Did I hear McCain say "Pakistan is the next Afghanistan" ???!!!

I could have sworn I heard John McCain say this during one of his rallies when I was watching The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer on CNN at about 4:40pm Eastern Time.

If anyone records CNN religiously, please hook us up with the video. We need to see the original broadcast, in case it is due for an edit before becoming available archived.

Anyone...anyone?

Okay, well I'm going to assume that he did, which would be further confirmation of my prediction that the US is about to invade Pakistan. It also raises the stakes for a rogue nuke being the catalyst.

you really think America has the political will power or means to do so? Even then where would they invade from, through the Waziristan boarder region? That would be madness! I cant imagine Iran is going to be inclined to be used as a staging post, and if India allowed itself to be one then it would run a very very high risk of being nuked.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by tarichar]

you really think America has the political will power or means to do so? Even then where would they invade from, through the Waziristan boarder region? That would be madness! I cant imagine Iran is going to be inclined to be used as a staging post, and if India allowed itself to be one then it would run a very very high risk of being nuked.

I am not sure where to begin. You have a dreadful lack of comprehension about US interests in the region, and particulary in relation to the current political climate of Pakistan.

There are already US forces operating in Pakistan, though in a rather clandestine fashion. US forces have officially been put on standby to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Pakistan, our most important ally in the region, is about to be overrun by radical non-secular forces.

As far as political will, all it will take is one Pakistani nuke to rogue to whip up public support for an invasion. If that weapon were to be detonated within the US, the President would have enough public support to declare martial law and WWIII.

We don't need the support of India or Iran to invade Pakistan. Once again, you must have a dreadful concept of military strategy and US force projection capabilities. We will invade Pakistan by sea. In fact, that long coast line is exactly the strategic stronghold that needs to be secured before the US can dominate the region.

Perhaps you should read more here at Nuclear Terror Imminent?

Please feel free to ask any questions you might have.

With all due respect, I am currently writing a Masters thesis concerning the challenges facing the UN post-9/11 so I think I can speak from a fairly well grounded position when it comes to how US force projection can effect the global community.

Firstly, your point would require there to be a nuclear attack on the continental united states. There has been the possibility for non-state actors to obtain nuclear capabilities from the ex-soviet satellite states since the collapse of the USSR. If a terrorist group were to wish to do this it would have been done so by now.

I think the idea that Pakistan being on the verge of being over run by radical forces is highly inflammatory. Yes the Taliban does have a foot hold in Waziristan but the people who live there are highly conservative Pashtun, and quite literally 'radically' different from the majority of the population. I can easily imagine that there are snatch squads in place, I very much doubt they will be used. The greatest threat within pakistan is the increasingly authoritarian rule of president Musharaf.

The US truly would be ostracised by the rest of the international community; Afghanistan was a justified response, Iraq in terms of international law is a grey area to say the least, Pakistan would be without question completely illegal.

Correct me if I am wrong but arent American forces very stretched as it is? Are there sufficient troops to mount another invasion? Like Iraq, just because there are internal threats does not mean America would be welcomed as "liberators". Even if in the hypothetical situation that invasion was a success far more troops would be needed to occupy the country. Finally, as to strategy - a war on three fronts?

Originally posted by tarichar
With all due respect, I am currently writing a Masters thesis concerning the challenges facing the UN post-9/11 so I think I can speak from a fairly well grounded position when it comes to how US force projection can effect the global community.

First I do not care what you think about yourself. You are you. I do not care that your education is in books and not the real world. Thinking out of the box, and knowing what do to do when ever it ocurs is what is important. Put yourself in the shoes of whom you write about and you see a different story my friend. You feel safe to say anything you want, cause in your world it is not for others to question your logic. I am doing just that. What if the American people just say no, to all this crap of helping dictators and let them fight over there own interest. What if America just says no to war and developes talks with those who hate us. What if we take back our monitary policy and back it by something that has value. Now I do not want a global community. You aparently do. 74 to 85 percent of the world hates us. I can not say I can blame them from all the things we have done as a nation to bring about control. Now, you are going to blast me, and I do not care, I can only give you the wisdom in my mind that happenes when you live through the 1950's till now. Read about foreign policy of the 1960's and before. They are in your library.

well i dont make a habit of self-promotion, nor do i consider my self to be right, I will always learn more from those who oppose me than those that agree with me. a discussion board of 'yes men' would be very boring. How ever, I strongly dislike simply being dismissed out of hand.

