Pakistan in the Vietnam war

[Dingus Khan]

Pakistan is far too concerned with fighting India to worry about Vietnam. Besides, they wouldn't want to annoy their ally China by attacking their Southeast Asian proxies.

 

[The Militant Doberman]

Not going to happen, pakistan are not idiot's to leave themselves undefended, also more us support so they will force india to back down if necessary,

And just what “support” do you think will make India “back down”?

america will be seen as weak if they allow a active military allie be defeated.

In OTL 1960s India annexed Goa from Portugal (a US ally and founding member of the NATO alliance) and it didn’t cause any wide crisis.

 

[haider najib]

And just what “support” do you think will make India “back down”?

In OTL 1960s India annexed Goa from Portugal (a US ally and founding member of the NATO alliance) and it didn’t cause any wide crisis.

First one is economic, sanctions so on. Second is militarily america can arm and support pakistan while threatening india, whats india going to do? Europe and most of asia are americans allies. Chinese and usa are getting close. Detente still in action soviets are not going to get involved when india causes it they gain nothing, also under Brezhnev he was trying to get good relations with muslim nations, so backing a hindu majority nation will not help. America can place bases in pakistan, what is india going to do attack them? India is not even close to american power, they got defeated by the chinese. Is india going to fight or challange the worlds strongest military?


Are you serious on using Goa as an example? First Portugal means nothing america has little interest there. Pakistan is a direct military allie as they are in Vietnam with them, they cant allow allies to fall, cause whats the point of allies if you dont back each other.

Goa was also a colony from the empire days america won't back saving old imperial relic, in which the population don't see themselves as Portuguese. Btw have you heard of the Falkland war america did alot to help britain there as they were a key allie. Also goa is not in the north sea, mediterranean, europe or north america.

India is directly attacking a military allie america has interest and obligation to protect them. I already stated pakistan wont get involved unless america guarantees they will cover them in case of indian aggression.

 

[The Militant Doberman]

First one is economic, sanctions so on.

For sanctions to be effective you need to have trade/aid up and running in the first place. Just how much money did India get from USA in 1960s/1970s? Something tells me the answer is “not much”.

Second is militarily america can arm and support pakistan

USA did so OTL already. It’s been a while since I seen it, but I recall reading a book on famous historical tank battles that stated Pakistan used modern M-60 tanks imported from USA and despite this edge performed poorly against older Soviet tanks used by India.

while threatening india, whats india going to do? ... America can place bases in pakistan, what is india going to do attack them? India is not even close to american power, they got defeated by the chinese. Is india going to fight or challange the worlds strongest military?

American military did operate a base in Pakistan in that time period. Didn’t stop the India-Pakistan conflict in the 1960s.

Also lol at the idea of USA going to war with India on Pakistan’s behalf.

Uncle Sam: “Pakistan, we need your help fighting in a small tropical country. If you do so, we’ll go to war for you against a much, MUCH bigger tropical county”

Europe and most of asia are americans allies. Chinese and usa are getting close. Detente still in action soviets are not going to get involved when india causes it they gain nothing, also under Brezhnev he was trying to get good relations with muslim nations, so backing a hindu majority nation will not help.

Why are you talking in hypotheticals here? India and Pakistan did have major fights in the 1960s & 1970s. The Soviets didn’t throw India under the bus, the Arab World did not swoop in to save Pakistan or cut ties with Moscow and the Europeans continued their relationship with New Deli.

Are you serious on using Goa as an example? First Portugal means nothing america has little interest there.

*cough* https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/18/archives/kissinger-weighs-effect-of-a-communist-portugal.html?url=http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1975/04/18/76351600.html?action=click&region=ArchiveBody&module=LedeAsset&pgtype=article&contentCollection=Archives *cough*

Goa was also a colony from the empire days america won't back saving old imperial relic, in which the population don't see themselves as Portuguese.

Point. USA was anti-colonial.

Btw have you heard of the Falkland war america did alot to help britain there as they were a key allie.

Not really? I certainly don’t recall US putting army bases on the Falklands or invading Argentina or doing any number of things you say Washington would do for Pakistan.

I already stated pakistan wont get involved unless america guarantees they will cover them in case of indian aggression.

Why would USA agree to entangle itself in the Pakistan-India conflicts for, what, a few tens of thousands/year extra allied troops (at best) in Vietnam?

For that matter, why would India invade Pakistan just because it sent troops to Indochina? It’s not like South Korean deployment to Vietnam caused a Second Korean War.

 

[haider najib]

snip

(is that correct how to the snip)
Then theres no point for thread then, pakistan wont get involved if they dont have gurantees. Pakistan is not that stupid enough to cause war if there troops are in a foreign country. That means india has to start the conflict, that means alt wars.
I think your missing the point the thread is literally asking pakistan in Vietnam war, im giving the most likely way you can get them involved. All you said doesn't matter as this thread is asking to get pakistan in vietnam. Look at the original message if you have problem take it up there. Im trying to get what the stated in question answered.

