Follow on...
Had Mullah Omer's Talibaan been weak, the US would not have initiated a process of negotiations with them nor would it have exerted so much pressure on Pakistan to begin a war with the Haqqanis. This is the reason of contention I agree, but we do not want to engage 50k Talibaan fighters that we consider our asset, plain and simple.
The US thought that they could simply hold negotiations without Pakistan in Qatar, where did they get with that attempt? Without Mullah Omer and Haqqanis, there is not Talibaan and so without them there is no negotiations. The US Govt. has also vocally accepted pressurizing Pakistan to bring the Haqqanis to the negotiating table. However, Pakistan has declined the unreasonable demands as Pakistan has been consistently undermined in the whole process while at the same time the US attempts to give India a much bigger and undeserved role in Afghanistan. Are we supposed to take it all sitting down?
Negotiations do take place regardless of victory or defeat in the battlefield. US does not negotiates with al-Qaeda but it is willing to give Afghan Taliban a chance if it is willing to work with international community.
Indian involvement in Afghanistan is not a new thing. It has supported Northern Alliance during Afghan Taliban rule and it has invested a lot in improving the infrastructure of Afghanistan after 9/11. Karzai regime does have soft corner for India. Even Afghan Taliban does not have issue with India as long as it does not gets militarily involved. For Pakistan, this has become a battle of hearts and minds. Indians are smarter then us (Pakistani) in foreign policy matters.
I have marked your words and now you mark mine, Soviet Union left Afghanistan upon Talibaan's terms and so will this super power!
This remains to be seen. It is possible that US may maintain strong presence in this country for a long time. US resolve should not be underestimated.
Here is hint:
Panetta says U.S. will have ‘enduring presence’ in Afghanistan after drawdown - The Washington Post
Ok so there are only 3 possibilities here:
1 - Saddam considered US threats to be bluff
US military build-up around Iraqi borders was not sufficient sign?
2 - Saddam thought he was strong enough to fight of the US & NATO.
Yes. Just like you do.
3 - Saddam was actually in cahoots with US, and his actions gave them the opportunity to establish permanent Military bases and presence in Saudi Arabia & Kuwait.
Sounds like a conspiracy. Saddam pursued his interests IMO. Why would he risk destruction of his country for the sake of strong US presence in Middle East?
One can simply write off atleast point number 2, point no. 1 has some merit but it is actually point no. 3 that holds the most substance.
Point 3 is the weakest one.
And it remained so after too.
No.
The Iran-Iraq war ended with Iraq sustaining the largest military structure in the Middle East, with more than 70 divisions in its army and an air force of over 700 modern aircraft. (Source: Global Security)
General Hamdani is a famous Iraqi general whose professionalism has worldwide recognition. You can get very useful insight about evolution of Iraqi military capabilities from his views.
This is his assessment about US military:-
General Hamdani on several occasions commented on how much the American military had impressed him in both 1990 and 2003. Particularly interesting was his view that the U.S. Army was far superior to any he had seen in the Middle East—including the Israel Defense Forces.
He has pointed another great fact:-
You need to understand his mind and doctrine. His mentality, his values, and the way they fight and doctrine.
This is why homework is more important then bravado and useless chest thumping.
This was how US military was generally perceived in Iraq prior to Persian Gulf War 1991:-
True . . . true. As I mentioned earlier, just before the 1991 war, when I told the Republican Guard staff that the American plan was going to be along the Wadi al-Batin and that what we were doing was wrong, they became furious with me. They said that I was demoralizing the subordinate officers, that I had upset the president, and that I was going to be referred to a court-martial. The reason for this was that these senior staff had reached a point where they degraded our intelligence. For instance, Hussein Kamel would say, “The Abrams tank is heavy; the minute it moves in the sand it will sink! As for the F–15 or F–16 aircraft, when we fire a flare gun at them at night, the pilot will blink and lose control of the aircraft.” Saddam Hussein would say, “Throw sand on the Phantom and that is it.” This discussion happened on November 23, 1990.
Here is a minor glimpse of reality:-
In 1991, I watched as an Apache destroyed a complete armored brigade, right before my eyes, in 15 minutes.
@ Mav3rick
Now you understand that why it is too dangerous and stupid to underestimate a powerful enemy?
Do not get fooled by Afghanistan.
None of which hit any of the desired targets even though the Scuds were considered pretty good. They were intentionally fired into uninhibited deserts of Israel. Again, doesn't this arouse suspicion? There was hardly any loss from all the scuds that Iraq fired into Israel, Saudi Arabia & Kuwait combined.
Those missiles were fired for political motives and not at vital targets. Extreme US pressure prevented Israel from responding because the international coalition may have fractured due to this development.
