It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bhutto Killed=Pakistan Chaos=Nuke Hunt=Iran War

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by Sky watcher

Turkey doesn't want any trouble with anyone. They didn't want trouble with Iraq or Iran or Syria, they don't want trouble with the US, and they sure don't want it with their great big neighbor. They'll stay out if NATO tangles with Russia.

The Russians won't move on Israel either, simply because there's so little in it for them now. The center of gravity in the region has shifted East since the 50s-60s-70s.

Anything the Russians do with Egypt will be aimed South, and Sudan will have to be along for the ride. That'd be a reignition of the Sudanese civil war, with the addition of a war on Ethiopia for the benefit of Eritrea and Somalia, and all of that makes a lot more sense if the Chinese are sanctioning it and have a comprehensive long-term plan for Central Africa. They could cozy up to India even better with something like that, which would be important because if the thing in Pakistan gets heated the Indians will have a considerable amount of sway in the matter and India aligning with Russia and China would mean serious international outcry for a UN Mission excluding the US to handle Pakistan.

All of that plays into China's future as a Pacifc/Indian Ocean power as well, which is definately where it begins. America didn't start out as a global player remember, and neither did the Europeans. America first had to conquer its own continent and parts of Latin America before it was ready to join the Euro League of warmongering, and the European empires were built in Africa.

Chinas and Russias are to be begun in Central Asia, Africa, and The South Pacific before they can run the table on Europe and the Americas.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:17 PM
Wonder if Bush is still planning on going to the ME??

Also I think China knows time is on thier side but how long will they wait they have been building their military just as Russia has as a matter of fact Russia and China just played war games just a couple months ago.....I think the soup in the pot is about done.....It has been getting stirred for along time now.....

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:23 PM
They might be ready to fight on the ground, all things being equal but that doesn't make the soup done just yet. They still have significant logistical disadvantages, and insufficient naval forces to take the place of the US as the world's dirty cop.

If you owned a grand piano that I wanted, and I had just gotten strong enough to beat you up, I wouldn't come right to your house and beat you up so I could take the Piano. There would be no point in doing that until I was not only strong enough to beat you up, but also strong enough to move the Piano.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:34 PM
reply to post by The Vagabond

Insufficient navy? You didnt see the articles on the Chinese sub that popped up in the middle of our carrier fleet out in the pacific???

Uninvited Guest

If ya google there was numerous stories...I dont think their navy is a problem....All those goods they have sold us are really doing some good for them....

[edit on 27-12-2007 by Sentinel 1]

[edit on 27-12-2007 by Sentinel 1]

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:40 PM
reply to post by The Vagabond

My conspiratorial coffeecup thought was what if Bhutto was used as a sacrificial pawn and assassinated by those wanting to ferment anti-secular support to bring pakistan into US military-political compliance and engage in iranian operations. No doubt the recent US naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal (for 6 days commencing the 4th sept)which also happened almost to the date of the APEC summit in Sydney will have enabled a few battle scenarios to be drawn up by now.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:43 PM
The only thing if Nuclear anything is that since they are scattered in different places in Pakistan, the only thing in terms of a civil war would be the country splitting up into 2 and blowing it self up when extreamists get involved.
Nations should not even get involved only if they plan to attack the rest of man kind which they won't because it's about them. I hope no one plays ''I will help'' game only to profit from them selves because America seems more likely to play that card, but it might not as it's already busy.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:51 PM
This is a great thread Vag, I am glad to see you really covered all the basis here. Great Forum I really have nothing to add it is a great read though... thanks

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:21 PM
jackatmtn- To avoid a war, Musharraf should restore the judges he sacked during emergency rule, and announce that as long as the opposition does not boycott the parliamentary elections, and as long as they will approve a plan to invite a small UN force to supervise the army and avoid a coup, that he will replace his cronies in the army staff with new generals and hold a special presidential election and not run in it 6 months after the parliamentary elections. I'm not entirely sure that would work, but in the long run I think it presents a better chance than if he holds on to power and the elections proceed on Jan 8th without the PML-N and PPP.

Sentinel, on the submarine pop-up.
1. Propaganda stunts like that are a dime a dozen and have very little to do with how a naval war would unfold.

2. The ability to get within firing range of an aircraft carrier does not translate into the ability to move men and equipment on the global scale necessary to be a preeminent global force. Until China can put an air wing and a reinforced brigade on target where ever it might be needed within mere days, they won't be in a position to take over the operation that the US is currently running. The resulting power vaccuum would probably be a major negative for the entire industrialized world. It takes an awful lot of oppression, most of it unseen and accomplished by the mere threat of force, to keep the global economy running the way it does.

