Taliban fight now looks long, slow

CS Monitor ^ | October 26, 2001 | Scott Peterson

[Gadsden1st]

When I saw reports of a Northern Alliance attack showing a cavalry charge, I realized how much trouble we were in if we depended on them to give real support. Thanks for the post.

[gulfcoast6]

They want us to do the bombing big time before they attack and now I can see why. I hope that folks don't think our President is on top of things and he is going to unleash the might of this country soon on that country.

[jerod]

It's been whole month, and we haven't won the war yet.

Oh well, I guess we should just pack our bags and go home.

[Common Tator]

This story is typical media analysis done by people whose total military expertise came from not paying attention in history class.

This war has been from day one a war based on the military principle of siege. Sit down for a moment and pretend you are at a war planning meeting at the pentagon.

  They list the options  for war
     1. Nuke Em
     2. Pure air war (bombing strafing)
     3. Conventional war (take and hold ground until all of
        Afghanistan is held
     4. Guerrilla war 
     5. Seige 

Nukes were put on the back burner, unless it is the only viable option. We do not want to give others the option to use nukes because we used them. We will only use them if we have to use them.

Pure air war of bombing has never worked. The air war contributed to Millosevic surrender but the Taliban is not Millosevic. Bombing did not do it with Sadam.

Conventional war would likely cost us 20,000 to 50,000 dead. We would have to reinstate the draft. Our nation might do a Nam on us if drafties started dying in large numbers.

Guerrilla war does not have much cost, but it is a very long time to victory if ever. The only reason North Vietnam won was our people made us give up. The Taliban is not likely to give up.

That leaves Seige. In a seige you prevent the other side from getting food and ammunition. You do not attack, You do not lose forces, you just starve him out.

That is what the plan has been from day one. It was modified to use Guerrilla tactics and bombing to speed up the starvation. We are blowing up his ammo dumps and food stores. We are letting no food get in to the taliban. We are dumping token amounts of food on the edges of Afghanistan.

We have twice blown up red cross food supplies in Afghanistan. If there are more we will blow those up too.

Our very first act was to seal off the west,north, east and south of Afghanistan from the air and the ground. They can't grow food, and the they can't make ammunition and there is no way to import it.

When they have starved for 20 days, they will have little energy to fight. When they have not eaten for 40 days they will not be able to fight. Some may not have the strength to surrender.

In war, Goverments try to win. In war, the media tries to get viewers and readers.

[ctonious]

I have to believe all these types of reports are disinformation on our part. I find it hard to believe that this state of affairs is the best we can do. There's something else going on we're not seeing. I refuse to believe that if we wanted to make an airbase in the middle of a desert plateau - that we couldn't do it within hours. That if we wanted close air support for the Northern Alliance - that we couldn't flood the air over the Taliban with cheap little radio control video-equipped drones like those used in Desert Storm - identifying every bloody Talibanite for plinking by F-18's/F-15E's/F-16's with CBU's or regular ol' artillery from the front lines.

We could hack out and build, or capture and hold airfields and other types of bases in a jungle in both WWII and Vietnam, where the enemy is just outside the perimeter in dense foliage - but we can't do that in Afghanistan? Which has no jungle cover for so much as a tit mouse? What the hell's going on here?

Either this is all BS for a sophisticated diversion - or the Pentagon leadership doesn't have a clue about using its highly capable hardware to do the most basic things anymore.

[cons_Mark]

Interesting comments about a siege. I sense that this may be a very viable strategy, along with taking some shots during the winter time. Are you comfortable that the supply pipeline has been sufficiently cut off? I suspect that a little bit is getting through from Pakistan, but it may not change the tide. Plus those camps and caves close to the Pakistan border might have a chance at getting some resupplies.

[cynicalman]

Either this is all BS for a sophisticated diversion - or the Pentagon leadership doesn't have a clue about using its highly capable hardware to do the most basic things anymore.

Unless we bomb the pi@@ out of this people within the next week or 10 days then I'm going to start believing "they don't have a clue theory"

[Lazamataz]

It also suggests a Pentagon miscalculation

We cannot afford any of these.

[Lazamataz]

Good analysis. But you left out two of my favorite options: Massive carpet-biowarfare, and massive carpet-VX-nerve-gassing.

[ContemptofCourt]

Yeah, and it has worked so well in Iraq.....

[Gadsden1st]

I appreciate your view on this and it seem to be on target. I have no problem with waiting them out. I want to nuke em, but that is an emotional response which I may shout out from time to time. Starvation is good. Roasting is nice. Death by a thousand cuts works. Blind, deaf, and dumb with constant pain for life is an option. I'm open to most means. I understand more of us will suffer, die, in this war but agree it should be kept to minimum. The one thing I have no regard for is the opinion of anyone other than our true alies.

[culpeper]

I'm a little surprised we havn't dropped fuel air explosives on every pocket of resistance by now. But who knows maybe theres stuff going on we just don't know about. With these traitors in congress leaking information I reckon the top brass is keeping alot quiet.

[neutrino]

What a great analysis! Thank you!

[Godfollow]

Remember that many of the Pentegon Brass was installed during the last administration...

[carton253]

Common Tator...

I can't thank you enough for your postings. I always read what you write with interest. You are right. Government is trying to win the war, the media is trying to get ratings. Those two are at cross purposes.

[Magician]

It was 1965 and Lyndon Johnson was sending troops into Vietnam.

It is 2001 and George W. Bush is sending troops into Afghanistan.

It's an even more poorly conceived war. Start kissing the boys goodby.

[Jhensy]

At the risk of being a keyboard commando: Have I missed something or are we not going in? With infantry, tanks, artillery, etc. ? I still assume we're doing the necessary pre-invasion bombing, with a massive operation to follow. Or not? Is it just going to be hit-and-run commando raids, which sounds more like a Vietnam stalemate than a real bashing? I know our men are chomping at the bit for some revenge, are they gonna get it?

[Don Myers]

We might try to starve them out. I wonder how far we will get when the rest of the world begins screaming about the innocent civilians who are dying. Just think of all of the women and children who are starving. Yeah, right. Tell me more about siege tactics.

[gcraig]

Don't even try it. We were attacked, and now we are fixing the problem. I'm in the reserves, and I'm ready to kick some taliban butt. You pathetic excuse for a human can stay back here in the U.S. while I preserve your freedom, loser.