge tribal elements armed with a "dirty bomb".

But even those tribal elements know what the retaliation to dirty bomb will be. If they were not "concerned" about it, they'd have done it long back. A dirty bomb might do a lot of innocent civilian damage but an organized military having some of the deadliest nuclear weapons would mean a total wipe out.

 

[IceCold]

Absolutely - that is the whole point of deterrent/blackmail. Keep the US dogs (warmongers) in check, and there will be no war.

The party that will be responsible for war and atrocities here is the US, not Pakistan.

If you really want to keep the US warmongers in check, then you need to have three very basic things:

1) A strong economy which could sustain it self in case a conflict arises. Sadly ours is in a sorry state.
2) A strong leadership who could unite the nation to stand up against a much superior enemy. Unfortunately we lack here as well. We have no leader ship at all.
3) A strong deterrence in the shape of an ICBM which can be used as a deterrent tool that if you choose to cross the red line, we will reply with nuclear and on the main land which hasnt happened since WW2. We lack in this field as well.

So how exactly are we going to stop the US warmongers when we lack in all most everything.......with empty words, something we Pakistanis are really good at as can be seen in this thread. They have already crossed our so called imaginary red lines and mark my words, if they decide too, they are going to so do again and GOP and our top military brass will be in compliance with them.

 

[notorious_eagle]

You are assuming that it will be possible to grow crops, and that there will be water to drink. Add in other the lack of things like fuel and energy, and the thirst for jihad will take a back seat for sure.

Pakistan is largely an agriculture society, we will grow crops again and survive just like our fore fathers did before us. You are under estimating the resilience of Pakistani people, you can be sure that whatever food Pakistanis have they will share amongst each others. Also, the lack of food will just propel millions of Pakistanis to join the fighters and fight against a common enemy.

Please tell me me what will they do? Walk over to Bagram with sticks and stones to avenge the destruction of the Army?

Dont you worry about that, there is no shortage of weapons and ammunition in Pakistan. Even with such a tight hold in Afghanistan, the Talibs are still able to acquire large quantities of weapons. Acquiring weapons from the black market should not be a problem.

I dont know why we are even having this conversation, America simply does not has the appetite to go to war with Pakistan. The sheer number of grieving widows and mothers coupled with a lot of treasure makes it impossible for America to go to war with Pakistan.

 

[VCheng]

Pakistan is largely an agriculture society, we will grow crops again and survive just like our fore fathers did before us. You are under estimating the resilience of Pakistani people, you can be sure that whatever food Pakistanis have they will share amongst each others. Also, the lack of food will just propel millions of Pakistanis to join the fighters and fight against a common enemy.


Dont you worry about that, there is no shortage of weapons and ammunition in Pakistan. Even with such a tight hold in Afghanistan, the Talibs are still able to acquire large quantities of weapons. Acquiring weapons from the black market should not be a problem.

I dont know why we are even having this conversation, America simply does not has the appetite to go to war with Pakistan. The sheer number of grieving widows and mothers coupled with a lot of treasure makes it impossible for America to go to war with Pakistan.

I hope it never comes to that.

 

[karan.1970]

Of late the Ak (or Chinese equivalent) has seen a lot of use by PA troops in FATA, and the weapon is ubiquitous across Pakistan in the hands of gun aficionados.

Can we stop trolling with the inane one liners and smiley's please? It has become your 'signature' post ...

How is this trolling sir?? Are there any doubts on who the AK's in the region are mostly associated with. About the smileys, do let me know if you find any particular one offensive and I will avoid using it in future..

cheers...

 

[Hellfire]

How does one have a quick & effective initial war phase against 180 million people, the 7th most populous country in the world?

While an all out ground offensive is not an option for US, a persistent Abbotabad style approach may very well be an option against which Pakistan will have no foolproof approach short of adopting a hostile approach to US forces undertaking these Ops. Furthermore, the offensive may be multi-pronged, in terms of naval and air embargo which they SHALL be able to enforce by means of diplomatic maneuvers. You need not invade the country in actuality, just strangle it. That shall cost less to US.

While the US might be able to destroy Pakistan infrastructure, the act will unite (which they haven't done in a long time) the Pakistani people together against a common enemy, & that is the complete opposite of the destruction of the fabric of the society.

To the contrary, the destruction of infrastructure shall only further fragment the country as the only unifying institution in Pakistan today is its armed forces and failure to check the US offensives shall only serve to undermine its popularity and authority. The civillian government as it is has no support nowadays and the only alternative shall also loose the support it has in case of sustained successful US ops. This itself will lead to rise of independent radical leaders each trying for an absolute power due to perceived power vaccuum. Think and you shall be able to appreciate what that means.

 

[karan.1970]

So I was reading somewhere that the cost of Vietnam war was close to 180 billion USD (back in 1970s) and there was a horrible recession post that in the US. Has any one seen a comparison of the economic fall out of that war and the hit to the US economy today... ?? Just wondering if we have been over glorifying the 1 trillion cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars and its impact on the current economic crisis..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Okay, if you don't mind Pakistan being like Somalia or Afghanistan.

You are digressing from the argument - the point being made is not that I 'prefer' Pakistan being like Somalia or Afghanistan, but that the US will find it even harder to 'control' an occupied Pakistan than it has Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

All the wars that you think US lost, have achieved their goals. Further, there is no need to occupy Pakistan, for the same goals can be achieved by a slow managed implosion.

And what 'US goal' does an imploded, chaotic 'Somali/Afghanistan' style Pakistan achieve? An end to support for the Haqqani network and like-minded groups?
Unlikely.
If anything groups like those and AQ will thrive in the chaos of an 'imploded Pakistan', much as they have in Afghanistan and Somalia.

And what exactly might that be?

That 'might be' exactly what has happened in Iraq (pre Anbar), Somalia and Afghanistan, but many magnitudes worse, given the much larger population base, proliferation of weapons, existing extremist organizations, and widespread anti-American hostility and no 'dictator or Taliban regime' to coalesce local opposition against.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There will not be enough resources to prevent total social chaos.

Which would in turn assist in the spread of extremism, crime and violent groups, including Al Qaeda and like-minded entities, as has happened in a 'chaotic' Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia - so again, what US goals would unprovoked US aggression and war against Pakistan achieve?

 

[VCheng]

Which would in turn assist in the spread of extremism, crime and violent groups, including Al Qaeda and like-minded entities, as has happened in a 'chaotic' Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia - so again, what US goals would unprovoked US aggression and war against Pakistan achieve?

All the more reason for Pakistan to change its policies and thus prevent this scenario that you have painted.