China has come a very respectable distance in a short time, but it takes time to adjust to new realities. China spent almost 40 years, from 1953 to 1992, getting ready for another Korea, only to wake up to the smell of burning Iraqi tanks and realize that Western doctrine had made a quantum leap ahead of Soviet doctrine and that everything had to be rethought. Officers had to learn to think in new ways, equipment had to be designed to new specifications, logistics had to become 100% efficient, and hardware has to be in the theater before the shooting ever starts.

The hardware and the officers are starting to come along for China now, but they still need the long-range logistical capabilities and the prepositioning facilities, as well as a surface fleet that can project power.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by The Vagabond

I dont wana go into a tit for tat but there is always buts
I know....It seems to me China has adjusted pretty well in a very short period of time...Here are just a few examp

1) They own our economy in shackles basically by holding almost all (or as some think) all of our debt.

2) Their military has gotten more sophisticated and grown by leaps and bounds pretty darn quikly...Mostly by technology stolen from us or what we have given them...

3) They have already demonstrated what they can do to get into our computer systems and what they could do to our communcations to basically set us back to the 40's using morse code....(sattelite killers)

I mean it is pretty bad when we get the solar panels (used in calculators aswell)that are a major component of missle systems from them also...I think they have planned a confrontation out and have done it for a very long time......

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:16 AM

Originally posted by The Vagabond
To avoid a war, Musharraf should restore the judges he sacked during emergency rule, and announce that as long as the opposition does not boycott the parliamentary elections, and as long as they will approve a plan to invite a small UN force to supervise the army and avoid a coup, that he will replace his cronies in the army staff with new generals and hold a special presidential election and not run in it 6 months after the parliamentary elections.

It's not gonna happen. None of it. The situation on the ground is different than what you read on the news.

Combine that with the fact that the people no longer trust Musharraf. How many times has he reneged on his word? He is still power (at least in and around the urban centres) because of his cronies in the army and because he is in league with the US. Everyone there knows this.

A true, unrigged election will see somebody who is not a US stooge in power (or worse, completely anti-US). That will not be allowed to happen, so long as the US can do something about it. If that means backing Musharraf for now (since the other choice has been shot), that's what it'll be. Until they can find a successor that will continue to support the US (whilst placating the people).

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:42 AM
Help me with the "nuke hunt" part...

Is it your view that this will just be a pretext for US involvement in the manner you describe?

Nice thread, btw.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:48 AM
reply to post by Black_Fox

India has money. A booming economy. A huge middle class. Maybe they could chip in.

But getting India involved in this would be disasterous.

In this example the stakes are higher.

But, I have figured out the catch-phrase that will unite various nations in the upcoming weeks and justifies U.S. access into the area; The control of 'Rogue Nukes'.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by downtown436

Sitting here in India and seeing the Indian Governments attitude towards Pakistan, I think that Indians have always shown lack of strategic planning and the will to invade Pakistan........for retribution, revenge or any other gain.

We terminated the most precious American asset, which vowed to defeat (the) mujahadeen," Al Qaeda commander and spokesman Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Italian news agency Adnkronos International in a phone call from an unknown location.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:02 AM
What will probably happen next in Pakistan

In the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto's killing, President Musharraf will do his best to keep order under a veneer of civilian government, probably through the reimposition of Emergency rule, which was recently lifted. He will fail, with or without American support. The majority of Pakistanis, many of whom originally welcomed his coup, are now thoroughly fed up with him - and they hate America, too. Musharraf will not be able to govern.

Anarchy and chaos will break out across Pakistan. It is not simply a matter of 'terrorists creating a power vacuum'; Pakistan, being an artificial country cobbled together out of disparate linguistic and ethnic groups, many of them recent immigrants, has a natural tendency towards anarchy anyway. The number of opposed groups and factions in the country is mind-boggling: political parties of different convictions, religious sects and militias, ethnic separatists, local warlords, powerful thugs and of course the military and the over-mighty secret service, the ISI. Any of these, incidentally, could have killed Bhutto for their own reasons; there is no need to suspect, or even imagine, an external plot.

The response from the military will be to attempt a takeover and rule by decree and by force. This may hold the place together in the short term, but it is guaranteed to make things even worse in the longer term.

Pakistan will implode.

So what will happen to the nuclear weapons?

One thing is certain. Iran will not get them. There are several reasons for this.