If they did then I would applaud them, you also point to being to a degree empathetic to those who hate America. Maybe not agreeing with this hatred but understand the motivations? My opinion on the global community is neither here nor there on this topic. how ever, it is this idea of control extended through self interest and force projection that has resulted in the current security climate.

It is not my intention to blast anyone, simply dismissing someone or insulting them is puerile.

reply to post by tarichar

Firstly, your point would require there to be a nuclear attack on the continental united states. There has been the possibility for non-state actors to obtain nuclear capabilities from the ex-soviet satellite states since the collapse of the USSR. If a terrorist group were to wish to do this it would have been done so by now.

A nuclear attack within the states would not be necessary for US forces to be deployed in support of counterrevolutionary forces in Pakistan.

The fact that a terrorist has not yet obtained a nuclear weapon to deploy in America certainly does not preclude possibility. I think it is naive to assume that terrorists have not gotten their hands on a nuclear weapon simply because they do not wish to. Just becasue something has not happened yet does not mean that it won't. Ex-Soviet satellite states may have been tempted to share nuclear secrets with non-state actors, but remained stable governments and therefore retained physical security of their weapons. This is not the case in Pakistan. We are looking at the very real possibility of the actual weapons being physically removed by force, not turned over in a clandestine business transaction.

I think the idea that Pakistan being on the verge of being over run by radical forces is highly inflammatory. Yes the Taliban does have a foot hold in Waziristan but the people who live there are highly conservative Pashtun, and quite literally 'radically' different from the majority of the population. I can easily imagine that there are snatch squads in place, I very much doubt they will be used. The greatest threat within pakistan is the increasingly authoritarian rule of president Musharaf.

I only used the term "radical" in the context of their opposition to US foreign policy, not out of personal judgement.

The truth is, regardless of the ethnic, political, and religious divisions within Pakistan, there is nearly unanimous consensus against the interests of current US foreign policy. The exception of course being the current ruling regime in Pakistan. If Musharraf loses control, enemies of the US will have gained either direct control, or prevailing influence over a substantial nuclear arsenal. This is a fact, regardless of your opinion of the Musharraf government.

The US truly would be ostracised by the rest of the international community; Afghanistan was a justified response, Iraq in terms of international law is a grey area to say the least, Pakistan would be without question completely illegal.

The mass deployment of US forces into Pakistan would not be illegal if we were invited in to support Musharraf's forces.

We would not be ostracised if a rogue nuclear weapon went off anywhere in the world that was found to have originated in Pakistan. Furthermore, don't rule out the possibility of a false-flag detonation as well.

Correct me if I am wrong but arent American forces very stretched as it is? Are there sufficient troops to mount another invasion? Like Iraq, just because there are internal threats does not mean America would be welcomed as "liberators". Even if in the hypothetical situation that invasion was a success far more troops would be needed to occupy the country.

There are several methods to whip up enough troop support. The esiest thing to do would be to enflame the long-running low-level war in Kashmir. Indian forces would take the brunt of the battle.

The next option would be to use air and naval forces to bomb Pakistan into the ground. If a Pakistani nuke were to have gone rogue already, US forces would likely strike with tactical nuclear weapons as well. (Such a campaign would make "shock and awe" look like a bowl of rice crispies.) As you pointed out, US forces would not be greeted as liberators and therefore loss of life in Pakistan would be of no concern. The follow up invasion could be carried out by a relatively small force of Marines and Spec Op warriors from within the military and private sector. At that point, the draft will have already been instituted for follow on support, and further advancement of the US strategy in the Middle East.

A third option would be to give up on nation building efforts in Iraq, move to key fall-back positions there manned by private contractors and token uniformed forces, while the bulk of the Army is redeployed to Pakistan. Look at how few troops we keep in Afghanistan compared to Iraq. I would say that 25% of US forces in Iraq right now would be enough to secure the vital US strategic positions there.

With any further agitation in military affairs around the world, I forsee conscription in the US Army.

Finally, as to strategy - a war on three fronts?

Yes, a war on three fronts. But you fail to recognize that the US hold the initiative in this position. First, US forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan would quickly meet, quickly eliminating the third front. Secondly, US forces are not encircled, they are the ones doing the squeezing. You can clearly see on a map who sits right in the middle of the pincer movement.

So far, US naval power has maintained a quite passive role in military objectives. This will change with the invasion of Pakistan. The Pakistani coastline is necessary to expand US operations in the middle east. It will be utitlized both logistically, recieving sea-borne shipping, and militarily by the US Navy directly.





[edit on 1/17/0808 by jackinthebox]

Its not so much the states that I would be worried about, it would be the military officers guarding the sites being offered a years wages simply to look the other way.

