Replies

Bombing, on the whole, galvanises the population of a country, rather then weakening and demoralising it.

I would agree for the most part, but I think the way this is being done can accompish the START of the U.S. objectives.

For instance: Loondon during the Blitz and germany during the British bombing campaigns later in the war.

That was massive strategic bombing, not the targeted stuff we are seeing in Afghanistan.

Also: Yugoslavia in 1999.

We had no intensions of going into Serbia after Slobo and he knew it, so he could just wait out the bombing. This is different. I do think we will need some ground troops scattered about Afghanistan - just not a massive army. Adn we have other groups in that country who wish to act if the Taliban is weakened. If the air campaign is viewed as a prelude to such an action, then I think it has the chance for success - and bombardment of enemy positions prior to attack has long been a part of warfare .

I believe that you can be far more succesful by letting the thing fall apart all by itself, helping the process along with bribery and cynical disinformation.

That would take years, giving bin Laden many more opportunities to organize attacks against the United States. By forcing him underground, not allowing him to train his forces and putting his host government on the run, bin Laden has been weakened significantly. We still have to deal with existing Al Queda cells in this country - but it will be much harder for bin Laden to insert new ones.

I think my point about the bombing is that it doesn't matter whether it is classified as strategic, tactical, carpet or precision: the population on the receiving end will classify it simply as the bombing of their country, however much they may detest their ruler(s). That is a fact that any country attacking another country - regardless of the just or unjust cause of the attacks - will have to consider. Hitler made the mistake, just as the British did later, and - in my opinion - the US and NATO did in Yugoslavia. This, in turn, makes it far more difficult to undermine the cohesion of the enemy; instead of weakening the enemy it might actually lead to its consolidation.