First, and most important, the population of Pakistan is 77 percent Sunni and they can't stand Shia Iran. The rift between Shia and Sunni is far deeper and more filled with animosity than that between Islam and the West. Iran can never bring about an 'Islamic revolution' in Pakistan, and its leaders know this. Anyway, Pakistan is already an Islamic country. It's in the Constitution.

There is too much hostility between Iranians and Pakistanis for there to be any real political cooperation between them. Iranians are angry with Pakistan (in particular its government, its military and the ISI) because of Pakistani support for the Afghan Taliban, Sunni fanatics who preach the murder of Shia Muslims. Pakistanis, in turn, see an Iranian hand behind Shia militancy and terrorism in Pakistan - many will blame Iran for Bhutto's death, though they are probably wrong about this.

If Pakistan collapses as it almost certainly will, many parties will be keen to secure its nuclear weapons, either for their own use or to prevent others from using them.

Among these parties are:

  1. The hard-core Sunni Islamists who are known in Pakistan, and more generally in Asia, as 'Taliban'. The term covers not just the Afghan lot but Sunnis of similarly militant theocratic views all over the region. These Taliban (the word is a plural form of talib, meaning 'student') have very close links with the Pakistani security establishment. When it comes to getting their hands on Pakistan's nukes, they have probably a better chance than anyone, especially in the aftermath of an unsuccessful attempt at military rule.

  2. The United States and its allies, who will want to secure the weapons before they fall into the hands of 'terrorists' such as the Taliban. On this issue, Russia (which has its own problems with Sunni militancy in Chencnya) and India will probably see eye to eye with the West, so it is possible that some attempt will be made to secure Pakistan with foreign troops under a UN mandate. The Chinese may protest, but I don't think they'll veto such a move. However, you may be sure that any such 'peacekeeping mission' will come under ferocious attack by all the opposed parties in Pakistan, just as has happened to the Coalition in Iraq. Its chances of securing Pakistan's nukes will be modest, to say the least.

  3. Iran, acting through indigenous Pakistani Shia militias. There is little chance that it will succeed.

There will be no Iranian invasion of Pakistan; this would certainly mean a war with the West, with Pakistan as the battleground and the rest of the world standing by. Iran will definitely lose such a war, and its leaders know this. They are not the mad fanatics they like their enemies to think they are, and they certainly will not risk the destruction of their country over nuclear weapons they are on the verge of being able to manufacture for themselves anyway.

My own best guess

In my opinion, what will happen is this.

Musharraf will go. The military will mount a coup. The leaders will be Sunni Taliban allies, but they will at first attempt to keep order and keep the weapons in Pakistani hands. If they succeed, then the status quo will be maintained, though the possibility of nuclear technology passing into Islamic militant hands will become a near certainty. There is little America will be able to do about this.

But it is unlikely that the status quo will be maintained. This time, the military will almost certainly fail to keep control in Pakistan. As their power dissipates, the generals will become divided amongst themselves. One faction will look to the outside world to help it maintain control and legitimacy. It will probably attempt to strike some kind of a deal over the nukes. The opposite faction will try to secure the nukes for itself and the Taliban.

It will come down to the wire, at which point there may be US-led (possibly UN-mandated) military strikes or an expeditionary force launched to destroy or capture the weapons. Those holding the weapons will probably be tempted to use them - possibly against the invaders but almost certainly against India, which is where the missiles are already targeted anyway - rather than give them up. That will let slip the dogs of war.

In the aftermath, Pakistan will no longer exist as a nation-state and the world as we know it will have changed dramatically. America's power - whatever is still left of it today - will be radically compromised; its global dominance will almost certainly be at an end and it will depend increasingly on allies like India and Europe to maintain itself. Fanatical militant Islam will have received its unifying epiphany; the process of radicalization of Muslim culture will be all but accomplished, with tragic consequences for ordinary Muslims all over the world. India will attempt to protect itself against the rising Islamic threat by extending its dominance to the west, possibly invading Pakistan and absorbing it; this will lead to a geopolitical confrontation with the Sunni Islamic world on one side and, quite possibly, China on the other.

The overal winners will probably be Russia and Iran, which will stay out of the conflict, egg the combatants on and scoop up the spoils once the dust has settled. The Chinese, if they play their cards right, will probably do quite well out of it, too.

Welcome to the real twenty-first century.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by Astyanax]

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:20 AM
Just a few things here having picked through an good thread: Be warned. Im tired and I may ramble and wander a bit

I agree China has no interest in rouge nukes in thier border and I firmly beleive that they would not use this as an oppurtunity to retake Taiwan. For now they do not have that capability at all.

