Analysis: The Coming American Assault on Afghanistan

Beaufortcountynow.com ^ | September 15, 2001 | G. Dority

[Fusion]

My experience is primarily in the Balkans so I do not feel qualified to comment on this piece. The author's background in these affairs is extensive -- however I would prefer to hear knowledgeable criticism from this forum before passing judgement on the merits of this analysis.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Hasn't our military and the British military been continuously at war with Saddam? Is there another way to classify the mission there?

There's war and there's WAR. Clinton's lob a bomb here and there strategy is low level. It won't do anything to stop a determined, suicidal terrorist army. I think that in addition to any strike, we should tighten immigration and controls on aliens. Many should be carefully investigated and removed. Others should have their activities monitored. Just think--as an American in other countries, you have limited rights. We have to do the same.

[Alberta's Child]

This guy seems to overlook the possibility that American infantry units will only represent a small part of any ground forces. It is likely that units familiar with this kind of terrain (especially different factions within Afghanistan) will be more effective than the U.S. in dealing with the Taliban forces.

[THE FIX]

Isn't it time we reject the notion that these fundamental islamics are a "religion?" They are no sooner a religion than say a bunch of devil worshipers, or dracula worshipers who go around killing people. Instead of giving them the respect of being classified a religion, we should call them what they are -- murdering criminals.

[MeekOneGOP]

bump

[CWOJackson]

This author makes assumptions that are very, very dated and which renders his whole premise wrong.

"Any American war planning versus the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan must first address a fundamental issue. Will the US attempt to win the fight with an air campaign only, as practiced in the NATO war versus Yugoslavia -- or will America be willing to commit to the costly and time consuming option of a ground campaign that seeks total and decisive victory?"

"There is no question more important should the US go to war in the region. In the long history of Afghanistan, no invader has ever been successful in defeating the indigenous tribesman and warrior clans of this country."

1) The so-called war plans are not against the Taliban and bin Laden. While bin Laden will probably be a target, no targets have been announced. The Taliban has not been announced as a target either.

2) An air war or the costly, length ground war. The author is preparing to fight the last war. This war is not limited to these two options.

3) Who plans to "invade" anyone?

We will selective military strikes against specific targets combined air and limited ground forces; in and out quickly after utterly destroying the target. Afganistan is very well versed in fighting a defensive guerilla war but they are not highly mobile. They can fortify a position, they cannot respond with additional forces quickly.

[Clinton's a rapist]

The lesson of the First Chechen War for American forces is to never fight dug-in Mujahadeen units in an urban setting -- especially with armor. The defensive force multiplier provided by these built-up areas combined with local knowledge of the terrain is a tremendous combat equalizer. US forces do not want an equal fight -- they want to enjoy localized firepower and numerical superiority in every battle if a conventional warfare option is selected.

This is a fascinating and (so far as I can tell) extremely well-informed assessment, taking into account the best historical precedents (the wars in Chechnya, the Russians' invasion, conquest and subsequent expulsion from Afghanistan, etc.) The assessment of the pros and cons of using tactical nuclear weapons, in light of the great uncertainties involved in a multi-year ground campaign in Afghanistan, is sober and realistic. Where I would quibble is that I think that an assault on Afghanistan alone will be quite insufficient to win this war, and indeed will only open us up more to the threat of "Allah's suitcase," to which the article refers. Whatever means are chosen for this campaign, I believe that it must be coordinated with a simultaneous and devastating attack on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, finishing off that threat once and for all.

[Smogger]

Seems like a thoughtful and well reasoned article to me. What concerns me is that the likelihood that an attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan will destabalize the region and plunge eastern Asia and quite possibly the middle east into war.

This was most certainly Osama Bin Laden's intention when he ordered the suicide attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

[Arleigh]

However it should be understood that Osama bin Laden is generally considered by most intelligence analysts to have "Allah's Suitcase" capability. That is the expression used for the detonation of a crude nuclear device by an Islamic suicide bomber. One of these bombs is actually bigger than a suitcase -- but not much. Such a detonation in a major American city would kill as many as a hundred thousand people and spread a contamination field that would take many years to negate.