So now radical simply defines anyone opposed to the US? Further more, you propose that any opposition party elected to power would be anti-american? I really find it hard to use this kind of binary opposite, simply being opposed to US foreign policy does not make a country an 'enemy' - especially an 'enemy' willing to use nuclear weapons. It takes away a huge number of other factors in a very complex situation.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the Kashmir situation and why that would increase support for US action?

"As you pointed out, US forces would not be greeted as liberators and therefore loss of life in Pakistan would be of no concernn" - this i cannot even begin to understand. Combined with the shock and awe comment this is pretty much promoting whole sale genocide.

Unfortunately with the nature of asymmetric war fare the idea of two fronts combining doesnt really count, even if they were treated as homogeneous mass it would be constantly perforated by insurgent attacks.

reply to post by tarichar

Its not so much the states that I would be worried about, it would be the military officers guarding the sites being offered a years wages simply to look the other way.

A legitimate concern then as now, but not the same situation at all as what is developing in Pakistan. We are not talking about some wacko with cash and an agenda getting their hands on a warhead. We are talking about a legitimate force directly opposed to US foreign policy, seizing direct control over an entire nuclear arsenal by force.

So now radical simply defines anyone opposed to the US? Further more, you propose that any opposition party elected to power would be anti-american? I really find it hard to use this kind of binary opposite, simply being opposed to US foreign policy does not make a country an 'enemy' - especially an 'enemy' willing to use nuclear weapons. It takes away a huge number of other factors in a very complex situation.

I see, um, well, maybe you should tell the President.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the Kashmir situation and why that would increase support for US action?

I thought that would be clear enough to someone who claims to be well versed in international affairs. If India were to be drawn into the fray, this would mean less work for US forces to erase Pakistan.

"As you pointed out, US forces would not be greeted as liberators and therefore loss of life in Pakistan would be of no concernn" - this i cannot even begin to understand. Combined with the shock and awe comment this is pretty much promoting whole sale genocide.

You contradict yourself. In one sentence you "cannot even begin to understand." But in the next you hit the nail right on the head. Yes, such a campaign would be wholesale genocide. Hence my fears of what provocation might be perpetrated to legitimize such a campaign.

Unfortunately with the nature of asymmetric war fare the idea of two fronts combining doesnt really count, even if they were treated as homogeneous mass it would be constantly perforated by insurgent attacks.

The threat of insurgent attacks would be greatly reduced when the US mission shifts from nation-building to direct-action. For the most part, Americans are being killed in Iraq right now because they are out on the streets and interacting with the population. This will not be the case in the near future I fear. US forces cannot be defeated militarily. The US will set up big bases and kill anything that comes near them. Whatever might be left that is.

Jack you and I know whats coming hopefully others will realize. We will be in Pakistan here within the next 2 to 5 years and the stage will be set at that point...I wonder if McCain did say that he is getting a lot of media buzz lately mabey is the allowed one to be president....

reply to post by mybigunit


I still think the fix is in for Hillary, but this does not mean that McCain is not and will not continue to be a very powerful man. I think it was a slip on his part. I think he has inside knowledge.

From some reading I did it appears that unlike most countries in Pakistan nuclear arms fall solely under the control of the military. Even then it is only a select group of officers, I would imagine those close to Musharaf. So even if he were democratically unseated it would appear impossible for other political groups to gain control of Pakistani nuclear weapons. Further more, these weapons are not like British or American weapons that are on imminent stand by. They are in separate parts, so in order for someone to capture a working bomb they would have to attack 3 separate instillations, which even by Western standards have a high level of defence.

So you are suggesting that India could be persuaded to attack from Kashmir? Or that there would a false flag attack that would force India to react to a perceived threat in Pakistan?

So you wouldn't support such a campaign? My lack of understand was how anyone could justify such a strategy, simply in terms of RoGs or even morally.

Current method of insurgency have been developed through 'open source warfare', that has already established there is no attraction in attacking well defended bases. So if American troops were to hold up in a base, what would the point be?

reply to post by tarichar

So even if he were democratically unseated it would appear impossible for other political groups to gain control of Pakistani nuclear weapons.

This is an illogical and dangerous assumption. Military forces are not immune to political conditions. Are you suggesting that the Pakistani military would not recognize a democratically elected government? That the officers in charge of nuclear weaponry are immune from interpreting their own loyalty? The fact that control is so centralized is a liablity.

They are in separate parts, so in order for someone to capture a working bomb they would have to attack 3 separate instillations, which even by Western standards have a high level of defence.

