What If Pakistan had refused bases to US post 9/11

[I.R.A]

First of all sorry it is a discussion based thread only, so I don't have links to back it up.

It happens that unfortunately I got into a discussion with an Indian poster @ayesha.a about how India was dying to offer its bases to US Post 9/11 had Pakistan refused to do so. Most of us have seen and witnessed the decade long invasion and how it all started, how scum of the Earth were made allies and how democracy and women rights were delivered at doorsteps of Afghans. What I want to do is discuss is a what if hypothetical situation post 9/11, where suppose Pakistan refused its bases to US and Nato, I know for sure that Pakistan would have suffered the grave consequences (which we did any way), but how would US proceed with the invasion part to satisfy its urge for revenge, what would be India's role then. I am including the last reply that I got from lady ayesha before that thread got closed, she has questioned my integrity and I promise that after discussion on this thread if it is proven that India would not have offered its bases and support to Nato and US, I will appologise and accept that my argument was baseless. And if it is proven that India would have, then the poster needs to withdraw her accusation. I am tagging knowledgeable and professionals to this thread and I will appreciate if they could shed some light on this. (I have tried to maintain a balance while tagging people, so that we can have a more balanced bias free debate, however, I will encourage if other professionals and experts could also be tagged by participants, as tagging is limited to five people at a time now)

You think US needs land bases to send Pakistan to the stone age? One aircraft carrier battle group can destroy Pakistan - and USA can deploy at least three on short notice in the IOR. The US can destroy any country with or without land bases. Heck, forget even their CBGs and MEFs - just their ICBMs launched from US soil can destroy Pakistan several times over. (And that is not unique to Pakistan, they can do that to most countries.)

At this point, you might want to admit that your statements were baseless, that India was "dying to provide" them with bases. Your hypotheticals about "where would the US have looked" if Pak refused and so on are...hypotheticals. Yes, your integrity is questionable if you cannot admit that you cannot back up your claim.

Your claim was nonsensical. Your skirting around it instead of admitting it, smacks of lack of integrity.

@MastanKhan @Indus Falcon @third eye @Bang Galore @Psychic

 

[I.R.A]

@Psychic @AUSTERLITZ @Icarus

 

[MastanKhan]

First of all sorry it is a discussion based thread only, so I don't have links to back it up.

It happens that unfortunately I got into a discussion with an Indian poster @ayesha.a about how India was dying to offer its bases to US Post 9/11 had Pakistan refused to do so. Most of us have seen and witnessed the decade long invasion and how it all started, how scum of the Earth were made allies and how democracy and women rights were delivered at doorsteps of Afghans. What I want to do is discuss is a what if hypothetical situation post 9/11, where suppose Pakistan refused its bases to US and Nato, I know for sure that Pakistan would have suffered the grave consequences (which we did any way), but how would US proceed with the invasion part to satisfy its urge for revenge, what would be India's role then. I am including the last reply that I got from lady ayesha before that thread got closed, she has questioned my integrity and I promise that after discussion on this thread if it is proven that India would not have offered its bases and support to Nato and US, I will appologise and accept that my argument was baseless. And if it is proven that India would have, then the poster needs to withdraw her accusation. I am tagging knowledgeable and professionals to this thread and I will appreciate if they could shed some light on this. (I have tried to maintain a balance while tagging people, so that we can have a more balanced bias free debate, however, I will encourage if other professionals and experts could also be tagged by participants, as tagging is limited to five people at a time now)



@MastanKhan @Indus Falcon @third eye @Bang Galore @Psychic

Hi,

Indeed India offered any and all bases that it could use-----. and if Pakistan had refused---the U S would just have ploughed thru Pakistan to test its better weaponery.

We have a great example in front of us----some 800 plus years ago----. Genghis Khan tells the Governor of Otrar to punish those who killed his traders----on refusal he send the next message to his Uncle the Khalifah---he refuses and kills the messengers----.