I would also like to know the progress of Iraqi Military from 1981 to 1991 as you believe they achieved excellence from mediocre capability during that term.
Here;
During the late 1970s and the mid-1980s, the Iraqi armed forces underwent many changes in size, structure, arms supplies, hierarchy, deployment, and political character. Between 1980 and the summer of 1990 Saddam boosted the number of troops in the Iraqi military from 180,000 to 900,000, creating the fourth-largest army in the world. With mobilization, Iraq could have raised this to 2 million men under arms--fully 75% of all Iraqi men between ages 18 and 34. The number of tanks in the Iraqi military rose from 2,700 to 5,700 and artillery pieces went from 2,300 to 3,700.
Headquartered in Baghdad, the army -- of an estimated 1.7 million or more Iraqis, including reserves and paramilitary -- in 1987 had seven corps, five armored divisions (each with one armored brigade and one mechanized brigade), and three mechanized divisions (each with one armored brigade and two or more mechanized brigades). An expanded Presidential Guard Force was composed of three armored brigades, one infantry brigade, and one commando brigade. There were also thirty infantry divisions, composed of the People's Army (Al Jaysh ash Shaabi--also cited as the Popular Army or People's Militia) brigades and the reserve brigades, as well as six Special Forces brigades.
This growth in the manpower and equipment inventories of the Iraqi armed forces was facilitated by Iraq's capacity to pay for a large standing army and was occasioned by Iraq's need to fight a war with Iran, a determined and much larger neighbor. Whereas in 1978 active-duty military personnel numbered less than 200,000, and the military was equipped with some of the most sophisticated weaponry of the Soviet military arsenal, by 1987 the quality of offensive weapons had improved dramatically, and the number of men under arms had increased almost fourfold.
This mammoth arsenal gave Iraq a clear-cut advantage over Iran in 1987. Iraq had an advantage of more than four to one in tanks (4,500 to 1,000); four to one in armored vehicles (4,000 to 1,000); and two to one in artillery and antiaircraft pieces (7,330 to 3,000). Despite this quantitative and qualitative superiority, the Iraqi army by the end of 1987 had not risked its strength in a final and decisive battle to win the war.
In early 1991 Iraq's military reflected the influence of both the British Army and the Soviet Army. The British influence remained in staff organization and in reliance on the corps as the largest independent operational unit. Soviet influence, dating from the 1960s, was clearest in the heavy reliance on artillery and in a broad range of Warsaw Pact equipment and weapons. But in replacing losses and upgrading capability since the war with Iran, Baghdad had incorporated weapons and other technology from many countries, including Italy, Yugoslavia, Austria, Romania, Switzerland, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the People's Republic of China. Iraq also flew French helicopters and used a variety of American equipment.
By February 1991 Iraq had an army of more than 1 million men-about 950,000 regulars, of which some 480,000 were reserve and new conscripts, and about 90,000 volunteers. The regulars were organized into seven corps and the volunteers into the corps-size Republican Guard Forces Command, the offensive component of Iraq's military. Three corps were deployed northward, partly facing the borders of Turkey, Syria, and Iran. The remaining four corps and the Republican Guard Forces Command were in southern Iraq, in Kuwait, and along the eastern part of the Iraqi-Saudi Arabian border and thus were of immediate interest to Central Command. (Source: Global Security)
General Hamdani pointed out in one of his interviews that major reforms took place after Iranian occupation of Al-Fao Peninsula in Iraq in 1986. Saddam became open to professional advices after this event.
Look mate, America did whatever it could do conventionally but was not able to defeat the Talibaan. But for the purpose of argument here, by you reasoning Iraqi military should have resisted the invasion a lot more....albeit their shortcoming as per my conclusion in equipment, training and most probably dedication and patriotism.
Patriotism was never an issue in Iraq. Iraqi resistance was much more bigger and harder in scale in comparison to that of Taliban. Entire cities were often turned in to fortresses of resistance. However, US had deployed much greater firepower in Iraq accordingly and showed heavy determination.
This is General Hamdani's assessment of US military performance against Iraqi resistance during its peak years:-
The American Army is fighting using an unusual counterguerrilla war method for the last 4 years that would make any other army collapse. But the American army is still holding there, which underlies that this is a great army that has wonderful training and excellent officers. There is an exception for every rule, but in general, the American army has proved for the last 4 years that while the Soviet army would have collapsed and any other great European army would have collapsed, they have not. Four years of fighting and the American soldier is still disciplined and zealous, and bears his losses, and this is a unique characteristic of this army.