They can destory the island down to the bedrock, but the appeal of taiwan lies in its production and quality control, and technology. There is little to be gained buy simply aquiring a burning hulk they need to take it whole.

Im also iffy on thier being a dominant global power in the 2050-2060 range. Why?

First off, thier economic boom has been fuel by our excessive spending. That party may not come to a stop, but its going to have to come down. its basically unsustainable. This boom has also been fueld by a cheap, young, and pletifull workforce. This is already changing. China's population growth will peak at around 2035-40 last time I looked. The one child policy, coupled with the disporportionate male to female ratio will be major factors along with the huge pollution issue as well. An aging workforce, that perhaps is far less willing to live in marginal coditions will also drive up costs. The reality of the situation is its Japan on a large scale. Its hard to remember but back in 1980 Japan Inc was going to take over the world. China will be a major player much like Japan is but not a 1200lb gorilla rather an 800 pounder.

Why would Bush push so hard to immunize and fight AIDS in Africa? Over the next 20 years you are going to see major efforts in basic improvements like this on that continet. The US military has just made Africa its own command. Why? Its the next cheap labor source thats untapped. Slap on some bandaids, basic improvments, install some puppet governments, and move a huge chunk of low end good production there.


Back to the ranch so to speak.

Who gains from the assasination? I think we can rule out Parveez. He IMHO has the most to lose. He looks suspect after all of the stuff he pulled with martial law etc. I still think he has a strong grip on the military, but the ISI is another story. they clearly operate on the fringe, and ever since the US involvment in Afganistan pre Soviet invasion, thier ties to jihadists is well known and documented (A good read is a book called Ghost Wars which details US involvment from pre Soviet invasion to the rise of the Taleban). They in a likelyhood are hiding Bin laden and Mullah Omar and perhaps they are behind this assasination.

Why would the ISI gain from this?: They take out a person who has alot of popular support but lacked the military controll. Musharraf has the military and if these two could have worked out a power sharing agreement they would have been tough to deal with. By killing one or the other They face only one foe. Martyred though she is, martyrs all have one thing in common: they are dead. Musharraf has had issues dealing with militants etc. and perhaps they felt he was more vulnerable. The ISI has been suspect in assisnations many a time Just ask General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq whose C-130 "crashed" also killing the US ambassador to pakistan in 1988

The biggest question is of all the nukes in pakistan, how many are under the controll of the ISI?

India? Nothing to be gained from this at all. They have a modicum of stability and any chance that this could be blamed on this would basically result in a war between the two countries.

Iran: Does Iran gain from this? Perhaps, but as with everything it is a very very complex matter that results from religious and even perhaps racial and cultural differences.

Clearly a Islamic revolution" benifits Iran but only to a point. remember those pesky factions Shia and Sunni. Iran and the Taleban wer eliteraly mortal enemies and would remain so today if the focus was not on the US in iraq. The Taleban basically were puppets of the ISI to an extend. Our good buddy OBL was a player with the ISI in Afganistan. Taleban and majority (3/4) of Pakistan is of the Sunni branch of Islam. Iran is Shia. So even if radicals took controll and got thier hands on the nukes, It may be a form of government that is not as friendly as iran would like it to be. Sure while we are in iraq we may be the focus, but they will turn on each other much like they have for millenia. Iran could have to potientail to have 2 US puppet states Iraq and Afganistan with US troops there and a potientialy hostile nuclear armed Pakistan on its borders.

The US: We lose quite a bit. Bhuto was not goign to be a savior but once again we have put all of our eggs in one basket. For better or for worse our fate is tied to Musharraf. Its much like the Saudi royal family. We are in bed with unpopular absolute rules of two states vital to our interests, who if overthrown will result in nations openly if not activly hostile to ours being run by Jihadist oh and BTW one is nuclear armed.


I don't know if we can go in and get the nuclear weapons. For one we don't know the actual number or location. Even if we are told where they are we also do not know if Musharraf or the military has ever one under control and accounted for either. If even a few get out its a total disaster.

[edit on 12/28/07 by FredT]

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 03:31 AM
Whether he had a hand in it or not I believe Musharaf is a target himself now. The ISS (or elements within) have been running things in Pakistan for some time now again with or without Musharaf's direct involvement. The lawyers and judges have been locked up for a reason and the current crisis began some months ago.