Also america did help Britian in the Falkland side winder missiles, satellites, and intelligence, maybe even an offer of a carrier if the british one sunk. USA support doesn't need to be boots on the ground as britian had that covered.

Can you explain then how pakistan would be involved then in vietnam? As that is what the thread asking.

The entire point of hypothetical is kinda what the website it about you know alternate history. if pakistan is involved in Vietnam it cant stir shit with india so to have conflicts with both nations it needs to be india that caused it.

Never brought up the arabs you did. My point there is a america more invested in pakistan means america has more interest in it.

All you done so far is to refuse understand what the thread is, and instead keep trying to 'enforce' your view. Offering nothing else. Pakistan never got involved originally. So there has to be some change to for them to consider it. Secondly a change in america to accept said help. 65 cant happen as pakistan is in vietnam they don't have the forces to fight india there goes that war. Bangladesh who knows honestly, that anyone guess but if america is willing to accept pakistani help and for pakistan to actively get involved they have to be much closer to the point they have to be allies as the only other nations in involved on USA side were allies. If you have a better explanation please be my guests explain why pakistan would get involved. Pakistan played the global powers to try and benefit. If they are commiting to america there has to be a reason.

 

[The Militant Doberman]

(is that correct how to the snip)
Then theres no point for thread then, pakistan wont get involved if they dont have gurantees.
...
All you done so far is to refuse understand what the thread is, and instead keep trying to 'enforce' your view. Offering nothing else.

Gee, sorry for debating and pointing out gaps in your assessments while also providing citations supporting my point of view.

Now that I realize that I should ignore things like “logic” or “citations” the idea that US would get entangled in a new conflict with one of the most populous countries on Earth just so Pakistan can send a few thousand troops to Vietnam totally makes sense.

I think your missing the point the thread is literally asking pakistan in Vietnam war, im giving the most likely way you can get them involved. All you said doesn't matter as this thread is asking to get pakistan in vietnam. Look at the original message if you have problem take it up there. Im trying to get what the stated in question answered.

That’s like saying that if someone asks “How can I get from Berlin to Frankfurt?” and you reply with “You should ride there on the back of an elephant!” no one should point out that your answer is unrealistic because “it doesn’t matter as the original question never stipulated the answer should be a serious one”.

Also america did help Britian in the Falkland side winder missiles, satellites, and intelligence, maybe even an offer of a carrier if the british one sunk.

So you can quote a Wikipedia article. But can you see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch? cite an NYT publication?

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/...ed-rare-friction-for-thatcher-and-reagan.html

Papers Show Rare Friction for Thatcher and Reagan

By JOHN F. BURNS DEC. 28, 2012

LONDON — The bond between Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan, both in office in the 1980s, has become a kind of gold standard, showing what the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States can be when their leaders share a political creed.

But even though the two shared a belief in the virtues of the free market and the need to face down the Soviet Union over Afghanistan and other cold war issues, the Thatcher-Reagan embrace had its thorny passages — perhaps never more so than during the 1982 Falklands war in the South Atlantic.
Just how thorny was revealed on Friday by the publication of British government papers covering the period, under a rule that mandates the release of hitherto secret documents after 30 years. The papers, including records of the Thatcher cabinet and her occasional prickliness toward Reagan, have added spice to what was previously known about rocky patches in their relationship.
A memo written by one Thatcher aide chronicled a midnight telephone call Reagan made to Mrs. Thatcher on May 31, 1982, when British troops were closing in on Port Stanley, capital of the British-ruled Falkland Islands, off the coast of Argentina, and the site of the last undefeated Argentine garrison.

Reagan, yielding to advisers who regarded Britain’s insistence on retaining sovereignty over the sparsely populated islands as a colonial anachronism, urged the prime minister to show magnanimity rather than force the invading Argentine troops to surrender, and to reach a cease-fire deal providing for a shared Argentine-British role in the islands’ future and a joint American-Brazilian peacekeeping force.

“The best chance for peace was before complete Argentine humiliation,” the memo recorded Reagan as saying. “As the U.K. now had the upper hand, it should strike a deal now,” rather than act in a way that further hardened Argentine feelings.

