US will forget Vietnam if it attacks 'FATA'

[VCheng]

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.

Look at it this way: Are Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan capable of doing anything substantial to harm US interests? What are their social development indices and their trends, specially relative to the world? A few instances of localized losses do not lessen the overall control of the US. I would not like to see Pakistan added to this list for sure.

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.

As long as those groups thrive and terrorize locally, it will not be a big issue for the US. (I do apologize for being so blunt, I do not mean to sound callous or arrogant. I say this because I do not want this to happen.)

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.

All of that will ensure that Pakistan is set back many many decades, and kept there for an extended period of time. Not good for Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

Pakistan's policies don't need changing since Pakistan is not doing anything wrong.

The nation at fault here is the US, demanding that Pakistan take actions on US time-frames that would exacerbate the current terrorist threat in Pakistan and strain our economy and resources even further than they are now.

And, again, please do tell me what US goals would be achieved through war with Pakistan if Pakistan refuses to change its policies?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Look at it this way: Are Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan capable of doing anything substantial to harm US interests? What are their social development indices and their trends, specially relative to the world? A few instances of localized losses do not lessen the overall control of the US. I would not like to see Pakistan added to this list for sure.

Look at it this way, how does Pakistan as it is today hurt US interests and goals more than an 'imploded Pakistan' ala Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, rife with extremist groups, warlords and crime that will collaborate with other groups in Afghanistan, Iran, India and the CAR's?

As long as those groups thrive and terrorize locally, it will not be a big issue for the US. (I do apologize for being so blunt, I do not mean to sound callous or arrogant. I say this because I do not want this to happen.)

These groups 'thrive locally' currently, if anything their activities are restricted because of the presence of a strong Pakistani military, and they get no support from that military in carrying out attacks. That will certainly not be the case in an 'imploded Pakistan', as explained in the first part of my response, and as can be seen from how extremists groups have thrived and carried out attacks in the West from 'imploded Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen'.

All of that will ensure that Pakistan is set back many many decades, and kept there for an extended period of time. Not good for Pakistan.

And how is such a situation 'good for the US' compared to the current situation?

 

[VCheng]

Pakistan's policies don't need changing since Pakistan is not doing anything wrong.

The nation at fault here is the US, demanding that Pakistan take actions on US time-frames that would exacerbate the current terrorist threat in Pakistan and strain our economy and resources even further than they are now.

And, again, please do tell me what US goals would be achieved through war with Pakistan if Pakistan refuses to change its policies?

Pakistan's policies need changing, not because they are right or wrong, but because they are harming its own long term survival.

Nobody is at fault here, since both nations are pursuing their own national interests. Diplomacy will determine how these are best reconciled, and war is is merely "diplomacy by other means".

From the US point of view, sending back Pakistan a few decades would be all that bad, would it?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan's policies need changing, not because they are right or wrong, but because they are harming its own long term survival.

Pakistan's long term survival is being threatened because of the hubris, hate and war hysteria of a super power - I don't believe Pakistan should capitulate to unreasonable, unethical and immoral demands from the US.

Nobody is at fault here, since both nations are pursuing their own national interests. Diplomacy will determine how these are best reconciled, and war is is merely "diplomacy by other means".

If 'diplomacy will determine' then the US would not be threatening potential war, and if war is being used as a lever by the US, then it is indeed at fault and clearly the aggressor and warmonger.

From the US point of view, sending back Pakistan a few decades would be all that bad, would it?

You keep avoiding the question - given that 'setting Pakistan back a few decades' will exacerbate the extremist and terrorist movements that currently exist in Pakistan, how does doing that serve US objectives/goals more than the current situation with Pakistan not changing its policies?

If anything it exacerbates the very 'terrorist and extremist threat' the US is trying to get Pakistan to crack down on.

 

[VCheng]

Pakistan's long term survival is being threatened because of the hubris, hate and war hysteria of a super power - I don't believe Pakistan should capitulate to unreasonable, unethical and immoral demands from the US.

I respect your belief, but in my view Pakistan is jeopardizing its long term survival not because of the US, but because of the misguided path chosen by its elite for the last several decades.

If 'diplomacy will determine' then the US would not be threatening potential war, and if war is being used as a level by the US, then it is indeed at fault and clearly the aggressor and warmonger.

If you want to keep that opinion, then please do. Pakistan may be right, but at what cost?

You keep avoiding the question - given that 'setting Pakistan back a few decades' will exacerbate the extremist and terrorist movements that currently exist in Pakistan, how does doing that serve US objectives/goals more than the current situation with Pakistan not changing its policies?

As long as the extremist and terrorist movements exist only locally, with the strategic military resources inoperable, it is only more of a good thing from the US point of view. How is that avoiding the question?

If anything it exacerbates the very 'terrorist and extremist threat' the US is trying to get Pakistan to crack down on.

Exactly.

 

[karan.1970]

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?

