America Invades Pakistan - How Badly Does It Turn Out?

[DG Valdron]

Against a country that is multiethnic, with a severely alienated populace.

That's often overrated. Iran was multi-ethnic, with a severely alienated populace. Saddam counted on that, to his misfortune. Declare war, they'll all put aside their differences to fight you.

Furthermore, it's an actual war against a country, not propping up a tottering government against a determined insurgency,

Much, much, much harder to have an actual war against a country, rather than supporting a shaky country against an ongoing insurgency.

and chances are we will have the support of it's gigantic neighbor to the east.

Good luck with that. India's history has been one of dedicated neutrality. I'm sure that they would happily support America's war on Pakistan, in exchange for the massive numbers of refugees and the regional dislocations that will come out of that. I'm sure that India will have no concerns about destabilization from its own Muslim population. Nor about the repercussions for its relationships and conflicts with China and Russia.

That's just the beginning of it. Again, for this to feasibly happen, Pakistan has to do something incredibly stupid

You mean creating and supporting the Taliban? Giving shelter to Osama Bin Laden and his buddies and relatives? Trafficking in illegal nuclear weapons technology to countries like Iran or North Korea. Yeah, none of these things are likely to happen.

or has to be on the verge of going feral.

If the Pakistani state has collapsed... then why bother to invade?

That means the US has world support. Where is the Ho Chi Minh trail or superpower support for Pakistan?

You mean like the Coalition of the Billing?

It's not worth it.

But Pakistan doesn't have a chance of beating India in a conventional war in every war game simulation that has been done. They won't be beating the US.

Gravity, as the Tick said, is a harsh mistress.

If we want to bomb Pakistan, we can. We can pretty much bomb any country in the world with varying degrees of impunity. But there's a difference between just throwing a few jets and missiles around, and actually conquering an entire country. There's a world of difference between places like Grenada and Panama, or broken cripples like Afghanistan and Iraq and a place like Pakistan.

We could theoretically conquer the place, in the same sense that we could theoretically mount a manned expedition to Jupiter.

In practical terms, it would require more resources than we could sustainably muster.

 

[Realpolitik]

That's often overrated. Iran was multi-ethnic, with a severely alienated populace. Saddam counted on that, to his misfortune. Declare war, they'll all put aside their differences to fight you.

Any group that is willing to go to war with the USA is conceivably going to have to be ideologically hardcore enough to alienate much of the populace and former government. Again, apples to oranges.

Much, much, much harder to have an actual war against a country, rather than supporting a shaky country against an ongoing insurgency.

No. The USA cannot be matched in conventional firepower. Where we suck are insurgencies. Way easier task for the US is to pound the enemy into dust.

Good luck with that. India's history has been one of dedicated neutrality. I'm sure that they would happily support America's war on Pakistan, in exchange for the massive numbers of refugees and the regional dislocations that will come out of that. I'm sure that India will have no concerns about destabilization from its own Muslim population. Nor about the repercussions for its relationships and conflicts with China and Russia.

India's ultimate dream would be Pakistan disappearing. That means they dominate the region totally. And considering the likely conditions that would have to be fulfilled to get this to happen and the time period I said this would happen, they would welcome it. Who would lose most with a suicidal and extremely anti-Indian regime in Islamabad?

Why would the Indian Muslims revolt? They have fought in India's wars against Pakistan, again and again. Latif, Hamid, etc... Bangladesh as well was Muslim. Didn't stop them from greeting the Indians as liberators. They are pretty moderate and identify as Indian. By 2002, India is by far a much more superior place to live. They have no reason to support Pakistan.

Russia is India/Iran aligned against Pakistan. And if the conditions make this non-ASB are fulfilled, China probably won't have a problem with it.

You mean creating and supporting the Taliban? Giving shelter to Osama Bin Laden and his buddies and relatives? Trafficking in illegal nuclear weapons technology to countries like Iran or North Korea. Yeah, none of these things are likely to happen.

Stupid and evil are not the same thing. Pakistan knows it can get away with it, so they do.

What I have in mind is far, far different. Openly attacking the USA levels. Bush II is never going to do this OTL, as I've been quite explicit about.

If the Pakistani state has collapsed... then why bother to invade?

I said if Pakistan went feral. That means if someone nuts takes over and has the nuclear arsenal.

If the Pakistani state collapses, the answer is simple. To prevent the nuclear arsenal from getting into hands that shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

You mean like the Coalition of the Billing?

If conditions got to the point where an invasion of Pakistan ever was feasible, this would in all likelihood mean a world that is terrified of the people in Islamabad.

Gravity, as the Tick said, is a harsh mistress.

