US will forget Vietnam if it attacks 'FATA'

[hunter_hunted]

Can some one please, provide a post where Mike mullen has advocated for Military attack on Pakistan??? Why Pakistani media is warmongering????

I'll like to tell u that FATA is in Pakistan territory So FATA is Pakistan.

 

[Battle Axe]

The fact that US will never confront Pakistan in war is what will go againt the mighty US. It is easier to fight back bruised, US will facilitate us with due unity, motivation & fervor.

Having said that, I abhor such a possibilty & wish for a drawdown.

 

[notsuperstitious]

I don't at all think US will attack Pakistan, the usual exaggerated sense of self importance is clouding judgement as usual.

But all those Pakistani posters talking about running US dry in Afghanistan by stopping supplies should realise that US can shut down the arabian sea completely for Pakistan with ease, and then how many days oil will Pakistan have? Any damage to US will be through ''non state actors'' only, the state actors won't even register a blip.

But all this is just guesswork, as US will not attack Pakistan, too much is at stake. Its not like America will come out all winner in terms of objectives. It will only be a military victory.

 

[hunter_hunted]

If this ever happens then the war will be fought on Pakistani territory and not US territory.
So,I dont know exactly how much of catastrophe it can bring to the US,but it will definitely be devastating for Pakistan.

Ok let me clear this to u,

1: first of all Supplies of America and Nato goes through Pakistan which will be blocked and without continues supplies u can't win the war .

2: and American bombers will have to come from long distances and Pakistan will just have to Defend it which Pakistan can easily do and using ground based Long range missile Pakistan can destroy the bases .

Either the bombers/fighter jet will come from Afghanistan or from aircraft carriers surely they will not use IRAN air space, in this case please c point 2.

Pakistan will attack from front and Taliban will c it as a great opportunity and will attack from behind becoz most area is under Taliban control and Americans forces will be like a sandwich .

So i don't think Pakistan will be much affected but surely american's defeat will be a indication of American Empire same thing happened to soviets

 

[karan.1970]

Afghanistan at that time was not exactly a 'functioning government/nation' was it? And outside of being able to reside in a war-torn nation, what 'functioning government resources' were provided to Al Qaeda by the Taliban in perpetrating the embassy bombings and 9/11?

I understand that the same government was functioning enough to mediate the deal between the hijackers or an Indian plane and allegedly Pakistan based terrorists. I say they were functioning enough for a terror organization to flourish in. As I said, I dont claim to know the details of resources provided by Taliban to Al Queda, but i would guess stuff like a safe sanctuary to operate from, access to funds, free rein to recruit from the population etc do come handy ...

And if 'hosting' is your concern, then it would be just as easy, if not easier, for groups like the Haqqanis and Al Qaeda to shelter in a destabilized Pakistan, and in fact gain even more power and control since they would likely have the most guns and most powerful militias, in the absence of State Security Forces.

Yes, they would probably be more powerful, but at a different level since they wont be operating with complete machinery of a country at their disposal.. And as I said, that is what gives them reach....

So no, Al Qaeda did not have access to any 'functioning government resources' in perpetrating its terrorist attacks, including 9/11.

There is nothing in your post that backs that up.. Hence, sorry, but no cigar ....

There is nothing wrong with his post - he is merely articulating his interpretation of VCheng's comments, one that I share - whether that is VCheng's intent or not I cannot say, but his posts strongly imply exactly what the poster said.

Its a matter of opinion buddy.. You may also chose to believe that there is nothing wrong with Pakistan either.. I will still differ with your opinion on both counts...

And I dont see which part of VCheng's posts actually imply a wished harm to Pakistan..

 

[F86 Saber]

Catastrophic Mistake?? You've said it..

A few people have done some analyses and i have one of my own.

For their attacks, US's policy has always been "No boot on Soil" for the first wave. Lets just analyze what US has to do that to Pakistan.

1. They usually use bases of neighboring countries which in case of Pakistan can be India and Afghanistan. I don't think India will be stupid enough to allow that because each and every inch of India can be targeted by our Missiles. If they use Afghanistan, then again their bases can be targeted by Missiles.
2. They also use carrier based launching of Missiles and air crafts so if they station their carriers in the Arabian or Indian Ocean they can also be taken out by our missiles.
3. Whether they can use ICBM's to first neutralize all of our missile and nuke sites is a different question, even in that case they'll get some sort of a reply courtesy China.

In any case, i hope the Pentagon has thought this through....

 

[T90TankGuy]

Ok let me clear this to u,

1: first of all Supplies of America and Nato goes through Pakistan which will be blocked and without continues supplies u can't win the war .

2: and American bombers will have to come from long distances and Pakistan will just have to Defend it which Pakistan can easily do and using ground based Long range missile Pakistan can destroy the bases .

Either the bombers/fighter jet will come from Afghanistan or from aircraft carriers surely they will not use IRAN air space, in this case please c point 2.

Pakistan will attack from front and Taliban will c it as a great opportunity and will attack from behind becoz most area is under Taliban control and Americans forces will be like a sandwich .

