Replies

True, Iraq proves the opposite scenario from what I described. Yet, that was a 'conventional war' - if you wish - where you faced a 'conventional army', and fought for a clear-cut, territorial objective. Our exchange of ideas started with my idea that it could have been better to undermine the cohesion of the Taleban by bribery etc. Defections from their ranks were more likely then, then they are now, simply because the population and potential defectors are more likely to unite against the enemy who is bombing them. And the nature of the bombing is of very little significance to the way the Afghanis will perceive it, I think. So if the objective of this war is now to topple the Taleban, it will have to include a territorial element. To follow your example: the current bobmbing can only be meaningful and succesful in military terms if it is a prelude to a further campaign which has to include a territorial aim. It seems to me that that means that the war is evolving into something that was not initially intended. I think you would agree that Yugoslavia was not defeated militarily, but by diplomacy.

To follow your example: the current bobmbing can only be meaningful and succesful in military terms if it is a prelude to a further campaign which has to include a territorial aim. It seems to me that that means that the war is evolving into something that was not initially intended.

Wars have a way of doing that. However, I think the intended objectives are different than previous wars, so previous actions can only be a loose guide for analyzing what is happening here. We are trying to weaken a government that has potential enemies all around it so they will step in and do the dirty work for us. I think a mix of airpower and a modest infusion of troops has a chance of doing that. We'll just have to see.

I think you would agree that Yugoslavia was not defeated militarily, but by diplomacy.

Actually, at the end of the air campaign Nato gave up and declared victory, and Yugoslavia was eventually defeated economically. But that was airpower as a means to itself, not as part of a larger campaign. I do agree that strategic bombing in the past has mostly galvanized the folks being bombed - but attacking troops by air power is a higly effective way to soften them up prior to attack by land forces. The question remains, will the Afghanis do it for us? Or do we have to step in and do it ourselves?

Hey, thanks for the civil exchange, I gotta run...