If we want to bomb Pakistan, we can. We can pretty much bomb any country in the world with varying degrees of impunity. But there's a difference between just throwing a few jets and missiles around, and actually conquering an entire country. There's a world of difference between places like Grenada and Panama, or broken cripples like Afghanistan and Iraq and a place like Pakistan.

We could theoretically conquer the place, in the same sense that we could theoretically mount a manned expedition to Jupiter.

In practical terms, it would require more resources than we could sustainably muster.

If this ever, ever happened, something would need to have happened that would pretty much unite the USA and be willing to commit all our armed forces to it. That's pretty much ASB. But if it suddenly wasn't, than there is no reason why the USA does not have the resources to do this. Pakistan cannot beat the USA in a conventional war under conditions that would make it feasible. Get over it.

 

[DG Valdron]

Any group that is willing to go to war with the USA is conceivably going to have to be ideologically hardcore enough to alienate much of the populace and former government.

Because America is so insanely loved the world over that the mere thought that their government might have a conflict would provoke a near civil war. Don't think so.

India's ultimate dream would be Pakistan disappearing.

You might want to discuss this with some Indians. The world is a little bit more complicated than you would believe.

Why would the Indian Muslims revolt?

No, I'm saying there would be a reasonable risk of political fallout in the Indian Muslim population from an American invasion of Pakistan, which might produce destabilization and insurgency.

Russia is India/Iran aligned against Pakistan. And if the conditions make this non-ASB are fulfilled, China probably won't have a problem with it.

Because of... bunnies? China supports Pakistan as a counterweight to India. If the US invades Pakistan, then China's broad geopolitical situation is threatened in Asia, particularly vis a vis India. China is then compelled to either take a more aggressive stance against India, or India is compelled to take a more neutral stance. A war in or on Pakistan has substantial knock on potential for Iran, and for Central Asia, which in turn has significant consequences for Russia.

If this ever, ever happened, something would need to have happened that would pretty much unite the USA and be willing to commit all our armed forces to it. That's pretty much ASB. But if it suddenly wasn't, than there is no reason why the USA does not have the resources to do this. Pakistan cannot be the USA in a conventional war. Get over it.

It's easy enough to design a premise or set of conditions which produce the desired outcome. An incompetent and crazed Pakistani state which conducts itself in such a way as to outrage the world, and provoke a Pearl Harbour level of response from the United States, such that an enraged America immediately Unites, goes on a total war footing, and then proceeds to fight a version of WWII in Pakistan... America would certainly win a war of that sort, perhaps even conquer Pakistan from top to bottom, and maybe even make it stick.

But that's not the Pakistan we have today, and not the one we had in 2002-2003. That's certainly not the America we have today, or in 2002-2003.

And 'winning a war' is an imprecise term. As I've said, we can and do bomb Pakistan with impunity. Conquering the place is a different story.

 

[Dave Howery]

The invasion of Pakistan is a non-starter from the get go... there's nowhere to invade from; none of Pakistan's neighbors would be willing to let us stage there. If the scenario here is that both Pakistan and Afghanistan are behind the 9/11 attacks, then the US is limited to bombing the crap out of whatever they can reach. And it's doubtful that any of our 'allies' in the region would allow us to base air forces in their countries... thanks to Pakistani nukes which do have the capability of reaching their cities... the US response might be limited to whatever can be launched from carriers in the IO...

 

[Realpolitik]

Because America is so insanely loved the world over that the mere thought that their government might have a conflict would provoke a near civil war. Don't think so.

What does the world have to with this one? There are 180 million people in Pakistan of different ethnic groups, different beliefs, and not all of them desiring to fight a suicidal war with the US. Any Pakistani government that gets into this kind of mess is going to be a rather controversial one to say the least.

You might want to discuss this with some Indians. The world is a little bit more complicated than you would believe.

I have, actually. Funny that you assume that I don't. And again, instead of actually refuting my points, you opt for passively insulting me.

If these conditions were reality, than India would be scared to death of anybody in power in Islamabad.

No, I'm saying there would be a reasonable risk of political fallout in the Indian Muslim population from an American invasion of Pakistan, which might produce destabilization and insurgency.

The thing that you refuse to acknowledge is that the only conditions that would somehow make this non-ASB would be ones in which the world is so scared or alienated from Pakistan, they will not mind. That includes Indian Muslims. There will be no insurgency. The Indian Muslims simply do not want to support Pakistan.

Because of... bunnies? China supports Pakistan as a counterweight to India. If the US invades Pakistan, then China's broad geopolitical situation is threatened in Asia, particularly vis a vis India. China is then compelled to either take a more aggressive stance against India, or India is compelled to take a more neutral stance. A war in or on Pakistan has substantial knock on potential for Iran, and for Central Asia, which in turn has significant consequences for Russia.