Attacking the installations is indeed a possiblity, but not necessarily a pre-requisite for gaining control of the weapon systems. The aresenal could come under the legitimate authority of a regime opposed to US foreign policy, and willing to act against it with force. Furthermore, a terrorist would not need to gain access to all three facilities. All they need is the warhead, not the delivery system.

So you are suggesting that India could be persuaded to attack from Kashmir? Or that there would a false flag attack that would force India to react to a perceived threat in Pakistan?

Affirmative.

So you wouldn't support such a campaign? My lack of understand was how anyone could justify such a strategy, simply in terms of RoGs or even morally.

Wether or not I would support such a campaign is irrelevant. I am merely examining the possibilites of events that will affect us all. Justification is the work of propoganda ministers, but keep in mind that India and Pakistan have been deadly enemies ever since their one nation became two.

Current method of insurgency have been developed through 'open source warfare', that has already established there is no attraction in attacking well defended bases.

There would be an attraction if there were an achievable objective. You would be naieve to think that a base could not be overrun. We are not talking about a ragtag insurgency here. We are talking about a formidable geurilla force with strong political support. Furthermore, attacks on bases are not uncommon anyway.

[[Click Here]] to see insurgent attack on US ammo dump, Camp Falcon Iraq.

So if American troops were to hold up in a base, what would the point be?

I am not sure I understand your question here. Please elaborate.

Really enjoying this thread jack_javascript:icon('')
_javascript:icon(''), keep it up.

A key aspect is to remember that the military is heavily entrenched by a particular point of view. It has on several occasions removed democratically elected leaders and either exiled them or at worse executed them. There is also a significant level cronyism, Musharaf will only have appointed those who he trusts absolutely with his nuclear weapons. There is a very distinct separation between the Army and civil-political power, I think it would take along time for someone from outside of the Musharaf regime to reach a level of control over nuclear weapons. It is important to bare in mind that Musharaf has been in the Army for 44years, and thus has a very tight grip over the military.

"Are you suggesting that the Pakistani military would not recognize a democratically elected government? " absolutely, as mentioned before Pakistan has had several military coups. He will do his uttermost to maintain control 'legitimately' in the eyes of the international community, I am some what sceptical as to who is to blame for Bhutto's assassination. The only reason he stepped down was due to Western pressure to be a 'democratic' leader.

The Kashmir idea is definitely interesting, but i think it would take a great deal to persuade India that it would be in there interest. It currently holds the vast majority of Kashmir after the 1999 war.

the war heads are not kept in one piece, if they were it would defeat the point of using such a method to keep it safe from non-state actors. Like most nuclear weapons Pakistan's arsenal is simply for deterrence, Pakistan only needs 3 weapons: 1 for Mumbai, 1 for Delhi and 1 for Calcutta. If Alqaida wanted to make a dirty bomb the there are much easier ways of gaining fissile material than trying to snatch Pakistani war heads.

Ok, its just that I think it would take a hell of a lot to persuade an already war weary American public to support a campaign of slaughter. The international community as well. Further more, a third war may just be the nail in coffin of the 'relationship' with the house of saud - key source of oil to America, essential for such an operation to succeed.

I completely agree, these people are highly trained in Iraq in urban conflict where they can attack US troops in enclosed ambushes where state of the art technology is often rendered useless. As a result they have already learnt attacking bases with no clear objective or realistic possibility of over running them are pointless. As your link points out there are exceptions but this is not the rule. If US forces were to hold up in bases these people would be able to carry on, within reason, as normal out of range, waiting for anyone to venture into terrain that gives them the advantage. US troops would have no real control if they stayed on base.

Def Sec Gates apparently saying the U.S. military could "go" at a moments notice.
Is this the U.S. putting Pakistan on notice? Giving them a suggestion?
Interesting times indeed!

Obs out

reply to post by jackinthebox


Yes, please come and invade us and please hurry quickly... LMAO Let's see how you can leash 170 million folks.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by hitman666]

The fix is in for Hillary. Thought the same up until she said multiple times she had a bullseye on her back in Bosnia while chatting it up with li'l poem girl and accepting flowers. She screwed up 'bigtime'. Then Billy goes apeshi+ over some alliances issues. She's done. Stick a fork in her.
McCain. Where do I begin? He's such an enigma in many ways. He is classic Bush mentallity. I'm sure the republican lapdogs have been salivating over the dems crash and burn. Barrack thus far has evaded any intensive criticism. But is so evasive on the big issues. If some major outing of strange things he does with pez dispensers they may have to take him out.