Should US trust Pakistan??

[Ashoka]

Well, it has been announced that Pakistan will now assist US and allies in dealing w/ bin Lauden and Afganistan.

But some US media report that the Pakistani military is FULL of Taliban supporters, and any plans will be reported back to Kabul almost instantly.

SO - US and allies need an entry to Afganistan, Pakistan seems the only candidate. But, with friends like these....

Should we form an alliance, Civer's?

Ashoka

 

[G-Man]

I don't know. Isn't there a way from the north? Anyway, I have no idea about the Pakistan and Afghanistan armies, so I don't know how much will the US use surprise.

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

I would point to Russia as a better point of launching an assault. Of course, the Taliban could simply flee to Pakistan then...better to guard the Pakistani border, but to launch attacks from the other direction.

Pakistan is nuclear capable, I believe. Best to take their friendship.

 

[jc011]

i believe there are a few groups who disagree with Pakistan helping the U.S, but that shouldn't be very significant if the U.S move in with troops.

 

[G-Man]

I know they have some nukes. I'm more worried about the Afghan army. do they use tanks and all or just infantry? What size is their air force? Things like that.<br />I'm pretty sure Russia and Afghanistan don't have a commmon border. However, China has a border with Afghanistan, and someone in another topic said China's on our side. But will they let US troops to their country?<br />Well, as much as I've heard a lot of people in Afghanistan are against letting the US in. They have over 10 million Afghans, and a lot of Bin Laden supporters there. CNN said they also have some Bin Laden training camps.

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: G-Man ]</p>

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

We should trust them about as far as i can throw my wife's SUV.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

I'm ALMOST sure we gonna use Russia for that.Most of the southern ex-Ussr nations are very good friends of the Russians anyway.Like Tadjikistan,wich is on the border of Afhanistan ,and where the Russian army is fighting the Taliban already. (to stop the Cocaine smugal)

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

by the Great Hippo:

Pakistan is nuclear capable, I believe. Best to take their friendship. <br /> <hr></blockquote>

Ideed ,they are nuclear capable.But if they would use them?<br />India and Pakistan have recently been in war over the Kasjmir region.both India and Pakistan had nukes at that point.No nukes were used. (and that's for the best too)

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Originally posted by G-Man:<br /><strong>I know they have some nukes. I'm more worried about the Afghan army. do they use tanks and all or just infantry? What size is their air force? Things like that.<br />[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: G-Man ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

They definitely use missiles. I saw that directly on CNN tuesday night, live from Kabul, where the sky was lit by incoming missiles and AA guns returning fire. But the ground war would probably be EXTREMELY difficult, in any way, according to one danish navy seal I heard last night. Its all mountain terrain, and you can't even bomb these areas with much impact. There's too many places to hide, too many places to make an ambush, and no intelligence as the local pop will be anti-US. It could be another Vietnam. I believe special operation teams will be needed, but it'll be extremely important to have the right intelligence, to pinpoint locations to get at. Otherwise, squads will risk walking right into traps etc. It's the worst location for a ground war. I liked what Ranger said in the other thread about the psychological impact of this huge build-up. I hope it does the trick a great part of the way.

 

[HIEROPHANT]

If Pakistan betrays USA so be it then the usa can destroy them for helping the evil Bin Ladden. Pakistan mostly go where the money goes.

 

[Rangers, Lead the Way]

"Trust" does not even enter the equation.

We have a mutual use for each other. Our use for them is logistical and intelligence, their use for us is making sure they're not a target.

The US will not give high level operational intel to the Pakistanis. They will give useful intel to us, because in the great equation of things, they'd rather sell out Taleban and al Qaedda than see the US turn against them. Pakistan has a lot of instability, a very large, very hostile neighbor to the south, and the possibility of economic isolation from the west and military attacks from the US is not in their interest. They realize this, so they'll cooperate. We need cooperation, not trust.

With respect to the "toughness" of fighting in Afghanistan, the primary issues are logistics, not combat. We do NOT need to hunt down every ******* who runs into the mountains with a Kalashnikov and whatever ammo he can carry. That's a USSR mistake. We will not abandon materiel and ammo on the battlefield like the Soviet troops did, they will not have the US supplying them with stingers, and the entire Islamic world supplying them with money, supplies, and personnel support.