I'm a lot of things, but I'd like to believe that someone who believes in bunny-notions of reality is not one of them. This is a goddamn scary world that we are talking about here.

As I mentioned, under OTL conditions the notion is ASB. Under any conditions that make this possible, they would not take action against the USA. Why? It's a losing proposal, and it might be a good time to realign your strategy away from a place that is so obviously counterproductive.

Iran's relations with Pakistan are far from completely smooth, and I've already mentioned Russia-who is just getting back on their feet and wants an anti-Islamism "understanding" with the US at this point. Russia has not been as alienated from the US in the time period we've spoken about.

It's easy enough to design a premise or set of conditions which produce the desired outcome. An incompetent and crazed Pakistani state which conducts itself in such a way as to outrage the world, and provoke a Pearl Harbour level of response from the United States, such that an enraged America immediately Unites, goes on a total war footing, and then proceeds to fight a version of WWII in Pakistan... America would certainly win a war of that sort, perhaps even conquer Pakistan from top to bottom, and maybe even make it stick.

But that's not the Pakistan we have today, and not the one we had in 2002-2003. That's certainly not the America we have today, or in 2002-2003.

And 'winning a war' is an imprecise term. As I've said, we can and do bomb Pakistan with impunity. Conquering the place is a different story.

I said it was ASB over and over again, something you have conveniently ignored. And those were the only conditions out there that could create this.

If we bombed them with impunity, Karachi would be a wasteland. Again, this is a completely different deal from OTL.

It would be bloody and the fallout tremendous. But Pakistan simply does not have the... well, anything... to beat America conventionally, especially under these conditions that would likely deprive it of any outside support during the conventional phase. Drive it nuts with an insurgency afterwards, yes, but that's different from what we're talking about.

 

[Realpolitik]

The invasion of Pakistan is a non-starter from the get go... there's nowhere to invade from; none of Pakistan's neighbors would be willing to let us stage there. If the scenario here is that both Pakistan and Afghanistan are behind the 9/11 attacks, then the US is limited to bombing the crap out of whatever they can reach. And it's doubtful that any of our 'allies' in the region would allow us to base air forces in their countries... thanks to Pakistani nukes which do have the capability of reaching their cities... the US response might be limited to whatever can be launched from carriers in the IO...

Exactly. The only thing that could cause this are conditions that lead to some WWII fantasy, and that's ASB.

 

[Genghis Kawaii]

I just had a thought. How would we recruit enough military personnel to do this? Pakistan has, like, six times the population of Iraq, so America needs a lot more troops on that basis, but it is also much better terrain for insurgency, so America probably needs more troops on that basis as well. Add in the likelihood of a better armed insurgency and the probable need for a massive continual sealift operation, and this is going to need a TON of people in uniform compared to the Iraq/Afghanistan combo of OTL. Can we actually get that many people into uniform without the draft (which is guaranteed to cause a domestic shitstorm of epic proportions)?

 

[Realpolitik]

I just had a thought. How would we recruit enough military personnel to do this? Pakistan has, like, six times the population of Iraq, so America needs a lot more troops on that basis, but it is also much better terrain for insurgency, so America probably needs more troops on that basis as well. Add in the likelihood of a better armed insurgency and the probable need for a massive continual sealift operation, and this is going to need a TON of people in uniform compared to the Iraq/Afghanistan combo of OTL. Can we actually get that many people into uniform without the draft (which is guaranteed to cause a domestic shitstorm of epic proportions)?

The only conditions-Pakistan attacked us, they've gone rogue and are threatening people with nukes, etc-that could possibly result in such a thing would result in a draft that would not be complained about on the onset, especially if this is a post 9/11 type thing we are talking about(after the initial wave of patriotism dies down is different). And it would also result in any other military plans being shelved.

 

[DG Valdron]

I just had a thought. How would we recruit enough military personnel to do this? Pakistan has, like, six times the population of Iraq, so America needs a lot more troops on that basis, but it is also much better terrain for insurgency, so America probably needs more troops on that basis as well. Add in the likelihood of a better armed insurgency and the probable need for a massive continual sealift operation, and this is going to need a TON of people in uniform compared to the Iraq/Afghanistan combo of OTL. Can we actually get that many people into uniform without the draft (which is guaranteed to cause a domestic shitstorm of epic proportions)?

