If/when the US wins the war in Iraq what happens if all the terrorists move to Pakistan where.................

Question

Al Qaeda already has a base?

Answer 1

good question... and reguardless of what happens in Iraq, Pakistan still seems to be their main base... I would bet Republicans continue to ignore the problem the same way they have for 7 years...

Obama talked about dealing with the situation... I don't know if he would do anything, but he's about the only one talking about it even...

Answer 2

If there's another loon like Bush in charge we'll send in the 'troops' and we'll be there until the end of time. The difference between 'winning' the war in Iraq an an invasion of Pakistan centers on two things. Iraq is mostly flat and open, and their military stood up with a 3rd world army. That's why US forces rolled over Saddam's defenses in less than 3 weeks. Pakistan, at least where the 'terrorists' are is mountain country and they have no 'army'...just people who have a lot of weapons and the knowledge of how to use them against invaders. Unless US forces are as ruthless as Alexander's army was there is no 'winning'. Alexander killed everyone until there was no more trouble. I doubt if the US would do that, so any operation there, as in Iraq, can only be a half@ssed effort. As much as anyone hates to admit it, this war is miltarily LOST. It's time to go to plan 'b'....someone should ask what plan 'b' is!

Answer 3

The most likely thing is that America will 'pressure' the Musharaf government to 'do something' - leading to a military conflict between the Pakistani military and the Al Qeada/Taliban-sympathetic tribes in the region. That conflict could spill out into a general Pakistani civil war, toppling Musharaf, resulting in Pakistan's nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of terrorists. Alternately, the US Military could go into Pakistan, most likely leading to the immediate fall of Musharaf, and Pakistan's nuclear weapons either being passed to terrorist intentionally, or, again, falling into thier hands. The US could, for fear of Pakastani nukes falling into the hands of terrorists, launch a pre-emptive strike against those forces - a move that would turn global opinion even more against the US (if that's possible) and give terrorists and even greater incentive to seek nuclear weapons (possibly any Pakistani nukes that survived, or nukes from Iran, the DPRK, or some of those 'missing' soviet nukes) and use them against the US.

So, it's a lose-lose-lose situation. Hope whoever's elected President is up to the challenge...

Answer 4

The logical move is to hound them where ever they go. Obviously, Pakistan would prefer that only the old and harmless be there, but if the militants head that way, I'm sure that they would not object to the US staying close behind.

Answer 5

Then a wise President asks for the help of the Pakistani Government. If they drag their feet, or openly defy, the US very publicly doubles it's aid to India, at the expense of aid to Pakistan.

Answer 6

We slap a helmet on Obama, and have him hunt Osama. Now run and tell your mama. Wow, I made a rap, and it didn't sound like crap.

Obama was ready and willing to go to war with Pakistan so I say let him lead the way.

Answer 7

The U.S. will NEVER WIN-it is a Viet-nam situation combined with an OIL-TYCOONs' GREED! Looking back, this was NEVER a "git-em-for 9/11" deal, but Bush opportunity to protect HIS HEIRS' INCOME!

Answer 8

We'll probably fall into the trap of attacking them in Pakistan... And then they'll move elsewhere.

Terrorism is not effectively dealt-with by invasions, occupations, and bombings. It is something that needs prudence, patience, sound leadership and intelligence to defeat.

Answer 9

You mean the "Civil War" we are stuck in the middle of? You mean the war that we have no business taking part of? We physically CAN'T win Iraqi's civil war because it is not our war to begin with.

Answer 10

They are already there, there was never a terrorist threat from Iraq.