In my view, the thought process in USA is that extremism thriving in chaotic unorganized countries only damages the local population. Its only when such groups have the resources of a working nation at their disposal, that they are able to carry out long range attacks like 9/11. So if that is the case, they would care very little about the mess that gets created in Afghanistan or Pakistan and the pains the local population has to go thru as long as that mess is keeping the terrorists from being supported by a stable sovereign country in launching attacks that can reach USA's home ground..

 

[VCheng]

In my view, the thought process in USA is that extremism thriving in chaotic unorganized countries only damages the local population. Its only when such groups have the resources of a working nation at their disposal, that they are able to carry out long range attacks like 9/11. So if that is the case, they would care very little about the mess that gets created in Afghanistan or Pakistan and the pains the local population has to go thru as long as that mess is keeping the terrorists from being supported by a stable sovereign country in launching attacks that can reach USA's home ground..

Exactly my point. Thank you for trying to help some here understand the importance of this concept.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In my view, the thought process in USA is that extremism thriving in chaotic unorganized countries only damages the local population. Its only when such groups have the resources of a working nation at their disposal, that they are able to carry out long range attacks like 9/11. So if that is the case, they would care very little about the mess that gets created in Afghanistan or Pakistan and the pains the local population has to go thru as long as that mess is keeping the terrorists from being supported by a stable sovereign country in launching attacks that can reach USA's home ground..

What 'resources of a working nation' did Al Qaeda utilize in carrying out the Kenyan bombings and 9/11 attacks?

---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------

Exactly my point. Thank you for trying to help some here understand the importance of this concept.

Your point, and Karan's, is incorrect, as you will see when he ties himself in knots trying to associate some sort of 'functioning government resources' to the activities of Al Qaeda leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

 

[VCheng]

.......................
Your point, and Karan's, is incorrect, as you will see when he ties himself in knots trying to associate some sort of 'functioning government resources' to the activities of Al Qaeda leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

My point is simply this:

If the US is forced to take over, ensuring stability is not high on the priority list.

A demilitarized Pakistan can take all the time it wants to tear itself apart, as long as all the mayhem is contained. Thus, a short and swift initial phase can then lead to a more slow paced managed chaos.

I do not wish to see this happen.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I respect your belief, but in my view Pakistan is jeopardizing its long term survival not because of the US, but because of the misguided path chosen by its leite for the last several decades.

In the context of the current unsubstantiated US smear campaign against Pakistan, Pakistan has done nothing wrong and does not have to change its strategy to accommodate US hysteria, hubris and scapegoating, and then suffer the fallout domestically and internationally of capitulating to US diktat.

If you want to keep that opinion, then please do. Pakistan may be right, but at what cost?

This is not an 'opinion' it is a simple fact - if the US is threatening war to force Pakistan to follow misguided and flawed US policies, then the US is clearly not using 'diplomacy to determine' anything, as you indicated was the path that should be followed.

As long as the extremist and terrorist movements exist only locally, with the strategic military resources inoperable, it is only more of a good thing from the US point of view. How is that avoiding the question?

9/11 was not carried out with 'strategic military resources' and neither were any of the prior international Al Qaeda attacks, or attacks by related entities.

Therefore the argument that the absence of the Pakistani military would lessen the chances of terrorist attacks against Western interests is a fundamentally flawed and uninformed one.

Exactly.

So you agree that a US war against Pakistan would in fact undermine US objectives and exacerbate the threat of terrorism, far more than it exists currently with Pakistan continuing on its current path ...

---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

My point is simply this:

If the US is forced to take over, ensuring stability is not high on the priority list.

A demilitarized Pakistan can take all the time it wants to tear itself apart, as long as all the mayhem is contained. Thus, a short and swift initial phase can then lead to a more slow paced managed chaos.

I do not wish to see this happen.

You are turning in circles and avoiding the question, as I pointed out already - the question is not how long it takes the US to do initial or final or whatever, but the fact that a destabilized Pakistan will host a far greater number of terrorist and criminal groups collaborating with similar groups regionally in the CAR's, Afghanistan, Iran, India and China, and therefore also pose a significantly greater threat to the West than there is currently.

So how does a destabilized Pakistan post unprovoked War by the US assist US objectives of minimizing the terrorist threat?

 

[VCheng]

In the context of the current unsubstantiated US smear campaign against Pakistan, Pakistan has done nothing wrong and does not have to change its strategy to accommodate US hysteria, hubris and scapegoating, and then suffer the fallout domestically and internationally of capitulating to US diktat.

Fine. If you think Pakistan does not need to change anything since it is "right", then I will accept it, recognizing that being right but dead may not be the correct thing to do in my book.

This is not an 'opinion' it is a simple fact - if the US is threatening war to force Pakistan to follow misguided and flawed US policies, then the US is clearly not using 'diplomacy to determine' anything, as you indicated was the path that should be followed.

