Some Important Things to Consider About an Attack on Afghanistan

Salon.commie ^ | september 14, 2001 | Tamim Ansary

[liberalism=failure]

I think he's right in part. unfortunately ground troops would probably be the way to go.

I do however disagree that the next step has to be be an inevitable war against Islam, it did not happen with the attack of Iraq and so far (although things could change) most of the Arab states have been reasonably cooperative in this.

HOPEFULLY what will happen is--if we punish 1 or 2 state sponsors of terrorism that they will serve as examples to other states and they will want no part of it any longer.

I hope so, but we'll see. There really is no other choice at this point.

[ExiledInTaiwan]

I think he's right too. India offered full support. Pakistan's current rulers would not survive our troops on their soil; internal pressures too great They could get by with us flying over. Why not stage and attack from India, flying over Pakistan?

[Chi-townChief]

To put ground troops in Afghanistan will require major air strikes and almost continuous bombing for months and even then, we'll have difficulties. Although I've never there, I've been to Korea and the first thing you think of when you see the hills, ridges, and valleys is: What a stupid place to have a war.

I realize ground troops will most likely be necessary and I'm glad that people a lot smarter than me are calling the shots. Hopefully, there will be a "simple" (for lack of a better term) way to do this that we don't see right now.

[Publius6961]

And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." I

Sorry fellah, you lost me at this point.
The accurate comparison is the German people, not the helpless victims.

How many people in Afghanistan?
What do they fear?

Acquiescing for years and empowering the Taliban and the terrorists because it was convenient, has exacted a price.
They did not choose wisely...

[MAD-AS-HELL]

one has to remember that afghanistan is a country of nothing. to bomb them means we will be bombing rocks and tents like clinton did a few years ago. SO bombing has to be done strategically. In fact, i think we would be more likely to go in with numerous highly trained but small troops to snuff out camps with the help of the bombing. Another thing to remember....the USSR tried to take over afghanistan and got their butt wooped so this sustained war has to be thought out carefully so as to not repeat the mistakes of past aggressors who have tried to dismantle the country.

[dagtaggart]

"conceded today that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage."

he is right. they are not completely innocent if they have not risen up to overthrow this government that has given safe harbor to these thugs. those that have risen up, oh well. i am concerned about OUR survival more than anything else. this will send the right message to other peoples, in other nations.

[randita]

I think he's right in part. unfortunately ground troops would probably be the way to go.

IMO, ground troops are out of the question. Afghanistan has almost no infrastructure and the terrain is moon-like. I've seen documentaries about that country. There are almost no paved roads or bridges and many of the roads that exist are narrow and barely passable.

Recall that the Russians, with the full might of their military, could not get enough troops and equipment into Afghanistan to take it over back in 1980-81. And you can be sure that the Afghans, if they saw us coming, would make sure that ground transportation was impossible. And also consider that we have no realy allies on the border with Afghan. from where we could stage.

IMO, if military action is taken, it will be from the air and guerrilla-like ground actions supported by air--sort of a hit and run exercise.

[Republic of Texas]

I agree with everything you've said, based on my knowledge. However, the goal of the radical Islamic world, is to attack and defeat free Christian countries. We will have to fight them SOONER OR LATER. The longer we wait, the stronger they get. This includes Pakistan.

[winodog]

They took Kabul in a few hours. I am not a expert but I believe they had no trouble getting in, it was the staying there that was the hard part.

On a sidenote I think gov.org is about to trim the tree but does not have the will to cut it down and pull out the root.

[norton]

To the greatest extent possible - isolate the area in which the bad guys can hide.
Advise anyone else (cowardly bunch of losers that they may be) that there's going to be hell to pay.
Carpet bomb every inch of the desert that might be available to the baddies...
Invite the Russians to step in and mop up if they want to do it.

Regroup, go for target number two.

Save the ground troops for something worth occupying.

