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.
It is a raid, you go in, hit, gather, and get out. The intel is the reaction of the Taliban to the raid.......we see where they come from and know more about their strength and reactive ability,,,,,time it takes them to get word etc......."abortive raid"?? sounds like the liberal media message to me.
For what its worth, my expectation would be that with Republican leadership, the press would be screaming that it is unacceptable and urge people to demand more safety. If a Democrat was in charge, the press would be doing their best to get people to accept it as normal.
Mmm...What about lost wheels, crashed helicopter with two killed? This war is not a holiday as Pentagon video has presented it
I don't know how to link a thread but read this!.........Bureaucrats vs. Warriors, The Makeup of Our Forces! Enjoy /sarcasm ......Huston we Have A Problem!
There is no problem, it just disconcerting that we are in the dark - war is not easy stuff.
They will fight it like maniacs. Much better use Northern opposition forces...
From Telegraph.co.uk report
US special forces beat retreat as enemy 'fought back like maniacs'
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 26/10/2001)
THE American troops who took part in last Friday's raids inside Afghanistan encountered far heavier opposition than they expected, forcing commanders to call in the SAS for future missions.
The "cosmetic" raids were designed to provide a show of something happening on the ground, both for the psychological impact on the Taliban and to appease a US public increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of the war.
Targets were selected because they were thought to be poorly defended and could be easily filmed to demonstrate that ground troops could go where they wanted.
But the soldiers from Delta Force, the US equivalent of the SAS, and the US Rangers were stunned by the resistance they met and had to get out sooner than expected, Pentagon sources said.
"The raid was a success from the intelligence point of view," one said. "We got lots of intelligence. But our men were surprised by the amount of resistance they ran into.
"The speed with which the Taliban launched a counter-attack came as a bit of a shock. They fought like maniacs, we didn't expect that. Intelligence got it wrong."
Two US Rangers were killed when their helicopter crashed inside Pakistan. Another helicopter landed so quickly while attempting to get the Rangers out that it lost part of its undercarriage.
The SF aborted a mission but it was not a failure. They re-deployed after pushing their probe to do what the mission called for; force enemy activity and communications to evaluate strenghts and locations.
Of course they quoted the ever mysterious and unknown "American defense sources". Could be a janitor from the pentagon. Just like "senior govt official said". Turns out to be a retired postal management worker.
The military is worried that bin Laden might have a nuke or two up his sleeve. Wouldn't be good for the public if our newly constructed firebase with lots of troops on it was nuked.
This is an old wives tale at best, or agit-prop for more repressive law schemes, considering the source. - Most american historians agree that the 19th century was a FAR more violent society than our present day.
Look it up.
Until the supply lines are secure, whether through Pakistan, Uzbek, or Iran, ground invasion is out of the question. Which of those supply areas is secure that you would turn your armies loose in Afghan?
sounds good to me
I'm with you StormEye. I don't think our "political military" is prepared to take the risk that is reqired to win.
HUMMMM?
But I'm not talking strictly about violence. I'm talking about TOLERANCE of crime and criminality.
Here is the major difference as I see it. The American West (which is what I think you have in mind) was lawless, but that was a function of "law enforcement few and far between." But the penalty for criminal behavior was lethal, and the great majority of folks, who were law-abiding, would not tolerate a continuation of criminal mischief the way we do today.
There was no quarter given to lawbreakers, none. They received a fair trial, and that was it. For most of the serious crimes we see today the penalty was death. And people were not only allowed, they were EXPECTED to protect themselves.
The difference of what I am talking about today is our passive acceptance of evildoing in our midst. We had decades of "victimization" of lawbreakers, in which they were put on a pedestal as "victims" of racist, sexist, class-conscious society. That was the first major chink in society's armor.
Soon it became not only tolerable, but chic to be a criminal in many of our subcultures ("Gangsta" rap is a good example of this glorification of the criminal, not as a rebel with a cause as it would be centuries gone past, but as a purveyor of murder and mayhem for its own sake, for the "juice").
What if bin Laden is already dead? Do we just go home?
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.