Posted on 09/19/2001 7:50:33 PM PDT by aculeus
AMERICA and Britain are producing secret plans to launch a ten-year “war on terrorism” — Operation Noble Eagle — involving a completely new military and diplomatic strategy to eliminate terrorist networks and cells around the world. Despite the mass build-up of American forces in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean, there will be no “D-Day invasion” of Afghanistan and no repeat of the US-led Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991, defence sources say.
The notion that a US-led multinational coalition would attack Afghanistan from all sides for harbouring Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi dissident leader and prime suspect for the terrorist outrages in New York and Washington, has been rejected in Washington and London. The sources also say that the planned campaign is not being focused on just “bringing bin Laden to justice”.
The build-up of firepower by the Americans in the region, notably the two aircraft carrier battle groups that are to be joined by a third carrier, USS Theodore Roosevelt, is seen as a major display of available military capability. While it is important for these assets to be in the right place in case of a political decision to launch a strike, there are no plans for a “short-term fix”.
The dramatically different anti-terrorism campaign is being planned to meet what is now regarded as the most dangerous threat to global security, known as asymmetric warfare. “We’re expecting it to last from five to ten years,” one source said.
New ideas are needed to counter small groups armed with the minimum of weaponry, whether conventional or non-conventional. Such groups have the capability to attack a nation as powerful as the United States, which is equipped with the full range of modern weapons and professional Armed Forces.
Old doctrines for fighting wars, based on lining up tanks and artillery and layers of troops, are being thrown out and replaced by a more subtle and wide-ranging doctrine which seeks to defeat the enemy at its own game. “The aim is not to go for the enemy’s strengths, but its weaknesses,” one source said.
American and British planners are working on the basis that military strikes will take place only as part of a broader global counter-terrorist operation, embracing every other type of international action — diplomatic, economic and political.
Most of the focus of the ten-year campaign plan, the sources say, is on using military action as a potent back-up to all the other strands of Operation Noble Eagle.
However, President Bush, conscious of the demand for “revenge” from the American public, might sanction shorter-term military operation by special forces, or airstrikes, but only if there is sufficient intelligence to guarantee a sucessful outcome. “There’s no point in firing a lot of missiles at bin Laden if they miss their target, or launching Tomahawks at bin Laden training camps if they are empty,” one source said.
Donald Rumsfeld, the American Defence Secretary, also gave the strongest hint yesterday of what Operation Noble Eagle is all about. “I think what you will see evolve over the next six, eight, ten, 12 months, probably over a period of years, is a coalition to help battle terrorists,” he told CNN.
He added: “This is a very new type of conflict or battle or campaign or war or effort, for the United States. We’re moving in a measured manner. As we gather information, we’re preparing appropriate courses of action, and they run across the political and economic and financial, military, intelligence spectrum.”
British officials said the whole focus of the long-term American approach was being driven by Richard Cheney, the American Vice-President, and General Colin Powell, the Secretary of State. The combination of the two highly experienced men was guaranteeing a well-coordinated strategy. “Everyone now knows it’s going to be a long haul, not a spectacular single strike,” one official said.
The war on terrorism could be likened, they said, to the war on drugs or poverty, and the best way to undermine and eventually dismantle the terrorist structures around the world was to use the method of “hearts and minds” — encouraging foreign governments and people to join in the “war” so that terrorists would be isolated and identified.
Some of the most dramatic achievements, the sources say, might come, not from military action, but from political pressure on foreign governments to turn their backs on terrorism and to hand over the organisers of terrorist networks.
They point to the campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999. Although the airstrikes fitted more closely to the “old doctrine concept” of using massed firepower to target the enemy, which brought criticism from many parts of the world, Nato was also seen to be working as a humanitarian agency with its operation in Albania helping to build shelters for the thousands of refugees pouring out of Kosovo.
The eventual outcome, the political downfall of Slobodan Milosevic and the decision by the new Government to hand him over to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, is seen as a classic example of how military action can serve two purposes, defeating the enemy and effecting political change.
In the Gulf War, the American-led coalition achieved one objective, driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait, but not the other, the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein by his own people.
Already, the sources say, just over a week after the terrorist attacks in America, there have been positive developments: the Israeli and Palestinian leaders have agreed a new ceasefire and 1,000 clerics have been forced to gather in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, to discuss the fate of bin Laden.
Yesterday it was also announced that President Putin is to visit Nato headquarters in Brussels on October 3 and will meet Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, the Secretary- General, another positive sign that the Russian leader supports the campaign against terrorism.
Russia and Nato put out a joint statement last week condemning the terrorist attacks and vowing that they would not go unpunished.
Other coalitions against terrorism are also being rapidly formed and several countries, notably Pakistan yesterday, have offered bases for American military action.