But the memo said Mrs. Thatcher rejected the president’s appeal for talks three times, becoming more emphatic each time. “Britain had not lost precious lives in battle and sent an enormous task force to hand over the queen’s islands to a contact group,” Mrs. Thatcher told him, adding a brusque reminder that Britain had been forced to “act alone, with no outside help,” in recovering the islands, an oblique reference to the American refusal to be drawn directly into the conflict on the British side.
Speaking before the final toll had been tallied — 255 British and 649 Argentine military personnel dead — the prime minister “asked the president to put himself in her position,” the memo said. “She was sure the president would act in the same way if Alaska had similarly been threatened.” The memo said the call ended with Mrs. Thatcher saying that the only acceptable outcome was for the Argentines to agree to withdraw without negotiation, which happened a few weeks later.
British newspapers highlighted the Thatcher-Reagan exchanges in their Friday editions, with interest heightened by the fact that Mrs. Thatcher, 87, spent the Christmas holiday in a London hospital after having an operation to remove what her family described as a growth on her bladder. Though she has been increasingly frail in recent years and suffering from dementia, the family said she was recovering well.

The documents also offered new insights into Britain’s fractious relationship with France, centering on Mrs. Thatcher’s dyspeptic exchanges with President François Mitterrand over French-made Exocet missiles that Argentina used to sink several British naval ships during the Falklands war. At the time, British military leaders were warning that a successful Exocet strike on one of Britain’s aircraft carriers could lead to defeat.

But the hardest-edged document was a diplomatic cable from Britain’s ambassador in Washington at the time, Sir Nicholas Henderson, fulminating against Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Reagan’s United Nations ambassador, who supported Argentina’s claim to the Falklands. The cable described Ms. Kirkpatrick, a former Georgetown University professor, as “more fool than fascist” for her support of Argentina’s military dictatorship, and added, “She appears to be one of America’s most reliable own-goal scorers: tactless, wrong-headed, ineffective and a dubious tribute to the academic profession.”

So much for assertions of overwhelming and unquestionable US support for UK. Not that Washington wavering on the matter should surprise anyone given that this was the Cold War and Argentina was led by an anti-communist dictator who received help & support from Uncle Sam.

Pakistan is not that stupid enough to cause war if there troops are in a foreign country. That means india has to start the conflict, that means alt wars.
...
The entire point of hypothetical is kinda what the website it about you know alternate history. if pakistan is involved in Vietnam it cant stir shit with india so to have conflicts with both nations it needs to be india that caused it.
...
USA support doesn't need to be boots on the ground as britian had that covered.

”US aid can come in many forms, not just boots on the ground. But Pakistan will be needing US boots on the ground since their own boots will be in Vietnam.”

Can you explain then how pakistan would be involved then in vietnam? As that is what the thread asking.

Pakistan could always just choose to pull a Canada (aka: allow its citizens who want to partake in the Vietnam conflict the ability to serve alongside the US military on a voluntary bases)

Never brought up the arabs you did.

You brought up the Soviet Union working to improve ties with the Muslims, which I took to mean the Arab states as those were the most populous and powerful Islamic nations of the time.

My point there is a america more invested in pakistan means america has more interest in it.
...
Pakistan never got involved originally. So there has to be some change to for them to consider it. Secondly a change in america to accept said help. 65 cant happen as pakistan is in vietnam they don't have the forces to fight india there goes that war. Bangladesh who knows honestly, that anyone guess but if america is willing to accept pakistani help and for pakistan to actively get involved they have to be much closer to the point they have to be allies as the only other nations in involved on USA side were allies.

US and Pakistan were allies OTL (still are, on paper at least). Not sure where you’re getting the idea that they weren’t. Pakistan was even a founding member of USA-backed Baghdad Pact & SETO (aka: “Asian NATO”) projects back in the 1950s.

 

[Barry Bull]

Deploying one army battalion attached with various support forces and 1 company of special forces to Vietnam is not going to make Pakistan defenceless against India. That's the size of New Zealand's contribution in the Vietnam War.

Whether the Pakistani government at that time consider such move politically and diplomatically useful is another matter.

 

[Pangur]

Could Pakistan get involved in the Vietnam war in a similar way as South Korea

How would this effect Pakistan's economy

How would this effect the Pakistani-Indian wars of 1965 and 1971

When did you have in mind for Pakistani involvement to start? Pakistan over the years had enough o s plate re India which makes me wonder when the viable time windows would be. I suppose its possible that the Pakistani gov & military might be tempted to send maybe a battalion in the hope that the US would provide more support to them that they did ITL

 

[walmart]

When did you have in mind for Pakistani involvement to start? Pakistan over the years had enough o s plate re India which makes me wonder when the viable time windows would be. I suppose its possible that the Pakistani gov & military might be tempted to send maybe a battalion in the hope that the US would provide more support to them that they did ITL

I was thinking 1964 or early 1965

 

[Pangur]

I was thinking 1964 or early 1965

Thanks, OK 1965 is out I think as OTL at least they were busy on the last bit of planning for Operation Gibraltar and the executing it followed by the war with India which they lost. 1964? maybe. However there is the matter of the alliance with China (1962) which has to be butterflied away. I cant see a nation that has an alliance with China being involved i Vietnam.