Things are on a precipice at the moment, the Russian cancellation of long standing military treaties with Europe are alarming, as is the extension of Putin's power (but who but Putin can hold the leash of the Bear? Zhirinovsky is still waiting in the wings). Relations between Russia and UK at an all time low...

Worse is the Balkan situation (a known world war powder keg) where war may be breaking out once again very soon with Russia and Serbia vs the West.

The markets drastically falling indicate Bhuttos death was largely unplanned, at least by certain quarters even if the writing was on the wall since she returned to Pakistan. The credit crisis and financial crisis sweeping the west at the moment is non-trivial and war makes for good economy, it's the only way to patch things at least other ways seem to have been forgotten.

The flag went up with the recent expulsion of diplomats from Afghanistan... what WAS that about?

If this is the great game then we must look more closely at the competence of the players, and that is what scares me the most.

Sooner or later one of these players (let's call them 'Domino 1' ) is going to make the very bad call of 'conditions are as good as they will ever be, or at least, are going to just get worse from here, so we may as well act / seize / strike now or lose the option to do so'

[edit on 28-12-2007 by kickoutthejams]

[edit on 28-12-2007 by kickoutthejams]

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:41 AM

Originally posted by FredT
Who gains from the assasination? I think we can rule out Parveez.

I don't think you should rule him out just yet. He probably knows that in the event that Bhutto gets killed, people will blame him as the most obvious candidate, and therefore the least likely to order it.

He actually has more to gain. Now that Bhutto is out of the way, the US will favour him once again. They've no choice. The prospect of someone else in control of those nukes is even scarier. Better the devil you know, as they say...

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:13 AM
I was interested in the responses of the world so I did a little research and compiled the results of the first public statements from countries of varying relevance

Two countries did say that they called Musharraf and reminded him of the need to stick to the course that he (Musharraf) had outlined for Pakistan prior to the assassination of Bhutto , I am sure that none will have trouble believing these countries were the U.K. and the U.S. not that this is all wrong but I don't think he needs hand holding as this is not kindergarten it is the world political stage...

so any way the comments below were interesting in that they are spoken in many voices and many different languages but all say in one united voice in one way or another this is a terrible thing...

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described Bhutto's assassination as a "heinous crime" that "represents an assault on stability in Pakistan and its democratic processes" ahead of the elections which Bhutto's party had been tipped to win.

The UN Security Council joined Ban in a non-binding statement that condemned "in the strongest terms the terrorist suicide attack by extremists" which killed Bhutto.

Pakistan's neighbours, fearing an extremist spill-over if nuclear-armed Pakistan were to spiral out of control, were quick to respond.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who met Bhutto only hours before her death, called the assassination an act of "immense brutality" against one of the Muslim world's leading women.

"I am deeply sorry, deeply pained that this brave sister... this great daughter of the Muslim world is no longer with us," he said.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Bhutto's killing was a reminder of the "common dangers" faced by India and Pakistan.

"Mrs. Bhutto was no ordinary political leader but one who left a deep imprint on her time and age," he said.

From Europe, France voiced concerns over Pakistan's nuclear capability falling into the hands of the extremists and the killing threatening stability throughout South Asia.

"That is why we regard Pakistan and the odious assassination of Benazir Bhutto in part as an assassination of democracy... and we must not allow that," said French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

Strong reaction also came from the Muslim world.

Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called Bhutto's murder "a severe blow to Pakistan's democratic process" and expressed his hope that "the law be upheld and democracy be respected in Pakistan."

Turkey, a close ally of Pakistan, said the killing "undoubtedly aims to draw Pakistan into chaos and instability."

Iran urged authorities to track down the "terrorists" responsible, while Iraq's President Jalal Talabani called on the world to unite against the "cancer of terrorism".

Africa's biggest Muslim nation, Nigeria, deplored the "mindless political violence" and urged Bhutto's family to find solace knowing that "she died in active pursuit of her vision of true democracy for her country" and that she has become "an eternal martyr" to the cause.

Other European leaders also saw the killing of Bhutto as an attack on democracy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel labelled it a "cowardly terrorist attack" designed to destabilise Pakistan.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he hoped "the organisers of the crime will be found and that they get the punishment they deserve".

International media predicted Pakistan's chaos would worsen.

Italy's Corriere della Sera said "Pakistan is becoming an ever bigger atomic time bomb" and highlighted fears that the military could take back power.

Jordanian newspaper Al Dustour said "Bhutto's assassination is a terrible act that paves the way for a civil war in Pakistan."