So i don't think Pakistan will be much affected but surely american's defeat will be a indication of American Empire same thing happened to soviets

are you sure of what you have written mate? if you couldn't stop 3 helis you feel you can stop USAF strike?

 

[F86 Saber]

are you sure of what you have written mate? if you couldn't stop 3 helis you feel you can stop USAF strike?

May be we cannot take on their air crafts but we can sure take out their launching stations.

Do you think had PAF wanted they would not have been able to take down the choppers? Even a kid with an M-16 can take down a chopper. Why we couldn't or didn't is an entirely different debate discussed a lot of times in different threads.

 

[T90TankGuy]

a kid with a m!^ would have as much a chance against a heli ,as a camel would of passing through a the eye of a needle.
as to their launching stations ? you will attack Diego Gracia?

 

[Peregrine]

Pakistan must target every uS base or all those territories in the region, from where ever the attacks will be launched.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Its not like America will come out all winner in terms of objectives. It will only be a military victory.

Precisely the point I have been making all along, though VCheng and Karan appear to believe that the US would find a military victory over Pakistan, and the decimation of its security institutions and destabilization of the country, more beneficial than the status quo.

 

[boris]

May be we cannot take on their air crafts but we can sure take out their launching stations.

Do you think had PAF wanted they would not have been able to take down the choppers? Even a kid with an M-16 can take down a chopper. Why we couldn't or didn't is an entirely different debate discussed a lot of times in different threads.

you'll need an RPG minimum to take it down.

 

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

To All the intelligent ppl over here,

do u think americans have realised they can't win the war now it is time to go, so breaking ties with pakistan ( militarily and economiclly ) and put place sanction like before.

obama will fullfil its promise, can concentrate more in his election, save some money actually a lot, make india happy and put pakistan again in the corner coz it didnot help them ( we will go back to pre 9/11 situation and may be worse )

i never think there will be any strikes or destablizing pakistan

TARIQ

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I understand that the same government was functioning enough to mediate the deal between the hijackers or an Indian plane and allegedly Pakistan based terrorists. I say they were functioning enough for a terror organization to flourish in. As I said, I dont claim to know the details of resources provided by Taliban to Al Queda, but i would guess stuff like a safe sanctuary to operate from, access to funds, free rein to recruit from the population etc do come handy ...

The only think AQ had was 'safe sanctuary', which, as I have pointed out, AQ, Haqqanis and other extremist and religious groups would also enjoy in a 'destabilized Pakistan' whose security institutions have been destroyed. After the collapse of the military and security institutions, these groups would be the 'biggest and most powerful guns in town' and would likely also attract former members of the security forces and become even more potent, and they would have even more 'free reign' to recruit from the population, especially since a destabilized society and nation would offer even fewer alternate opportunities to becoming part of a 'Holy Resistance'.

Yes, they would probably be more powerful, but at a different level since they wont be operating with complete machinery of a country at their disposal.. And as I said, that is what gives them reach....

You still have not explained what this 'complete machinery of a country' Al Qaeda or any of these other groups enjoyed or currently enjoy, that they would not have even more access to in a destabilized nation and society with no security institutions.

There is nothing in your post that backs that up.. Hence, sorry, but no cigar ....

You are the one that made the claim of 'complete resources of a functioning nation', so far you have offered nothing to support that claim, and the only 'complete resources' you have managed to illustrate credibly are 'safe sanctuary', which these groups would enjoy even more in case of a destabilized society and nation - the evidence backing up my argument lies in the fact that extremist groups existed and flourished in countries like Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq when there was no credible government in place.

Its a matter of opinion buddy.. You may also chose to believe that there is nothing wrong with Pakistan either.. I will still differ with your opinion on both counts...

And I dont see which part of VCheng's posts actually imply a wished harm to Pakistan..

It is also a 'matter of opinion' on how the content of VCheng's posts is interpreted - while concerns may have been publicly expressed by just two individuals on this thread, those who hold a similar opinion of his intent are quite significant in number, and have communicated their concerns in private.

But in any case, the point was merely that the poster has a right to offer his opinion about what he/she believes VCheng is implying - VCheng has the right to correct the impression, if it is indeed incorrect, by responding. Passing an analysis on an entire nation and peoples, as you did in your response to Sur, is neither appropriate nor relevant.

---------- Post added at 11:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------

Pakistan Spat Highlights Bitter Truths Facing the U.S. in Afghanistan​

By Robert Baer

What does Pakistan really want in Afghanistan? That question has become all the more urgent since Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused Pakistan of being indirectly responsible for last week's attack on our embassy in Kabul. Reports of a second possible attack, on Sunday, on the building alleged to house the local CIA station will, no doubt, fuel further speculation. Assessing Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan through the prism of honesty and realpolitik rather than wishful thinking may be the only way we're going to get out of this messy war.