And Genghis Khan asks his brothers and generals---Does he not know what I am going to do to him?

I am grateful to Musharraf that he understood the threat.

The problems afterwards are the doing of Pakistanis and no one else. The Pakistani media was leading them and they believed it like it was the true Gospel.

 

[I.R.A]

Hi,

Indeed India offered any and all bases that it could use-----. and if Pakistan had refused---the U S would just have ploughed thru Pakistan to test its better weaponery.

We have a great example in front of us----some 800 plus years ago----. Genghis Khan tells the Governor of Otrar to punish those who killed his traders----on refusal he send the next message to his Uncle the Khalifah---he refuses and kills the messengers----.

And Genghis Khan asks his brothers and generals---Does he not know what I am going to do to him?

I am grateful to Musharraf that he understood the threat.

The problems afterwards are the doing of Pakistanis and no one else. The Pakistani media was leading them and they believed it like it was the true Gospel.

Sir, thank you for your reply much appreciated. I had mentioned this that Musharaf being COAS and Chief Executive of Pakistan would have had access to all relevant information to make a decision of lending support and bases to US and Nato, that information would have also included how our neighbor(s) would react if we deny any support. But the poster wants credible links to back this up, and I don't know how any newspaper or tv channel would have known better than Musharaf himself.

And poster is hell bent on making a point that US does not or did not need any bases to destroy suppose Pakistan or any other country except may be self-proclaimed super power itself. Whereas, we have already witnessed how US still needed Northern Alliance to start its invasion of a war torn country like Afghanistan.

 

[Chand mukhra]

I'm going to give you guys simple example. Only smart one will understand. If you look into 4 big cats. Lion, tiger, leopard, and cheetah. All 4 of them are dangerous but have big weakness, but out of 4 only leopard has less weakness but almost all strengths that other 3 cat have. Lion powerful but can not run fast for longer periods, can not swim or not comfortable with water can not climb. Same with tiger, tall and heavy and dangerous, can swim easly, but can not run fast or climb. It's color won't let him hunt in open field. Cheetah can run fast, but can not swim, climb, or even fight with one hayena. It's only leopard who can run fast enough for longer period, can swim comfortably, climbing on trees best weapon, and strong enough to fight and escape from big cats. Can take big victims down.
In this world Pakistan is like leopard. We have big countries like lion and tigers(you guys know whom I'm talking about) only India is like cheetah who's economy way better than us. So there's no way cheetah can mess with leopard unless leopard is injured and cheetah can easily out run leopard and that's what Indian trying to do since 9/11. No matter what how bad injured leopard is cheetah will still get serious injury from leopard.
Now, lions and tigers trying to take leopards victims but since leopard can not direct panic with lions and tigers. Leopard trying his all tricks to avoid lions and tigers charges. Same time lions and tigers can not swim and climb don't want to take chances and get drown or get bad injuries by falling down from tree.
Any weather, any climate, any field, or any situation it's only leopard who can hunt and survive and escape. So people with common sense will get what I said here. Not trying to disrespect or hurt anybody's feelings.

 

[third eye]

What I want to do is discuss is a what if hypothetical situation post 9/11, where suppose Pakistan refused its bases to US and Nato

A couple of things.

Pakistan did not provide bases because India would have if Pak had said No. This thought must have definitely crosses Mush's mind while he took the call.

Nations decide based on their own national interests.

Knowing India's political situation, any Govt that provides a base to US or any other nation for that matter would put itself in grave risk in the next election & they would not do it . So , given all this India would not have provided bases to attack Pakistan , overflight , logistics at ports maybe - under the garb of attacking AQ not Pakistan.

Pakistan was approached for two reasons - One the most obvious - logistical convenience & the next was that its involvement in AQ ops was the worst kept secret. By pulling Mush into their fold the US succeeded addressing in both as subsequent events showed.