Pakistan's army consists of 550,000 men, plus another 500,000 reserves, so a total of 1,050,000. It's air force is 65,000 men, with 400 combat aircraft with 17 air force bases. We can assume that the combat aircraft are technologically inferior to the air force varieties, but we can also assume that Pakistani pilots are competent, motivated and their equipment is well serviced. The Navy is a minimal force of 35,000.

We know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon delivery systems. We don't know the state of the art of their missile systems, or how much threat these pose to an American air assault.

For a full fledged ground invasion, we would probably need a minimum of half a million troops - significantly more than we could muster at this time, assuming total air superiority and no logistical issues. More realistically, the number required would probably be somewhere between one and four million.

The likelihood of launching the invasion from neighboring countries - as was done previously with Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan, is nil. So we would need to mount a major amphibious/marines operation at least on a par with WWII landing operations in Europe and the Pacific, a capacity which we simply no longer possess, and certainly do not possess on the scale required. It would then be necessary to take and hold at least one, possibly two, major seaports to build up the materials, ammunition, weapons and manpower, likely under continuing assault, in order to put the resources in place to take the rest of the country.

While not impossible, it would likely take between two and three years to retool, re-arm, and refit the US military for such a task, the costs of such a re-armament and campaign would run to one to two trillion dollars, the long term costs, factoring in veterans benefits, long term disability, debt servicing... tens of trillions.

 

[lionhead]

That’s completely wrong.

Care to elaborate?

People are talking "Operation Downfall" level attack, that requires nukes.

 

[Falecius]

Total incompetence/irresponsibility is more like it.

Mesmerizing level of incompetence on a high strategic level (a lack of ability to question or think critically) .

Exactly. (Thumbs up).
Not sure it could be something that a court could be treat as a criminal offence, but it is certainly an abysmal level of a specific form of idiocy, a very dangerous kind.

 

[Falecius]

They won't be beating the US.

Not in conventional war (although they could inflict horrific casualties by recent US standards). What would probably happen is more like Soviets in Afghanistan (or maybe Chechnya). On a much grander scale. Ok, the Pakistani insurgency won't have superpower support (perhaps something very covert from China just to keep the US bleeding, but I highly doubt it. Chances for it to backfire spectacularly into a Muslim fundamentalist insurgency in Xingjiang are too high). They'll be able to muster some international support, however. They Saudi government won't ever dare to support them in anything approaching an open way, but that likely won't stop some Gulf petrodollars finding their way to Pakistan nontheless.
The US might eke out something resembling a win, as in as a sufficiently pliant Pakistani government with a semblance of control upon most of the country (except, likely, the mountainous northwest, that is likely to remain a long-term running sore).
But the US will bleed, badly. Will spend an unspeakable amount of money. This will take time. And if, and when, the US withdraws its forces, they'll leave behind a shellshocked, brutalized, devastated society. A readymade incubator for international terrorism, radical politics, violence and crime.

This, assuming nukes are not entering the equation.

 

[Falecius]

To make the OP even remotely plausible, it would take another 9/11 level attack on US soil, and conclusive intelligence that Osama and Al Qaeda not only planned the attack from Pakistan, but were actively assisted by senior figures in the Pakistani government. AND the Pakistani government would have to make the utterly bonkers decision to reject even the appearance of cooperating with US authorities to bring the perpetrators to justice.

'cause, as all we know, OBL was totally plotting WMD attacks on the US with senior Iraqi officers in 2003 and the US had conclusive evidence of that.
Of course, the big difference here is that Pakistan, unlike Iraq, actually has WMD, quite a lot of them... so the US would, even when run by the neocon clique, tread more lightly. (Not considering that attacking Pakistan was not in the interest of said clique).

 

[DG Valdron]

For an effective occupation the US would need at least additional 4.5 million troops, assuming no organized insurgency or resistance. Figure in another ten trillion dollars of ongoing expenses.

If we assume a rotation of those 4.5 million troops, the additional troop requirements would be somewhere between an additional 1.5 to 4.5. That's a total of six to nine million. Add to that the basic invasion force of one to four million. You're looking at an armed force of seven to thirteen million. Add another million for home defense and worldwide commitments, eight to fourteen.

The minimum occupation force alone will represent 1.5% of the US population. the total military will constitute potentially as much as 5% of the US population.

The US military budget currently is the largest single item in the US budget, and represents somewhere between 300 and 500 billion dollars, depending on the year. I would expect to see a minimum fourfold to fivefold increase for a war upon and occupation of Pakistan. There would be no way to make that up through taxation. So we're talking deficit financing to a catastrophic degree.

Can't be done.

 

[Concured]

You may be interested in this, a one season american show called 'Last Resort'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m80dQjulX3M

Although not entirely focused on the aftermath in Pakistan, it explores the general idea, and what the US government might do.