However, sources in Washington say there are no plans to deploy huge numbers of US troops to Pakistan, which would only inflame Islamic fundamentalists opposed to the decision by President Musharraf to grant US access to two air bases in the country.
I have no idea what the plan is, but I'm betting they won't leave the poppy fields intact. I suspect they will have to look for another cash crop if they still want to farm...
job security?
war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism.........you're right.
I am glad you made this statement!
What we are facing is a guerilla war on our own turf and any attacks planned, are going to happen!
These people are NOT FANATICS; they are resolute and dedicated.They are true belivers!
I wonder how many people can, now, realize that we bombed the shit out of Serbia due to their counter-insurgency and counter-terror campaign? And realize who they were fighting?
You mean like Clinton's actions? Launch a fleet of cruise missiles without results? Leave your opponent stronger than he was before? What good is bombing for the sake of bombing? Oh sure, we could go in a level Kabul and kill tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with the terorist strike. But what good would that do? Would it make the Taliban think twice? Would it harm bin Laden in any way? Would they even care about the dead? No. Why not invest the time so that your actions have results? Watch and plan until you are sure of your target and then obliterate it.
We lost that a long time ago. This is just icing on the cake.
Allow me to rephrase, then: I think that if we do not topple at least one terrorist-supporting government, we will never regain that credibility which Bill Clinton squandered.
This is essential but even better would be taking prisoners and extracting every last bit of information about where othewrs were before disposing of them. It is certainly more difficult but there are some very interesting new toys that could facilitate this.
Prisoners yeild intel. Intel will be what wins this part of the war.
The terrorists/government sponsors will, however, react and we will still have the weeping Arab women pictures shown around the Arab Street. Psy-ops will also be very important. We need to make these people seem to be anti-Muslim.
Also useful will be taking a prisoner and releasing that prisoner after a couple days in good shape with extra cash. Then we get the people that hunted that prisoner down because they thought him a traitor.
I still think it will escalate but in the interim this is a strategy that may prevent that.,P>Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Did he actually use the word "criminals",or the less explicit words "unsavory characters"?
Wasn't it Churchhill who explaind to some airhead woman who was being critical of the military in the 1930's that "you and others good people sleep well at night because there are hard young men awake willing to do evil in your name in order to protect you."? Are you sure Rumsfield was saying a version of this?
Oh puh-leeze!
That kind of crazy talk is how this mess started in the first place! (Remember, Afghanistan was fighting Russia and since Russia was _our_ enemy that made Afghanistan our friend. So we invited bin Laden and others in to finance their struggle against Russia and we showed them what to do and how to do it. They learned how little guys fight big guys from US!)
When a rabbit is being chased by a wolf, it's a foolish rabbit that seeks an alliance with a fox.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
In the middle east, only Israel is our friend. It's _that_ simple. Mark W.
MY best GUESS is that they are trying to give some credibality to the WOD because they realize the public is waking up to how our freedoms are slowly being lost because of this bogus "war". They may also be planning to establish some connection between terrorists and drug-smuggling (not real hard to do)in order to try and prepare America for using US troops within the borders of the US in combat roles. In other words,expanding the WOD by hitching it to this new and popular wagon.
I've said this before,and I will say it again. The right needs to be watched as closely as the left. There is no practical difference between a police state of the left and a police state of the right for the average citizen. They still end up living under the boot of a police state.
We CAN fight and win this war without giving up our liberties,but it's going to require we keep a constant watch on our gooberment and the effort to wake up the sheeple who live/work around us and our relatives. If we allow them to catch us napping,they WILL take it all. Gooberments NEVER seek less power,only more power.
As a friend of mine once said: "If I hear one more time about some socialist scheme being 'for the children', I'm going to go out and kick one of the little bastards."
Or even how many people are even awake enough to even care? Remember all the "nuke them until they glow!" posts? Why bother to try and get to the root of a problem and solve it when you have a neat "live-fire video game" to watch on tv?
I also would like to point out that it FINALLY dawned on me that a lot of the "let's nuke them all!" posters were "sunshine patriots" who are active duty or reserve military people. They want the nukes used so they don't have to put their OWN asses on the line,despite taking the oath,wearing the uniforms,and cashing the checks. This makes me want to puke.
Don't wait for the gubmit to act, we can start our own local action committees.
I live next to a school and would be willing to organize a neighborhood watch.
These bastards operated in neigborhoods for months without arousing enough
suspicion to have a dime dropped. Are some feelings going to be hurt?
Maybe, but remember the lost institution of the welcome wagon?
A new comer would have a visit along with some goodies, some conversation.
How many people know everybody living on their block. I'm talking about
Castro style snooping but the terrorists would not have been able to stay
low for long with these interactions.
Too many logistical problems for an all out invasion into Afghanistan. Good thinking, cool heads will prevail in this struggle.
Or between a Western "Armageddonite" and the Taliban, excepet for standard of living.
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.