Now, had Pak said no - Mush would have got great acclaim from the hardliners not the sensible in Pak. The fallout would have been that after publically exposing Pak & its being complicit in all what goes wrong the US & its allies would have begun with an embargo even on oil ( through the UN maybe) , declared Pakistan a pariah state .

It has enough platforms around Pak in the shape of bases and would have added floating ones too in the Arabian Sea . Not to say that would have gone to war with Pakistan not because it could not ( remember the world sentiment then was such that anything would be acceptable) but because it would dilute the focus on Af & OBL.

 

[!eon]

What If Pakistan had refused bases to US post 9/11

Nothing had happened, as Iran's stand is far more than that.

Lonely Musharraf wanted American stamp on his chair, so he put every thing in American's lap. Even American themselves were astonished on blessings of Musharraf.

 

[I.R.A]

A couple of things.

Pakistan did not provide bases because India would have if Pak had said No. This thought must have definitely crosses Mush's mind while he took the call.

Nations decide based on their own national interests.

Knowing India's political situation, any Govt that provides a base to US or any other nation for that matter would put itself in grave risk in the next election & they would not do it . So , given all this India would not have provided bases to attack Pakistan , overflight , logistics at ports maybe - under the garb of attacking AQ not Pakistan.

Pakistan was approached for two reasons - One the most obvious - logistical convenience & the next was that its involvement in AQ ops was the worst kept secret. By pulling Mush into their fold the US succeeded addressing in both as subsequent events showed.

Now, had Pak said no - Mush would have got great acclaim from the hardliners not the sensible in Pak. The fallout would have been that after publically exposing Pak & its being complicit in all what goes wrong the US & its allies would have begun with an embargo even on oil ( through the UN maybe) , declared Pakistan a pariah state .

It has enough platforms around Pak in the shape of bases and would have added floating ones too in the Arabian Sea . Not to say that would have gone to war with Pakistan not because it could not ( remember the world sentiment then was such that anything would be acceptable) but because it would dilute the focus on Af & OBL.

Let me backtrack from my original argument that India was all ready to offer its support and bases in case Pakistan refused (just for sake of understanding it better), let us suppose India was in place of Pakistan just the unlucky neighbor and it had no involvement in Afghanistan at all like Pakistan........................ do you still think India could have refused the opportunity / threat knocking its door just because the government that decides to offer all support won't be elected again?


Just remember the famous phrase "You are either with us or against us" and all emotions involved. All I am saying is it is a hypothetical scenario, Pakistan could not escape this decision of lending bases whatsoever and whosoever was in charge so destruction of Pakistan as a result of refusal is not the point of debate, but still assume Pakistan went nuts and refused .................. would India be following Pakistan's footstep? I cannot but just fail to understand that how India would not have worked out its response if this was outcome at that time, how India would not have evaluated the benefits and risks of this opportunity, I am sure India would have lot more to gain then to worry about how local populace would react. And also how US could not have used Indian willingness to pressurize Pakistan into submission?

 

[Bang Galore]

Though there were rumours of India having offered access to its bases, there was never any official offer made. In fact, just after the war in Afghanistan had started, Admiral Dennis Blair visited New Delhi in November 2001and met the defence minister George Fernandes, NSA Brajesh Mishra and Admiral Sushil Kumar, Naval chief and chairman of Chiefs of Staff Committee. He essentially asked for three things, support for US military ships in Mumbai and Goa, 'stage-through' facility at Indian Air Force bases for US long range bombers and Indian troops in Afghanistan. This was put to the CCS comprising Advani, Jaswant Singh, George Fernandes, Brijesh Mishra, apart from Vajpayee. The CCS was split with atleast two members pushing for the U.S. proposal. Vajpayee then asked the service chiefs for their opinion & Admiral Sushil Kumar put forth his reservations. At that time, the UN had not given approval for ISAF (done in december 2001) and that was the reason cited to object. Since Vajpayee was not in favour of this move anyways, he latched on to he objection from the chiefs and closed the debate.