Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US planning full invasion if special forces fail
The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 10/31/2001 | Michael Smith and Toby Harnden

Posted on 10/30/2001 4:57:32 PM PST by Pokey78

THE Pentagon is considering mounting a ground invasion of Afghanistan if the current bombing and special forces campaign fails to achieve its aims, American defence sources said yesterday.

The allies would carry out sporadic bombing attacks throughout the winter while the opposition Northern Alliance was built up into a workable ally before a full-scale ground invasion in the spring.

The new plan emerged as Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, held talks in Washington with his US counterpart, Donald Rumsfeld, amid suggestions of differences between Britain and America over the prosecution of the war.

Mr Rumsfeld originally rejected invasion plans put forward by Gen Tommy Franks, the commander-in-chief of US Central Command, who is running the military operation, telling him to plan for a series of special forces raids.

But the difficulties of gathering intelligence was shown by the rapid aborting of a US special forces mission into Afghanistan 12 days ago. Resistance was far higher than expected and it has made military planners think again.

Gen Franks had now been given his head and told to go off and organise it all, a move that led to his current tour of countries in the region to see what they are prepared to offer in the way of bases, the sources said.

"The plan now is for a long winter of sporadic attacks and the occasional special forces mission," one said. "Meanwhile, we will be getting trained up and organised for a conventional invasion in the spring."

Speaking after yesterday's talks, Mr Rumsfeld said that, while the "modest" numbers of US special forces now on the ground were nowhere near those used in the Second World War or Korea, "we have not ruled that out". Mr Hoon added: "Nor have we."

The idea of a ground invasion was originally seen as too dangerous given the difficulties faced by the Soviet army during its occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

British planners had suggested the use of the Northern Alliance as a proxy force backed up by special forces operations and a policy of widespread humanitarian aid to win over the "hearts and minds" of the local people.

But with the British contribution increasingly appearing to be little more than decoration, those plans seem to have been shelved.

Adml Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, gave warning last week that the war in Afghanistan was the toughest military operation since the Korean War and could last several years.

Planners are aware that a ground invasion would be hard for the politicians to sell to electorates and to the other members of the coalition but believe that, without an early breakthrough, they have no other option.

Sir Michael and Mr Hoon are said to have clashed over the possible speed of military action and the type of troops used in special forces operations. Sir Michael complained that politicians had been expecting far too much too soon.

There was "quite a lot of pressure" to come up with fast military options, he said. "People say, `How are you getting on? What are you achieving? Can't you do it any faster?' "

At a joint press conference after yesterday's talks, Mr Hoon and Mr Rumsfeld sought to play down the differences.

But speaking earlier, Mr Hoon said it was possible that a Taliban regime could survive, and added that a pause in the bombing during next month's Muslim festival of Ramadan should be considered, though both possibilities have been rejected by Washington.

The war was about keeping up pressure on the Taliban rather than ending its rule, Mr Hoon said. "The ultimate objective is to bring those responsible for the events of September 11 to account.

"There is still a possibility of the Taliban accepting that they would give up Osama bin Laden and their support for terrorism and that's why I talk in terms of pressure on the regime."

The Pentagon has made clear it wants to obliterate the Taliban regime before moving on to consider other terrorist networks and states around the world. Mr Hoon said: "We obviously have to have regard to the sensitivities of Ramadan. It is something that we will consider very carefully."

Mr Rumsfeld has always insisted that military action will not cease during Ramadan. A Capitol Hill source said: "It sounds like the British are having second thoughts."

Brushing aside recent concerns from senior British officers, Mr Hoon insisted there were no differences of views either between British and US politicians or between their military planners.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: oef
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

1 posted on 10/30/2001 4:57:32 PM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
But the difficulties of gathering intelligence was shown by the rapid aborting of a US special forces mission into Afghanistan 12 days ago. Resistance was far higher than expected and it has made military planners think again.

There it is again. Certain FReepers will rave that this is all a lie, but we keep hearing it, again and again, and subtly reflected in what our officials tell us.

I'm glad we lost no lives in that abortive mission, but I hope we learned a great deal more about how to operate on these guys' turf.

2 posted on 10/30/2001 5:04:22 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
If the Anthrax attacks are linked to Osama, we should use a tactical nuclear device on them, and end this silly talk of a ground occupation.
3 posted on 10/30/2001 5:04:52 PM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Now this makes some sense.

Franks is in Uzbekistan looking at things.

4 posted on 10/30/2001 5:08:21 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Amen
5 posted on 10/30/2001 5:09:20 PM PST by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

6 posted on 10/30/2001 5:10:13 PM PST by KLT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Pokey78
Russia??
8 posted on 10/30/2001 5:10:41 PM PST by umbra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
I certainly hope that our military and political leaders are not underestimating the Afghans. Like it or not, they are very tough fighters and they have a lot of experience with this sort of warfare.

I believe that a land invasion would be a disaster. We should content ourselves to arming opposition groups and to dismantling Afghanistan via a vicious air war.

