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.
You ought to see how many 'lost parts' and downed equipment there are on our 'practice' missions. Then you would realize why, considering the numbers involved, that the lost wheels (the helicopter that crashed was a standby helicopter IN Pakistan, not Afghanistan) was heartening, rather than 'stunning.'
Quick insertions and bug-outs are SOP, ESPECIALLY this early in the game. (And it IS early.) We didn't and still don't have the materials in place to hold anything at this stage. The US is not going to put people in and then try to get the neccessities later- not this time. The MO is long, steady buildup to 'overwhelming force levels.' Different kinds of forces than the press is used to, but overwhelming is still the word.
I don't see anything dissappointing or unexpected so far, other than being amazed at how soon people have forgotten how long preparation takes, most particularly for a problem like we have here.
No, that won't happen, but it will be because we will have changed the way we live. It won't be easy from now on for the terrorists to pull off a big, splashy act of terror; we may never have another plane hijacking in this country again, because of the measures that will now be put in place.
That's been true of El Al for example.
But the price we'll pay is always living with the inconvenience, forever under siege. And that is in part what the terrorists hope to achieve. They want us constantly afraid, and therefore never truly free again as we were before 9/11.
I think, though, that they will pull off some smaller, constant reminders of their presence, that we didn't defeat them as they choose to see it, that they continue to be willing to die for their cause, and have some of us die for their cause too.
That's what has happened with Israel. They are constantly living on the edge, with some periodic respites. For almost three generations they've lived with terror, and it never really abates no matter how many precautions they take.
They're not ramming planes into Israeli buildings, but they do shoot up buses. They don't set off backpack nukes, but they do blow up Sbarro with boringly conventional explosives. And on and on.
Look at Israel, and you will see how it will be here, to a relatively lesser extent since we are not right there in their breeding ground. But we ARE a bigger target than any other. We are the focus of the irrational hatred of the third world to a greater extent than anyone else, and unless we BEAT these people, unless we show we are willing to pay the price for victory, we're going to have to live under siege from cradle to grave, because...
...they will not stop until they are stopped...
...in your own words.
I agree. The terrain is vicious! I actually felt sorry for the Russians at having to endure it and withdraw. The Afghans have centuries worth experience in fighting in this environment just as a matter of course ... and they don't wear shoes while doing it! Argh.
But I'm not talking strictly about violence. I'm talking about TOLERANCE of crime and criminality.
An almost laughable claim. It has been cited many times in the last decade or so that we now have more people in jail, per capita, than any so called 'free' society, -- ever.
You are simply ignoring history to advance your fanatical repressive agenda.
Actually I agree with this, except I would change "sporadic" to "constant air" attacks. After the long winter, even the toughest Afgans will be softened up quite a bit. We could use the cold months for some land work in Somalia.
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.
If this report is true, then I must appologize for the bad things, I have posted about Gen. Franks. If his military expertise, was ignored by Sec. Rumsfeld, then he is not to blame for the lack of progress. I still object however, to the position that we should wait for spring. We have 2,200 marines, and the 10th mountain, and green berets, all of whom, should be pushed forward immediately, into a fortified air base inside Afganistan. Let the fanatics waste themselves in full frontal assaults. While our green troops get blooded, in relatively safe defensive positions. We need to be much more aggressive, in warfare, it's the bold and daring who usually win. Strategically Offensive and Tactically Defensive, is the way to keep our casualties low.
I think the wrong lessons have been learned, from the Soviet loss in Afganistan. Everyone is saying the Afgani guerrillas can't be beat, without mentioning that the Soviets weren't fighting just the Afgani. The Soviets were also indirectly fighting, Pakistan, the Gulf states, and the USA. The satellite intel and stingers, effectively made the Afgani technologically superior to the Soviets. In this war the Taliban will have no such advantages, no sanctuary in Pakistan, no place to train, no resupply, no high tech weapons. Instead they face, precision bombing, thermal imaging, and highly mobile air supported airbourne infantry. If the politicians would just show some confidence in our soldiers, these fanatics wouldn't stand a chance.
This is a legitimate question. Here is my answer:
I'll start with "my" view of the world and America, since it is the basis for what follows.