[norton]

Taliban controls 95% of the country - how can you even suggest that it is "not the people" or whatever appologetic tripe the author used?
If the people were willing to let their government fall and to live under the Taliban's rule then they are responsible for their actions.

In the same light as we are all responsible for Bill Clinton whether we like it or not.

[marigold]

Better give this some more thought! The people are "not completely innocent" if they haven't overthrown the evil powers in control of their country, huh? How about US? WE allowed these terrorists in our country; even trained them to fly. WE are just as guilty of "harboring terrorism" as any other nation. We even have "allowed" government terrorists to attack our own people. Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge? What really happened to Flight 800, and why did our government try so hard to cover up the truth? And there have been other cover-ups as well, Gulf War illness among them. How many "casualties" of that war were there, really? I know one who was not even in the military, but was exposed to a contagious factor of the "no single cause" GW illness. Let's not even talk about "antiseptic strikes" until we have full disclosure about the Gulf War veterans and their families. Some of us would like to know about Oklahoma City, too. If the real perpetrators of the bombing had been found and punished, would we be talking about New York and Washington today? But I don't feel guilt, just a sense of powerlessness.

[1234]

why can't we do nuclear, as a statement for the other countries involved-that is , if we believe our survival is at stake?

[Teacher317]

Interesting points. If they hate the Taliban as much as we do, this opens up more possibilities. If this is the case, then this is the perfect time for them to take advantage, and begin making internal noise to add to the storm that's brewing. The Taliban will then be much easier to defeat. Does the writer seriously think that if they rise up and help us against the Taliban, and opt for a much friendlier form of government, that we'll bomb our allies there?

In fact, reading some of the breaking news stories, it seems like Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are already drawing swords and getting ready to bloody each other before we even get there. I'm always for other soldiers doing our dying for us. (Remember Patton? And the body counts for Russia and the US for WWII?)

Setting a VERY few examples aside, American troops have always spent a decent amount of energy moderating the amount of civilian casualties. While we were not squeamish about bombing Germany, no matter how many German citizens held anti-Hitler sentiments, we did do our best to support loyalists in France and Germany. This will not be very different, no matter how many hotheads like myself scream for total annihilation... unless and until the opposition changes the equations, yet again.

(21st Century guerrilla warfare on American soil... a whole BUNCH of new experiences for us, and some expensive lessons coming up)

[liberalism=failure]

thanks for your post, great points all of them.

[MI]

How about a 50 million dollar bounty on Oh-Mamma-Big-Slobbins.

Let one of his own bring him back alive and throw him, in his dress, in one of our largest prisons?

Then all the inmates could introduce themselves to him.

couldn't help myself

[NoClones]

If one really understands the seriousness of this issue there can be two responses from the countries harboring the criminal binladen.
They are:
Give him up or not.
***But, first we would try diplomacy. This is what we are seeing now.
***Second, there may be some sort of military action. If US casualties mount, there will be two alternatives:
A)Withdrawal, which would be a disgrace and the beginning of the end of the US as a superpower or,
B)Escalation, which has a very grim conclusion for the country that would harbor binladen.

One needs only to remind countries in this region of history and how WWII ended in the Pacific.

[XJarhead]

I think he's right as well. But I don't think it need trigger an islamic holy war. There are more moderate islamic opposition groups within Afghanistan that can provide us with some limited staging capability --they've already offered to help.

Line up with those folks. Make it absolutely clear that you are limiting the action to get rid of the Taliban. Couple the effort with food and relief for Afghans, and flood the airwaves with those pictures. You don't have to hunt down the entire Taliban and hold the country. You just have to break the cusp of their military power enough to allow more moderate elements to finish the job. Those moderate elements might have defeated the Taliban anyway if not for Pakistani support. Now, the Taliban is deprived of Pakistani support and the moderates will have our help.

If we pitch this correctly, it may be closer to the relatively united front we had against Saddam rather than a war against islam.