9 posted on 10/30/2001 5:10:45 PM PST by quebecois
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
"There it is again. "
Isn't this the same fellow 'it' came from before?

Pakistani intelligence cooperation HAS been deliberately terrible IMHO.

10 posted on 10/30/2001 5:12:05 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cavalry
Tactical Nuclear weapons AREN'T good for the economy.

They aren't good for the Afghan economy.

The biggest boom to the US economy (other than massive tax cuts) would be to rid the world of our enemies once and for all.

11 posted on 10/30/2001 5:12:33 PM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
You know, all along I have thought that the American people would not be satisfied until full account has been paid by the monsters who attacked us. But now, I'm not so sure.

Is it possible the people would live with a constant, low-level of terrorist threat? Occasional bombings, people killed here and there, but slowly, surely relegated to the back pages of the paper?

You think this is balmy, but consider: Who would have suspected a couple of generations ago that people would settle for the level of crime, violent and nonviolent, that we live with in our daily lives? There is doubtless not one of us who hasn't been touched by crime in some way, even if it is just petty theft or burglary.

And I actually know people--no one close, but acquaintances, a parent of a friend, a woman who dated my best friend in college, the daughter of a professional colleague, the son of some friends with whom I attend church--who have been murdered.

We see murder, rape, armed assault, assault and battery, bar brawls, "road rage" episodes, etc. in our newspapers and on TV every single day, and we just shrug. We live with the fact that we are part of a far more lethal and dangerous society than in the past.

So, what if it becomes "normal" to have a high school bus blow up from time to time, or part of the stands at a football game?

We'll be p*ssed, but after awhile, if we "chicken out" right now--as some of the peaceniks and seemingly all of the major media are hinting we should do--that's what we're facing.

12 posted on 10/30/2001 5:12:44 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Ditto: nuke 'em baby, nuke 'em.
13 posted on 10/30/2001 5:14:19 PM PST by nagdt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Pakistani intelligence cooperation HAS been deliberately terrible IMHO.

I thoroughly agree. I'll say it again: We are INSANE if we kid ourselves that we have ANY friends in the Middle East, with the limited exception of Turkey.

14 posted on 10/30/2001 5:14:42 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
--I had originally thought that by now they would have made a major push to secure an airport as a base in country there, and begiin a berlin airlift deal to build it up before many more major operations. Fighting from 1000 or more miles away constantly has got to be wearing out the troopies some by now. It's also expensive, and wears out the equipment. Of course, a massive airlift in will wear out equipment, too, but at least they'd have a significant presence on the ground there. I've read the taleban actually only fields around 25,000 guys now. Seems like with total air superiority, they could take and hold a base. And if the base acts as a taliban magnet, I'm sure dien bien phu style mistakes won't be made again. The weaponry is different now, and the taleban really don't have major supply lines in, they have to fight with what they can carry now, which ain't too much anymore.

Perhaps the terrain is just too difficult, low altitude there is like high rocky mountain altitude here, that has to play a part. Weird area of the world. Too bad we aren't just deporting mass numbers here, wouldn't be much of a bother to ignore afghanistan then. If they ain't here inside the borders, kinda hard to do a terr attack here, isn't it?

whoops, almost forgot, "oil" is involved, too.Sorta mucks up the planning a little.

15 posted on 10/30/2001 5:18:57 PM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
"But the difficulties of gathering intelligence was shown by the rapid aborting of a US special forces mission into Afghanistan 12 days ago. Resistance was far higher than expected and it has made military planners think again."

Let this Certain FReeper take a stab at this.

We see video of say 100 Special Ops forces parachuting from C-130's onto a Taliban airfield. We can surmise from reports that those very planes landed at that airport to pick them up once the place is secured. We see video of other Special Ops forces walking around in Mullah Omar's mountain retreat, leaving pictures( and likely other souvenirs), all the while in no apparent hurry like they are about to be overrun or something.

Yet how can this be if they were being repulsed by the ferocious 10' tall Taliban warriors (both of them)? Just doesn't make sense unless the video were shot on the same soundstage as the Apollo moon landings.

16 posted on 10/30/2001 5:21:19 PM PST by Boss_Jim_Gettys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
We can only send what we got, and we ain't got enough to send and protect the homeland ----- thanks to the Slime Clinton and gang!
17 posted on 10/30/2001 5:23:41 PM PST by Joee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nagdt
Ditto: nuke 'em baby, nuke 'em.

I figured we would be in agreement here ;-)

18 posted on 10/30/2001 5:26:59 PM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Look, it's been obvious from day one, that we were going to have to go into Afghanistan and take control of territory. What you do, is grab an airfield, set up the perimeter and start flying the men and supplies in 24/7. In and out raids were silly from the start.
19 posted on 10/30/2001 5:37:46 PM PST by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cavalry
Commandos using Bill Murry's tactics in Caddy Shack can handle this situation..."How'bout a couple 100,000 gallons of diesel down there?... Oh you need a match?"
20 posted on 10/30/2001 5:40:43 PM PST by gocowboys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson