What would happen if a US-led coalition invaded and occupied Pakistan?

Question

As we all know, Obama has been talking tough. He could be elected. If the invasion happened, then what?

Predictions, please

Answer 1

The Democrats would spin it into some kind of wise foreign policy decision - then blame the Republicans for any problems.

Answer 2

If it was ordered I would guess the military would advise against it and then follow orders as they have too. I would be long and bloody, in military terms Iraq is not bloody the casualty rate is not very high at all, but think in terms of Normandy, Iwo Jima, Battle of the Bulge type casualty rates. The military would be bled dry and eventually would lose Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel following soon after. It could easily lead to a much wider conflict as China and Russia both would not like us in Pakistan and threatening the southern borders more they feel we are now. If you are talking air strikes-if the Pakistani government officially and publicly requested it then we could do that; the problem there is they cannot do that and stay in power long term. In short it won't happen unless some one with no sense of the military or common sense gets elected.

Answer 3

I wouldn't waste time trying to predict something that will never happen. Don't read too much into what candidates say, especially before both parties have chosen their nomination.

Obama was referring more to airstrikes in certain areas, if the intelligence warranted it, not an invasion. There is no appetite for another war in the US. If this were to happen, the Pakistani government may make some public protests, but would in reality concede that they were not the target, and may privately welcome it.

Obama was simply reflecting a wider impatience that many in the West feel about the current Pakistan government, and their unwillingness/inability to tackle extremists in their own country.

Answer 4

Pakistan would launch it's nuclear weapons in self defense. At who may determine many different things - they may launch them at the invading force, or may choose to do a maverick action and launch them at their long term rivals India - especially if India either supports the action or perhaps does nothing to stop it. Either way, tens of thousands of people die needless deaths.

If being an ally of the US (which Pakistan is) is NO safety against invasion, what possible reason do people have to co-operate with the US on any issue? Invasion of Pakistan would be even more stupid than invasion of Iraq - ESPECIALLY as the majority of the US military is already bogged down there and Afghanistan. Do you really want a war covering almost the whole middle east?

Answer 5

Carnage.

Just as Iraq and Afghanistan have been a rallying cry to extremists throughout the Islamic world, Pakistan would be as well.

For those wondering about nukes, the US would be able to eliminate Pakistans nuclear threat without getting hit back in return. India might not survive such an attack though as Pakistan might launch against its neighbour.

US troops would be killed on the ground through the same ambush tactics that are in use right now, and innocent civilians would be butchered in the crossfire.

Answer 6

The military was cut down to a size where it was estimated they could handle two "minor" wars, and still maintain a credible defense in both Europe and Korea.

That was under G. Bush I, shortly after the Kuwait affair. The numbers were a hard thing for this old Cold Warrior to take, but they were a fair evaluation.

Under the Clinton Administration, the military got cut even worse -- dangerously so, by Clinton, and "advisors" who, as a rule had never served a day in their lives.

The catch phrase was 'two minor conflicts' -- 'war' was no longer mentioned. All in the name of acquiring a "peace dividend' -- not a tax reduction as it implied, but a reallocation of tax revenues to other pork barrels.

So, here we are, with two 'minor conflicts' going on, and the N. Koreans, the Persians, and even the Russians and Chinese are getting a bit frisky.

Not a big wonder -- they can count, too. The current-sized U.S. military is hard put to keep up with things, both combat and logistical.

Simply put, if we continue on the current path, we are going to have to expand the military, particularly the ground forces, by a good 35-40%. Clinton's peace dividend? Gone. The fun's over, we have to get back to work.

Besides, there is a burgeoning China to consider. Their *peacetime* Army is 8 million strong -- about the total number of U.S. forces in early 1945....

There's a late Roman period phrase that puts things into perspective: "Si vis pacem, para bellum."

"if you seek peace, prepare for war." (Vegetius, possibly, ca. 390 AD)

The idea is that if your country's forces are overwhelmingly strong, you won't be attacked.

Right now? We don't have the active divisions to put on th e ground in mountain country. (It would take about five, in my humble estimate, maybe more.) We don't have the support troops to supply them, nor the routes or transport assets to handle the payloads.

To hire and train for such an effort would take at least two years.

Obama? He's talking, but not out of his mouth.

wsulliva

Answer 7

From what I understood he just meant the parts of Pakistan where the Pakistan Government has no authority

It would indeed however be the first intrusion in too the territory of a nuclear power, to say the lest a risky prospect.

However if you have an enemy which does not recognise national boundaries , can you win the war by not " stepping over the line?.

"dammed if you do and dammed if you don t.

Answer 8

Interesting question and i think that the united states military would have already invaded Pakistan if it wasn't for their nuclear arsenal. Military wise they are quite strong and it wouldn't be a walk in the park like Afghanistan. You could be looking at situations varying from a nuclear war with Pakistan to a full out world war. The American military is too stretched out anyways and it wouldn't be in the U.S' s best financial and diplomatic interests to invade this country. Especially considering what the Chinese, Russians and Iranians had to say about the matter.

Answer 9

Pakistan is four times the population of Iraq. The Taliban control the north, Al Quieda controls Kashmir in the Northeast. The Pro Iranian Baluchis control the west.
And they have some nuclear weapons.

Answer 10

a question springs to mind.
where is the non-US element going to come from?
the British army is already being decimated , both physically and morally , in our meaningless escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan.
our European friends???? are making sure they keep their heads well below the parapet in both wars.
Blair is now a peace envoy (you couldn't make it up,could you) and Bush is the nutter he always was ,thankfully getting the boot soon.
forget any more idiotic wars we cannot win. get the lads home soonest. pull up the drawbridge for a while and see who is doing what to who.get control of our internal situation.
if our Muslim friends want to blow sh*t out of each other , fine.lets just say its gods ,or Allah's will or something.
once the western liberators are out of the picture then these dumb schmucks will see that the problem is theirs.they are killing their own kind.
we did our best,despite our politicians. lets just come home.

Answer 11

Hmm let me see...

The U.S invades one of the worlds most populous Muslim countries, which has the worlds fifth largest nuclear arsenal, and where the people hate the U.S.......

Add to that the fact that both Britain and the U.S have very sizable Pakistani populations.

Not a great idea.

That was Obamas "jumping the couch" moment.