If some ****er runs into the mountains and wants to spend the winter in a cave with whatever rations and ammo he can carry, let him. The bugs, worms and rats will finish with him come spring. The Afghan people will not be anti-US for long, the Iraqis weren't. Psyops, food supplies, and medical treatment, and respect for their culture and religion, will make the vast majority ambivalent, at worst.

Unlike the USSR, we don't need to set up an occupation or proxy government, nor do we need to secure control of the total territory. Once the Taleban leadership has fled, the Northern Alliance will provide civil government, they'll do the dirty work of hunting down Taleban remnants.

The Vietnam analogy is a crock of horsehockey. In Vietnam, you had another nation, North Vietnam, provide the major source of materiel, significant manpower, and you had the support of the two major regional powers in the USSR and PRC, plus access to trails and safe havens in two "neutral" countries the US was generally not allowed to operate in.

In Vietnam, they owned the night in most areas. The USSR had limited use of low quality NV gear in Afghanistan. We have the best quality night vision gear issued throughout our forces. When we fight, WE own the night, from the ground and in the air.

That gives us the ability to separate the fighters against us from significant sources of supply, that gives us the ability to hit them any time and any place they are on the move.

The Soviets made the mistake of attacking the villages in reprisal for supporting the resistance, they made the mistake of committing atrocities, they were indiscriminate in inflicting casualties, and they bought into the mentality of going after every peasant with a weapon. They still would have won without outside support to the Afghan resistance.

We have no reason to fight that way, we have a two decade plus advanatage in tecnology over the USSR army, and we have better troops, better doctrine, better leaders and better discipline than they have ever had.

In short, if Taleban wants to get it on with us, we're going to kick their asses so hard our boots will be sticking out their nostrils. The Iraqis were supposed to be ****-hot battle tested combat veterans. We taught them what real was was like. The Taleban will learn that same lesson if they give us reason to go after them.

They're threatening attacks on other nations who support us. That's already a confession of desperation. Whatever tough talk comes from them, they know they're ****ed if they take us on, that's why they have to threaten potential allies with what can only be terrorist actions, because they have no other power projection abilities.

 

[James913]

What seems to have fallen by the way side in the last cuople of days, and understanably but not rightly is international law.

The U.S. has spent alot of time and money since 1945 to ensure the soverignty of smaller states and condemed actions where larger states have attacked smaller states to extract revenge for terrorist activities.(Chechtnia (who knows how to spell it?)Even though what happened a couple of days ago was a terrible thing the US must act according to the standard it insists that other countries accord with. The US treads a fine line between international ploiceman and international bully, surely we are beyond might is right.

So comeing back to my original point about international law. It must be rembered that terrorist have always been treated as private citizens and although there is a possibilty of state support none has been proven nor has the Benladen connection been completely proven. There for the US can not infringe upon another countries soveringty by sending troops in to that country with out the states expressed request.

If the US did this they would be going against everything they have worked for since 1945!!! They would also be telling other states that if they fall prey to such attacks then it is ok to just invade the suspects country of origin, which may have nothing to do with the suspects actions. Or perhaps is the US saying "do as I say not as I do"?

So to the question of Pakistan. It would be a very brave or very stupid country that would not, at this time express solidarity with the United States. Of course they can be trusted because, at this time no government in the world that was not hell bent of its own destruction dare cross the United States now.

Also in my opinion if there is any movement of US troops into Afganastan (which would be illeagal unless the Talaban expressed such a request)it will not be a full scale army (Surely the US has learned its lesson from Vietnam)it will be a small highly trained heavily armed extraction group who would extract Benladen before whisking him of to a show trial.

 

[Rangers, Lead the Way]

"International law" is remarkably flexible. <img src="icon12.gif" border="0"> In fact, it has holes in situations like this you could drive an entire mechanized corps through. <img src="icon12.gif" border="0">

There is no need for a public "trial" to "prove" the "right" to invade and attack Taleban. They are only recognized as a government by three nations, all three of which are turning their back. There is NO internationally recognized legitimate government in Afghanistan.