What I said was that diplomacy will resolve this matter, and war is diplomacy by other means i.e. war is part of diplomacy. Hence diplomacy WILL resolve the matter, with or without the use of war.

9/11 was not carried out with 'strategic military resources' and neither were any of the prior international Al Qaeda attacks, or attacks by related entities.

Therefore the argument that the absence of the Pakistani military would lessen the chances of terrorist attacks against Western interests is a fundamentally flawed and uninformed one.

What I said was this: As long as the extremist and terrorist movements exist only locally, with the strategic military resources inoperable, it is only more of a good thing from the US point of view.

In other words, an extremist takeover in Pakistan with access to strategic military resources would be more dangerous than one without those resources. Hence, from the US point of view, local extremist takeover that leads to a protracted localized civil war, without access to strategic military resources may be an acceptable outcome.

Please note that I am NOT making the argument that the absence of the Pakistani military would lessen the chances of terrorist attacks. If you still don't understand my point, please read the above paragraph, again.

So you agree that a US war against Pakistan would in fact undermine US objectives and exacerbate the threat of terrorism, far more than it exists currently with Pakistan continuing on its current path

Please see the above answer.

You are turning in circles and avoiding the question, as I pointed out already - the question is not how long it takes the US to do initial or final or whatever, but the fact that a destabilized Pakistan will host a far greater number of terrorist and criminal groups collaborating with similar groups regionally in the CAR's, Afghanistan, Iran, India and China, and therefore also pose a significantly greater threat to the West than there is currently.

So how does a destabilized Pakistan post unprovoked War by the US assist US objectives of minimizing the terrorist threat?

Like I said, as long as they remain localized and do not have access to strategic resources, who cares? The threat of such an environment may be more acceptable to the US than you might suspect.

 

[baqai]

I am from Karachi and i find it idiotic for USA to think about an attack here, Can't these buggers see we are already busy killing ourselves on ethnic and religious basis?

 

[below_freezing]

I think that Pakistan needs a true nuclear deterrent, against all possible nations, not just India.

After all it is outrageously irresponsible for any nation's leadership to not consider all possible situations. Even US was prepared to attack and conquer the British Empire.

 

[VCheng]

It looks like saner counsel will prevail and Pakistan will take steps to defuse the situation:

from: Commanders

ISLAMABAD: Top army commanders held an extraordinary meeting on Sunday in the wake of US allegations about ISI’s links with the Haqqani network and agreed on the need to de-escalate the situation.

Holding a corps commanders’ meeting, possibly for the first time on a Sunday, reflected the seriousness of the crisis created by a series of allegations levelled by US officials against Pakistan’s security forces and its top intelligence agency. However, the military’s public affairs wing, ISPR, didn’t say a word about the outcome of the meeting chaired by Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Earlier in the day the ISPR had announced that a special corps commanders’ conference had been convened to “discuss the prevailing security situation”.

A source privy to discussions at the conference, however, revealed that de-escalation efforts were afoot. “Escalation is harmful. In the cost-benefit analysis there appears to be no benefit of a confrontation.”

His claim was corroborated by another senior official.

But there was nothing to suggest that the army had agreed to act against the Haqqani network under US pressure.

The army is rather asking for developing strategic coherence and clarity about US goals in Afghanistan and thinks that
operational differences would be addressed.

The commanders met at a time US Centcom chief Gen James Mattis was to leave Islamabad after meeting Gen Kayani and Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman Gen Khalid Shameem Wynne.

Fresh strains in Pakistan-US ties in the aftermath of allegations by Admiral Mullen and other US functionaries remained the focus of the discussion.

Army and the political leadership has categorically rejected the allegations that the Haqqani network was a ‘veritable arm’ of ISI and that Pakistan was responsible for the attack near the US embassy in Kabul.

It is understood that Gen Kayani, who later in the evening departed for the UK to address International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Royal College of Defence Studies, conveyed to his commanders the message Gen Mattis had brought with him.

Little is known about the precise nature of the message, but the US embassy said: The Centcom commander stressed on “the need for persistent engagement among the militaries”.

An ISPR statement on Gen Wynne’s meeting with Gen Mattis quoted the former as having spoken about “achieving enduring peace in the region… through mutual trust and cooperation”.

Reuters adds: Gen Wynne expressed concern over the “negative statements emanating from (the) US”.

“He stressed upon addressing the irritants in relationship which are a result of an extremely complex situation,” the statement said.

About the corps commanders’ meeting, military spokesman Maj-Gen Athar Abbas said: “The prevailing security situation was discussed.”

Gen Abbas acknowledged that army’s Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence maintained contacts with the Haqqani network, but said that didn’t mean it supported it. “No intelligence agency can afford to shut the last door of contact,” he told Reuters.

“Maintaining contact doesn’t mean that you are endorsing or supporting that terrorist organisation.”