For a start, we need to understand that Pakistan intends to bring down the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, even if that means taking on its sometime U.S. ally. Pakistan hates Karzai out of a conviction that he has made common cause with Pakistan's strategic nemesis, India, and a suspicion that the Afghan leader intends to harm Pakistan's strategic interests in other ways. And, of course, the hatred is mutual. Rightly or wrongly, Karzai believes that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) assassinated his father, and would do the same to him given half a chance. (Read what Pakistan really envisions as an endgame for Afghanistan.)

A second misunderstanding we need to dispense with is that the ISI is somehow a rogue organization outside of Pakistan's chain of command and is pursuing a pro-Taliban agenda all its own. The Pakistani army can remove the ISI director, General Ahmad Shuja Pasha — or any other officer of the organization — at a moment's notice. So, if the ISI did indeed sponsor an attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul, such a step should be assumed to have been taken with the consent of the power that be in Pakistan, i.e. the military establishment. The idea that to make our Pakistan problem go away, the ISI needs to be "cleaned up" is naive. The Pakistani actions that make life difficult for the U.S. in Afghanistan are driven by a clear-sighted strategic agenda.

As for the Pakistani proxy accused of carrying out the embassy attack, the Haqqani network, we need to understand why Pakistan won't give it up or act against it as the U.S. demands. With up to 15,000 fighters and effective control of large parts of eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan's North Waziristan, the Haqqanis are an indispensible party to a peace settlement in Afghanistan — and a vehicle for securing Pakistan's interests in that country after the U.S. withdraws. To sever relations with the Haqqanis now would mean Pakistan giving up a large degree of influence in Afghanistan after the war is over.

The U.S. has for years demanded that Pakistan mount a sweeping military offensive in North Waziristan to destroy the Haqqanis, but even if they were so inclined, the fact is that the Pakistani military has only ever been able to control the main roads in North Waziristan. The Pakistani army is incapable of occupying and holding this territory, no matter how much money we offer or how dire the threats we make. (See whether Pakistan really wants a stable Afghanistan.)

At the core of the problem stands a simple proposition: Pakistan doesn't trust us with Afghanistan — and from Islamabad's perspective, not without cause. We took a strategic decision to invade a country central to their national-security doctrine without seriously consulting them, preferring to think in terms of an Afghanistan of our dreams. Nor did we take into account their strategic interests and the proxies through which they have pursued them. The Soviet Union made the same mistake when it invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

Having failed to prevail a decade later, we now have two choices, neither of them particularly attractive to Washington. We can attempt to destroy the Haqqani base in North Waziristan by invading Pakistan. But to do that effectively would require more troops than we currently have in Afghanistan. Doing so would obviously destroy whatever relations we still have with Pakistan, with profoundly dangerous consequences in Afghanistan and far beyond.

Alternatively, we could hash out a settlement with Pakistan, which would inevitably mean accepting the Haqqanis and easing out Karzai in any political settlement to the conflict. Such a deal would also potentially bring in Afghanistan's other neighbor with real strategic interests in the country — Iran. Iran can be unpredictable, but it's by no means certain it would accept true Pakistani-American collusion in Afghanistan. In the mid-'90s, Iran was all but at war with the Taliban, and if Iran isn't consulted on a settlement, it could play the spoiler.

Accepting Pakistan's postconflict agenda and backing off on the Haqqanis at Karzai's expense is too bitter a pill for Washington to swallow in an election year, so we'll muddle through for another year. But when the U.S. finally leaves, don't be surprised to see the Haqqanis in Kabul.

Baer, a former Middle East CIA field officer, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.
The U.S.-Pakistan Row Reveals Hard Choices in Afghanistan - TIME

 

[nForce]

Ok let me clear this to u,

1: first of all Supplies of America and Nato goes through Pakistan which will be blocked and without continues supplies u can't win the war .

2: and American bombers will have to come from long distances and Pakistan will just have to Defend it which Pakistan can easily do and using ground based Long range missile Pakistan can destroy the bases .

Either the bombers/fighter jet will come from Afghanistan or from aircraft carriers surely they will not use IRAN air space, in this case please c point 2.

Pakistan will attack from front and Taliban will c it as a great opportunity and will attack from behind becoz most area is under Taliban control and Americans forces will be like a sandwich .

So i don't think Pakistan will be much affected but surely american's defeat will be a indication of American Empire same thing happened to soviets

Forget about the war part..dont you think a plain and simple economic blockade will bring Pakistan to its knees??I mean take a look at the situation,the Forex reserves of Pakistan can't stay afloat without regular relief packages from IMF/UK/US/ADB.If with the present reserves Pakistan can sustain its fuel costs for at max. a month,then what will happen after an economic blockade?Pakistan will be more like Afghanistan,broken into areas controlled by war-lords.
Of course you can still continue fighting,but then here we are talking about a catastrophe.Surely a common American will not feel the fangs of a blockade,but a common Pakistani will.
Now,if we can talk about the war part.Do you remember Berlin blockade?That happened long time ago,1948.USAF airlifted all the supplies to Berlin providing 4700 tonnes of supplies daily for whole one year.If that can be done way back in the late forties,imagine what can be done with the present generation technologies.
It will be wise to see that this situation never comes.