The simple way to dispose of the international law nonsense (the same trick the USSR used) - all we have to do is recognize the NA, in return for their invite in. Or anyone else. Once we're there, we don't necessarily worry about how long they're the "recognized" government. The "permission" issue is mostly a joke.

The recognition of terrorism as individual acts, not national ones, is nowhere near as absolute as you think. They are individual acts only if carried out without the knowledge, consent, or support of other nations. Jurisdictional questions and international law niceties aren't going to affect what happens one bit.

 

[Ashoka]

"Trust" does not even enter the equation.<br />We have a mutual use for each other. Our use for them is logistical and intelligence, their use for us is making sure they're not a target.<br /> <hr></blockquote>

Well, I'm not sure I could be quite that smug. Did anyone see the Pakistani ambasador on TV last night? Anyone trust her as far as you could throw a volkswagon?

The Northern alliance says don't trust them. Several international experts on the regional cgovernment say that the distinction between Pakistan and Afganistan as 2 different countries is more on paper that it is in reality. If the Taliban controls Afganistan, and has majority or close to majority control of the Pakistani military and close to control of their legislature - if the current president, who is in after a coup staged last year, and has pretty questionable world legitimacy himself, is a figurehead more than anything - we could be stepping into a giant sh*t-trap.

I actually think the whole thing might be a feignt anyway - I half suspect Sadam is the real target.

Ashoka

 

[amadeus]

Don't trust anyone that believes the Taliban as a legitimate government. They're not.

 

[allan]

The easiest land path seems to be through Pakistan--the Khyber Pass. But since it is a long, narrow mountain pass (from what I understand, I've never seen it), it could potentially harbor ambushes along the mountainsides (which air forces wouldn't necessarily get at).

If we do a major ground assault, it would have to be through Tadjikistan (Russian bases). And then they could rendezvous with the Afghan northern alliance. All we should probably do in Pakistan is secure the border to prevent bin Laden or the Taliban from fleeing there when the sh*t comes....

 

[Rangers, Lead the Way]

Like I said, trust doesn't enter into the equation.

The Khyber pass is only historically significant because of it's proximity and access to the headwaters of the Indus river. We don't give a ****, and the river's going the wrong way anyway.

In order to use the Khyber pass as a supply route, you have to have 100% physical security along the whole route, the whole time. Small infiltration teams of fanatics can tie up the pass for hours, and do disproportionate damage.

There are two better roads, about 50 and 80 miles to the southwest, departing from the railhead at Thal, in Pakistan. From Thal, there is a road almost due north, to Parachinar on the Pak side of the border. The road about 50 miles SW of Khyber pass goes from Parachinar almost due west then curving slightly south to Gardeyz, a provincial capital about 60 miles south of Kabul.

The second road, about 30 miles further south, departs due west from about halfway up the Thal-Parachinar road, crosses the Afghan border WSW into the town of Khowst, then curves gradually NW and runs into Gardeyz from the southerly side.

From Gardeyz, you have about a 20 mile movement NNW to the provincial town of Baraki, which is about MLRS range from defenses on the southern outskirts of Kabul. You're easy gunship distance to the Jalalabad road juntion which goes to the NW end of the Khyber pass, and you can contest that supply route from Baraki easily.

Go a little west from Baraki, you're on the main valley highway that goes from Kabul all the way to Ghazni, Kandahar and beyond, right to the Iranian border. It's one of the main roads in the whole country, the main route for reinforcements into Kabul or retreat into the Taleban's ethnic Pashtun support base in southern Afghanistan. Controlling that road gets you down to Ghazni and Zareh Sharan, both provincial capitals, and both in the smaller of the two agricultural plains in the whole country. Control that road, and you control the capital's food supply. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

 

[allan]

Man, you sure did your homework! I don't know the geography of that region all that well, it turns out--I was under the impression that the Khyber pass was the only real break in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan--seems I'm wrong.

Plus of course you have a lot of experience in the area of land conflict--I was a squid....