Comments | jordan179: Pakistan Delenda Est

jordan179

Pakistan Delenda Est

Dec 04, 2008 21:36

America and India now apparently have intelligence proving that the Pakistani ISI, which effectively controls the Pakistani Army, was behind the Mumbai attacks. Pakistan is utterly refusing to cooperate with Indian demands for extradition even of the TERRORISTS behind the attack, let alone of the government officials ( Read more... )

america, war, islamofascism, terror, pakistan, india

Comments 84

firstashore December 5 2008, 05:58:12 UTC

Do you have a source for the ISI claims?

It wouldn't surprise me, the ISI is probably second only to the Mossad when it comes to brutal intelligence agencies. It's also the only way that rogue Pakistani elements have to strike against their traditional enemy, because everybody knows that if India stirred herself, she'd squash Pakistan like a bug.

jordan179 December 5 2008, 06:04:50 UTC

Do you have a source for the ISI claims?

Front Page magazine, so far, and they're quoting an Indian newspaper. Not definitive yet, but considering the history between India and Pakistan, I think it'll turn out to be true.

Also, if Pakistan isn't guilty, why aren't they turning over the criminals to India?

It's also the only way that rogue Pakistani elements have to strike against their traditional enemy, because everybody knows that if India stirred herself, she'd squash Pakistan like a bug.

I think it's time for India to stir herself and do so. "Pakistan" was a mistake of history -- time to end the error.

firstashore December 5 2008, 06:11:04 UTC

More fuel to the fire:

Pakistan mulls downing U.S. drones

I must admit that, not having been born for the first two (three?) Indo-Pak wars, the idea holds a certain amount of morbid fascination to me. It would be horrifically brutal, but man, it would make good television.

jordan179 December 5 2008, 06:22:48 UTC

The reason I'm so gung ho for this war isn't general bloodthirstiness, but several specific reasons:

First of all, Pakistan has been committing acts of war against America from 2002 on, and against India from at least the early 1990's on. At first we could see this as mere foot-dragging, but it's evident now that Pakistan is actively on the side of the Terrorists. To continue to let Pakistan get away with this would render both our war, and India's, unwinnable. Among other things, Al Qaeda's leadership is being sheltered in Pakistan, with the connivance of the Pakistani Army and Intelligence.

Secondly, India has to take some action against Pakistan, and any action pushes Pakistan into the complete control of the Terrorists. This would not be the case if Pakistan did not already have some pretty strong pro-Terrorist sympathies -- a country with Civilized sympathies would be offended by the actions of the Terrorists. If Pakistan is going to be pro-Terrorist anyway, better to take her out than to let this drag on for decades ( ... )

Thread 21

orominuialwen December 5 2008, 06:17:15 UTC

I think it's supposed to be "Pakistan delenda est." ;) My Latin professor last year used that phrase as an example of some grammatical construction I no longer remember (the passive periphrastic, maybe?). Most of the Latin I learned went in one ear and out the other, but that phrase did stick with me.

jordan179 December 5 2008, 06:23:16 UTC

You're right.

like that's gonna happen ... btripp December 5 2008, 06:25:19 UTC

"What we should be doing is assuring India of our support in the event of an Indo-Pakistani War."

Oh, yeah ... with a Commander-in-Chief who wrote (on page 261 of his "The Audacity of Hope"): “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction,”?

More likely Obama will sell out India to the Pakistan intelligence services!

( ... )

Re: like that's gonna happen ... jordan179 December 5 2008, 06:29:46 UTC

I know that Obama may wind up betraying American interests on this. That's why India needs to move fast. India should remember that, no matter what Obama does when inaugurated, none of it will restore anything that India destroys. India should strike as soon and as hard as possible, while she still has the initiative. Take out the Pakistani strategic, air and naval arms now, and Pakistan is helpless.

Re: like that's gonna happen ... cutelildrow December 5 2008, 17:14:16 UTC

well, do you think India can do it in a few weeks? They have that much time before Obama takes office...

Re: like that's gonna happen ... jordan179 December 5 2008, 17:23:05 UTC

I think that India can de-fang Pakistan in a few weeks. It would take them a few months to conquer and occupy the country.

Having said that, I don't think that Obama would be able to politically survive intervention on Pakistan's side in such a conflict, adn short of that there is nothing we could do to stop the Indians from conquering Pakistan.

Of course, we could stop the Indians from reconstructing the country. If we do that, the Indians should trash all the infrastructure on the way out. Destroy the fruits of decades of Pakistani effort, and deal a sharp lesson to the Muslim world regarding the costs of jihad.

Mind you, I don't think India will actually go to war against Pakistan in any way as decisive as I outline. This is more what I hope happens.

Thread 9

seawasp December 5 2008, 13:41:12 UTC

Er, if Pakistan feels "Civilization"'s wrath, will we have a planet left? Civilization's wrath tends to the "There is no such thing as 'overkill', there is only 'open fire' and 'reload'" type.

jordan179 December 5 2008, 15:10:10 UTC

Well, if it was that Civilization ... depends on how strong were the Boskonian fortresses in the Northwestern Province :)

bdunbar December 5 2008, 16:02:04 UTC

As for the Northwest Province, we need to be arranging for an airborne supply route into Afghanistan so that, when the war comes, we can drive into the Northwest Province from Afghanistan while the Indians drive into Pakistan from the east.

I think it is possible you are underestimating the airlift we would need sustain all of our forces in Afghanistan - including NATO allies. Now add up the expense needed to sustain operations across some of the worst terrain in the world.

I've lost my copy of Dunnigan's 'How To Make War' but I think the minimum needs per soldier run to a ton of stuff per day - food, rations, POL, ammo.

bdunbar December 5 2008, 16:32:21 UTC

I may no longer have a paper copy of 'How to Make War' - but it's in books.google so that's okay.

Page 502

Mechanized units require 150 - 500 pounds of supply per man per day. Air units require 1,000 pounds of supply per man per day.

We've got 32,000 troops there. NATO has 8,000. We'll call it 500 pounds per man per day - not all of the NATO units are resource hogs, but the squadrons certainly are. I don't even wanna think about the contractors.

10,000 tons of supply per day.

That's (scribble-scribble) 250 C-141 flights per day.

It might be sunshine and moonbeams but I don't think the numbers work out to supply that many people by air.

jordan179 December 5 2008, 17:08:05 UTC

We do not need to operate offensively with all our formations simultaneously. Units on the defense consume much less supply than units on the offense.

bdunbar December 5 2008, 18:04:02 UTC

We do not need to operate offensively with all our formations simultaneously

So cut the tonnage needed by 30%. We're still talking half of our total airlift capacity needed on a daily basis. Assuming operational losses we might guess that 65% of the total fleet would be needed for the duration of the operation.

Where does all that come from? Who gets shorted while MAC is busy elsewhere?

I'm assuming that this only has to be done temporarily,

You know what they say about assumptions.

supply routes can be run through Occupied Pakistan.

Being shot and sniped by surly Pakis, the entire way.

Thread 13