And Taliban analogy is useless in case of Pakistan. We are talking about a nation with billions of dollars of worth of infrastructure, standing army, and many urbanized regions. We are not talking about a rag tag militia organization which can easily blend among the locals and can conduct surprise attacks for shock value like the ones we often witness in Kabul. No need to bring this analogy up again and again.
No my friend, I do not want the US to do everything but I want them to acknowledge everything and to stop the smearing campaign that they have unleashed against Pakistan PakMil and ISI. Furthermore, I want them to reimburse the losses we have sustained because of their arrogant war and to continue repair works until everything settles down in 20 odd years.
You know what I want? I want Pakistani Military and Civilian leadership to come clean on the matters of WOT.
All state of the art airforces were either equipped with BVR Missiles or would have procured them after the first encounter with a BVR armed adversary. Iraq was a spent force without means to fight a war.....that too with a super power.
Iraq was not a spent force after Iran-Iraq war. It would be better if you would concentrate on the facts and not on speculations.
And that's a new one for even you.....USAF evolved to avoid harm, harm to whom? USAF officials then agreed, civilans strongly disagree.
USAF evolved in to a force capable of attacking from great distances and minimize its losses.
Not just the USAF, the entire US military underwent heavy reforms after the Vietnam war:-
During the 2 decades preceding the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. Army went through tremendous reform and rejuvenation. It recovered from the Vietnam War, transitioned to an all-volunteer personnel model, and refocused on a potential future war against a very capable adversary in Europe. The Army’s transformation was evident to external observers: from being seen as an organization in distress in the early 1970s, by 1991 the Army became an organization whose professionalism was the source of admiration. (Source: The Letort Papers)
Covered.
Well, I believe I asked you to not discuss OBL Operation simply because where you are adamant the operation was genuine, I am highly sceptical and believe it was all a drama with the help of GoP & Military. Lets wait for the OBL commissions report ok?
Fine. But I do not have high hopes in this regard.
Lets agree to disagree as there are capabilities on both sides that are undeclared. Let's also be realistic, a military conflict b/w the US and Pakistan will just not happen. But if it does then my opinion is that we will annihilate their military bases on land and sea in a diameter of 5k-8k. the losses that we incur are beyond the point of this debate.
This remains to be seen. You can generalize about our chances. But I prefer to be cautious.
Their arrogance was their downfall in Vietnam and their arrogance is their downfall in Afghanistan. They failed to understand the regions and the inhabitants. The same is happening all over again in Pakistan.
They are not always arrogant. US politics can overshadow US military accomplishments sometimes but then it depends upon level of commitment shown by US leadership. Under a capable leadership, I would never doubt the chances of US.
In addition, Vietnam is old story. And Afghan front has not yet concluded. Why only focus on failures? Why not focus on successes and improvements?
Is this the reason for such poor showings of Islamic nations since 20th century?
How many Jets & IRBM/ICBM/SRBM/LACM/SLCM etc. has PAC3 shot down?
PAC-3 system has been used in 1 conflict thus far and it has gained international recognition for its performance. Unlike PAC-1, this system could do its job and not just had psychological influence.
PAC-3 Performance in Iraq War Helps Overcome Domestic Opposition:-
While public concern over developments on the Korean peninsula makes it increasingly likely that a political consensus on the legality of missile defense will be achieved, proponents of BMD must still make the case for its technical viability. Critics inside Japan have long been skeptical of the idea of “hitting a bullet with a bullet,” despite U.S. government claims to the contrary.
In this respect the BMD program in Japan received a major boost from reports of the improved performance of the Patriot 3 (PAC-3) antimissile batteries during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Despite two “friendly fire” incidents, reports indicated that the upgraded Patriot antimissile systems with new “hit-to-kill” warheads performed significantly better than their forerunners in Operation Desert Storm. One of the war’s most important converts was Naoto Kan, leader of Japan’s largest opposition party (the Democratic Party). After observing the performance of U.S. and Kuwaiti anti-missile batteries in the first two weeks of the Iraq war, Kan—who had formerly opposed missile defense—announced that he no longer doubted its feasibility. Kan’s change of stance removed a major roadblock to Japan’s acquisition of a layered missile defense system. Defense planners would like the system to eventually include both sea-based midcourse interceptors and PAC-3 batteries aimed at missiles in the terminal phase (Source: APSS).
How many has THAAD shot down?
THAAD has not been used in a conflict yet due to lack of opportunity. However, THAAD has very good track record in its extensive testing phase.
When have they faced an adversary that is actually some good with these technologies?
Iraq in 2003. Yes! Iraq's missile arsenal was degraded during this time but still it was dangerous.
And how did you measure their success?
International repute and track record in conflicts and testing. US AM systems are no longer paper tigers.
Don't tell me you read brochures!!
You can read about THAAD from many sources.