At any rate I thought it was interesting that the world agreed on something whole heartedly even if only for a fleeting moment in time..


posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by The Vagabond

Well, well! On the whole a fairly good analysis!
But then there are a couple of warts that show up!

Iran must see the chance to blame Musharaff and bring about an Islamic Revolution in Pakistan,

How so? Iran can never hope to do this as it is a majority Shia country, whereas Pakistan's population consists of just about 20% Shias. The rest are Sunnis and are at loggerheads with the former. So how can Iran bring about an Islamic revolution - Iranian style?

which would isolate Afghanistan and cause US efforts there to fail, and give Iran a like-minded nuclear nation for a neighbor, and maybe even free nukes of its own.

Isolate Afghanistan? How so? Free nukes of its own? How? If there is any cooperation between Iran and Pakistan in the nuclear field, it was commercial in nature, thanks to AQ Khan. There's no ideological symmetry between the two nations. And thus, never the twain shall meet! All this talk of a 'World Muslim Ummah' united against the 'unfaithful' or 'Kafirs' is utter nonsense! And thank God for that!

Musharaff must be worried about being blamed, and about who (including him) might be next if this is pure terrorism.

He already is being blamed. By failing to provide adequate security cover to Ms Bhutto, he's already in the dock! And he knows it. Did he have a hand in the assassination? Time will tell though Al Qaeda have owned up responsibility for this carnage.

If the terrorists are making a bid to create a power vaccuum in Pakistan, there's gonna be a civil war. If Musharaff cracks down, that may prompt a civil war, maybe even a coup, although that's not entirely likely since Musharaff has close ties to his commanders.


Then we've got a nuke hunt, and a blank check to covertly cross Iranian borders going after them. We're not talking about a few panty raids. We're talking about putting batallions on the ground in Iranian space to block roads and search whole towns that are considered possible pit-stops for the alleged traffickers, and bombing the holy hell out of any Iranian forces that so much as twitch when they go in.

Easier said than done! The Americans are spread too thinly on the ground. For any operation of such magnitude, you need a combat ratio of at least 3:1. If it’s fighting in BUAs (Built Up Areas) the attacking force would need a combat ratio of at least 5:1. With Iran having an active front line strength of 420,000 personnel and available military manpower of over 1,800,000 almost 1000 aircraft, 2500 armored and 4,500 artillery pieces, 1800 SAMs, and similar number of SSMs it would be well neigh impossible for American troops to hold ground in Iranian territory for any length of time. Iraq was a cake walk. Iran is a different ballgame altogether.

Needless to say, an Iranian campaign will be a logistical nightmare! Bush, I presume isn’t so foolish as to invade Iran with the available forces at his command at the present juncture.

Iran, more than just giving us oil, gives us a compelling presence in Central Asia That's a lot of motivation.

That’s provided the US of A can invade and capture Iran. This is not possible in the near term, as I’ve mentioned above. And what is meant by, ‘to check any future Chinese ambitions for westward expansion, not to mention the economic pressure it would put on China’, is not understood. Do you imply military, economic or ideological expansion?


[edit on 28-12-2007 by mikesingh]

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:10 AM

Originally posted by medesi
Sitting here in India and seeing the Indian Governments attitude towards Pakistan, I think that Indians have always shown lack of strategic planning and the will to invade Pakistan........for retribution, revenge or any other gain.

It was NEVER lack of strategic planning. It was and is due to political compulsions that the armed forces in India were held on a tight leash so far. Take the Kargil war, for example, which proved disastrous for Pakistan.

The political elite in India lacked the spunk to allow Indian forces to cross the line of control for bringing into play the classic 'hammer and anvil' tactics to smother the Pakistani forces in quick time. It took longer than usual and many more casualties to achieve their objectives.

After the audacious attack on the Indian parliament by Pakistani sponsored Jihadi groups, India indicated that it is ready for war. In perhaps the largest military mobilization since the 1971 Indo-Pak conflict, the Indian army was ready to go with a well laid out strategy.

A deep thrust with two strike corps, holding formations in conjunction with mobile armored formations poised for containing Pakistani forces, inside Indian territory, to encircle them and finally destroy them on ground of own choosing, resulting in achieving the overall strategy of destruction of the Pakistani war machine and industrial assets. All this was part of joint services strategy that included the air force, Navy, Army, Amphibious forces, and the para military.

But the green signal was never given by the spunkless politicians. Perhaps international pressure played a large part in that decision. The Indian armed forces were finally asked to stand down and the rest is history.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by mikesingh]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in