I've been thinking about this A LOT - I work less than 600 yards from the White House. Wouldn't it make sense to lead with your nuke? In the Cold War, that was called the "Use `Em or Lose `Em" dilemma. After the 9/11 Attack, it will be much more difficult to deploy your nuke. Since it probably cost tens of millions of $$$'s to obtain, and there can't be many more in the warehouse, why risk the FBI snatching it? I'm HOPING that the fact that ObL didn't nuke DC or NY means he doesn't have Allah's Suitcase at least here in the States. I'm HOPING.

[Arleigh]

What concerns me is that the likelihood that an attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan will destabalize the region and plunge eastern Asia and quite possibly the middle east into war.

This was most certainly Osama Bin Laden's intention when he ordered the suicide attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

I've heard no speculation in media as to what ObL's intentions were. From what I understand, the guy is no dummy. Brilliant is more like it. He would not have spent years and millions on this operation - signing his own death warrant in the process - without a plan.

From what I read, he's not concerned about something as piddly as the fate of the Palestinians. He's thinking globally. So it sounds like he would not have struck just to force a Mid-East war that finally wipes out Israel, although he may have done just that. But does he really think he can bring about a global Anti-Islamic War? A war that Islam can win?

[Clinton's a rapist]

It's a scary possibility, but what are we supposed to do? Concede to the terrorists' demands? They haven't made any demands. The attack was made out of pure, amorphous hatred for the United States. Even if appeasement were a rational strategy, which it isn't, these terrorists can no more be appeased than the Badar Meinhoff gang or the Red Brigade of the 1970s could be appeased&#8212they are fueled by implacable hatred and resentment of the West and the American way of life.

One thing is for sure. If they don't have these weapons now, there is every prospect that they will get them in the near future, and when they have them, they will use them. That is why we cannot afford to flinch. This is not a time for half-measures, for soft sentiments, for testing the waters. Our vengeance must be so terrible that the enemy is cowed into defeat. We have the technology, but do we have the will?

[LibWhacker]

The "Allah's suitcase" scenario poses far, far, far too great a risk NOT to intern every Arab in this country. I can't believe political correctness has infected our country so thoroughly that the round-ups didn't start yesterday. Liberals are disgusting pigs and they are going to get perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans killed with their ******-** thinking.

[Golden Eagle]

Excellent article, thanks for posting. We were unconventionally attacked, and should respond accordingly.

[Le-Roy]

Finally, two things should be realized by the American people. First, such a fight will be long and costly -- both in terms of money and human lives. Secondly, the enemy has fired the first shot and in all probability has second strike capability. Such a war will be a terrible struggle the likes of which this American generation can scarcely imagine -- however the alternative of not destroying this enemy is too horrible to contemplate.

   That last paragraph is about the most perfect exposition of this whole affair I have seen yet.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

There are some who think if we don't attack them, then they won't use their mini-nukes and biological weapons on us. BS. The terrorists are going to use these weapons no matter what we do. Good feelings and liberalism isn't going to prevent one attack. Some are worried about future attacks. Only one way to stop them. Kill em all, wherever they are. Dead terrorists can't get revenge. People say I'm insensetive. So to compromise with the touchy feely crowd, here's some kind words for their buddies, the dead hijackers: Here's to the hijackers. May they enjoy getting Ned Beattyized in hell for all eternity. Imagine their enjoyment hearing "squeal like a pig" till the end of time. Now their only desire is to be moved from the extra crispy to the regular section of hell. I hope they like the pig manure that is now their daily diet.

[Clinton's a rapist]

I don't know about interning all Arabs, but, once this thing gets underway, there will have to be some kind of registration, and a lot of deportations. This will be a multi-pronged effort, and we are going to be living in a state of emergency until the enemy is vanquished.

[arete]

The real enemy and the force behind the WTC bombing is

IRAQ!

Read this book. It explains how the war with Iraq was never concluded.

C-Span Booknotes

Richard W.