Posted on 11/04/2001 12:09:24 PM PST by WIMom
Washington - Four weeks after the United States began its military campaign to unseat the Taliban in Afghanistan and to destroy Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, there is an increasingly vigorous debate about whether substantial numbers of American combat troops will be needed to seal the victory in Afghanistan.
In Congress, some lawmakers say the Pentagon's strategy of relying on the opposition Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, bombing around the clock, and mounting sporadic raids by American, and eventually British, commandos is all well and good but unlikely to guarantee a decisive win.
"I am glad that the Pentagon has not thrown U.S. troops in willy-nilly," said Sen. Max Cleland, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and a prominent member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We have been extremely cautious in hoarding our precious personnel resources, and that is wise and good. But ultimately, to obtain our objectives, we will have to use ground forces."
It is not a view encouraged by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or the military officers who brief reporters. But it is a refrain that can be heard from some senior Army officials. The debate over strategy and tactics is being carried out not only on the op-ed pages but also in the Pentagon itself.
These still are early days for the complex American campaign, and there is no need to rush to a decision on ground troops. The steady and patient application of force that Rumsfeld has touted may yet pay off, particularly if either bin Laden or Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban leader, slips up and is caught by allied special forces or in the cross hairs of an American gunship. But just as the NATO nations during their 1999 war with Yugoslavia began arguing about the need for ground troops as the alliance sought to deliver a knockout blow from the air, the ground-troops debate about Afghanistan is intensifying, as well.
The American military is beginning to work with the Northern Alliance to put pressure on the Taliban from the north. It is also using small groups of commandos to take the fight to the Taliban and terrorist leaders, and it is carrying out day and night bombing raids.
None of these elements is decisive alone. The Northern Alliance is a loose coalition that has yet to demonstrate it is capable of fighting as a disciplined and well-coordinated force. Its operations may be hampered by the winter, which is harsher in the northern part of Afghanistan. Because the alliance is dominated by ethnic Uzbeks and Tajiks, it will not be embraced by the Pashtuns, Afghanistan's dominant ethnic group.
American and British special forces can be pivotal, providing the U.S. obtains good intelligence on the whereabouts of bin Laden and the Taliban leadership, which is a big if. As for bombing, it was Rumsfeld himself who proclaimed that Afghanistan lacks a large number of "high-value" targets.
In essence, the Pentagon's calculation is that the combination of these elements will fracture the Taliban, assuming the U.S. is prepared to keep up the campaign for many months and even years.
Last week, Rumsfeld gave a hint of just how much time might be required, invoking comparisons from World War II.
"Consider some historical perspectives," he said. "After the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, it took four months before the United States responded to that attack with the Doolittle Raid in April of '42. It took eight months after Pearl Harbor before the U.S. began a land campaign against the Japanese, with the invasion of Guadalcanal in August of 1942. The U.S. bombed Japan for three and a half years, until August 1945, before they accomplished their objectives."
But the critics say the U.S. cannot drag out the campaign for that long, especially because there already are protests by Muslim leaders in Pakistan and other Islamic states that are cooperating with the U.S. military effort.
Instead, he says the U.S. should be thinking about using helicopter-borne air assault units or paratroopers in Afghanistan. This would entail using thousands of Army troops, which would have the firepower that small units of special operations forces lack. It also could involve Marines, 2,200 of whom are currently off the Pakistan coast.
The purpose would not be to occupy the country but to seize bases within the country temporarily and then carry out attacks to root out the Taliban and the terrorist network al-Qaida.
"This does not necessarily mean having four divisions up on the line, sweeping across the line of departure and triggering every mine in Afghanistan," said Cleland, who maintains close relations with Army officers. "It means airborne or air mobile forces along with special operations. It may mean airdrops or vertical envelopment to hold key points of terrain."
Some U.S. Army officers agree. "Conventional forces are needed to root out the Taliban and exploit the full power of precision weapons," one Army official said.
But, haunted by the ghosts of Vietnam, it is far from clear that most lawmakers agree.
The White House has been wary. It has not ruled out the use of major ground units, the mistake that President Clinton made early in the Kosovo conflict and that he later moved to reverse. But the Bush White House has been hesitant to commit itself to using them if needed.
We don't have clinton in command, THANK GOD! I tend to believe Rumsfeld, et al are not going to succumb to the pressures of public opinion.
I sure it helps the circulation to be putting up all kinds of theories about what happened or what should of happened!!
Not only the NYTimes, but all the talking heads get their say. Everytime I turn on television, there is another 'expert' with another 'expert' opinion. The other day, they had an editor of some obscure magizine as their 'expert'. I am so glad I have FR!
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.