I believe that the primary purpose for the existence of America is to provide freedom for "we the people". Not to "lead the world", not to "help our fellow man", but to provide a place for a Free people to function as they choose. I also believe that the American culture of freedom, private property rights, and respect for life makes our culture superior to ALL others in the world that do not embrace these ideals. The survival of America and the Constitution is THE most important thing and all our decisions should flow down from this fact. And our survival is threatned by Bin Laden and whoever is responsible for the Anthrax attacks. They must be annihilated. It's either them or us. I believe that a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack on the United States must be answered by a swift and devastating response. One that should involve nuclear weapons.
We have to send a message to the world and to our enemies that these attacks will not be tolerated by America. The statement that a only a "handful" of deaths should not warrant such a response is spurious reasoning. Their intent was to kill as many people as possible (and they may yet suceed). Would it matter if the enemy detonated a small nuclear device in an unpopulated region of America? From a loss of life standpoint, yes. From a use-of-force standpoint, no. It's still a nuclear attack. They same reasoning applies to a chemical or biological (Anthrax) attack.
A nuclear repsonse by America would also serve as a deterrent for future attacks. We will have conflicts in the future, and with each passing year, more of our enemies will acquire weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD's). They will be even more lethal and effective than they are today. We have to 'nip this in the bud' so that our enemies do not even consider using such weapons, since by doing so they will be annihilated. Our enemies should fear us-- actions cause fear; words do not. As someone else posted here, we need to regain our reputation as the "crazy and reckless American cowboy".
Another argument for using nuclear weapons is to prevail in our conflict in Afghanistan. "Victory" here is not defined by capturing cities, occupying land, or killing tanks. It is defined by killing our enemies since they are unconventional and do not follow the 'rules of war' (defined by Western civilization). If we don't eradicate them, we lose. It may become apparent that we cannot do this using solely air power. Our option then is to use ground forces. How many causalties are we willing to tolerate in the labyrinth of caves in the Afghan mountains? The "nuclear" case can be made solely on the basis of saving American lives.
By the way, I think the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon in and of itself is probably enough to warrant a nuclear response, but the biological attack puts it over the top.
If we don't destroy our enemies, they will destroy us. It's that simple. The death they will attempt to serve up is one of a thousand cuts. The one we serve up should consist of a handful of lethal 'knockout punches'.
What agenda? You continue to ignore what I say, and substitute your narrow-minded template ("everyone's a statist, unless they prove to me otherwise!")
FYI, I wasn't talking about an "agenda." I was positing a "what-if" scenario. Go back and read. THEN jerk your knee.
In the first place, I think that nukes are considered weapons of last resort, NOT as preventive therapy so we don't get a boo-boo.
You are nothing if not consistent in idiocy, and proud in your ignorance.
Check the source, brainiac. The source of this article is, when you click the link, "telegraph.co.uk". Now check the source of the original article where you showed your a&&. Why, what a co-winky-dinky! It, too, is sourced "telegraph.co.uk". WHAT'S THIS?!? You mean the SAME news group would repeat the SAME spin twice??? HEAVEN FORFEND!!!!
Illbay, you are astoundingly, staggeringly dense.
We haven't heard of any more photo ops, have we?
Why are there no denials?
Because, General Illbay, they ain't gonna tell you or me anything that might be of use to the enemy.
This isn't some obscure publication.
Gads. You are ignorant and proud of it. I'll repeat it slower, because you don't seem to get it.
It. Is. One. Media. Source. With. A. Clear. Bias.
Presumably. One. Media. Source. Will. Repeat. A. Party. Line. More. Than. Once.
I hereby predict that the following will occur: In a few days, the telegraph.co.uk will repeat this Party Line Mantra, and you will go absolutely creamy all over again, jumping up and down and going 'See? See? See? There it is again!!!'
Go back and check, in answer to questions in this regard, Rumsfeld simply said "we were surprised at the strength of their resistance" and wouldn't elaborate.
There, let me repeat the operative phrase: and wouldn't elaborate.
Once again, since you have to be the most dense individual I have dealt with: and wouldn't elaborate.
You may not reasonably draw inferences from his lack of elaboration, and his "surprise" could be anything from "They have nukes and America left the region for good" to "We expected they were all dead, and were surprised to see one corpse weakly raise his mangled arm."
You just don't know, but you act like you do. And you base your baseless conjecture on one heavily-biased media source.....
-- and when it repeats itself, you try to pass it off as two sources.
But I cold-busted you, and I think that is the true source of your frustration. Debate point goes to Laz, and Little Lord Fauntelroy cannot have that, can you?
That's the basis of your firm conviction? You have great faith for one who is an atheist.
You cannot even get THAT right.
Since when is being Jewish 'atheistic'?
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.