US unlikely to launch direct military attack

Hindustan Times ^ | 9/26/01 | AFP

[Rome2000]

US unlikely to launch direct military attack
AFP
Washington, September 26

---

With its bombers and warships within striking distance of Afghanistan, the United States has begun to play down expectations of a major military campaign amid concerns about the impact on regional stability.

Instead, despite heated rhetoric after the September 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington, the US administration appears to have settled on the short-term goal of getting suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and fomenting internal opposition to Afghanistan's Taliban rulers.

"It is, by its very nature, something that cannot be dealt with by some sort of massive attack or invasion," US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. "It is a much more subtle, nuanced, difficult, shadowy set of problems."

President George W Bush raised prospects of us strike against Afghanistan in a speech to Congress last week that vowed that if Osama bin Laden and his associates were not handed over, the Taliban would "share in their fate."

But yesterday, Bush suggested Washington would look to Taliban opponents rather than conventional military intervention to accomplish that.

Removing the Taliban by military force would leave Washington saddled with the responsibility for a country devastated by two decades of war, and could have a destabilising impact on neighbouring Pakistan.

With Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi at his side, Bush stressed the importance of maintaining the stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan.

"Now, the mission is to root out terrorists, to find them and bring them to justice. Or, as I explained to the Prime Minister in western terms, to smoke them out of their caves, to get them running, so we can get them," Bush said.

"And the best way to do that and one way to do that is to ask for the cooperation of citizens within Afghanistan who may be tired of having the Taliban in place or tired of having Osama bin Laden, people from foreign soils, in their own land willing to finance this repressive government."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, however, said US aim was not "to replace one regime with another regime."

At the Pentagon, Rumsfeld likened the US strategy to a billiard game with balls careening all over the table.

"You don't know what'll do it, but the end result, we could hope, would be a situation where the Al Qaeda is heaved out and the people in Taliban who... harbour terrorists... lose, and lose seriously," he said.

Inside the country, the situation was a "very mixed picture" with divisions within the Taliban and disaffection among the Afghan population, many of them hungry or fleeing for the border to escape its harsh rule.

Rumsfeld has suggested that the Northern Alliance, a loose coalition of minority ethnic groups fighting the Taliban, could be "a lot of help" to the US but neither he nor other administration officials have said whether they will support them with arms or other supplies.

[Rome2000]

I sincerely hope for the sake of the USA and our President that this article is a smokescreen designed to throw the enemy off balance.

[Miss Marple]

This is largely taken from the Australian article that was posted earlier in the day. If we aren't going to do anything, why have we called up 2000 more reservists this evening?

This is based on an interpretation by a Sydney journalist and is not reliable.

[Benrand]

Just a guess, but I don't think a big mobilization to the Middle East is for the men to have tea.

[Heisenburger]

In order for any attack to have a deterrence effect against other terrorists and their state sponsors, it has to be very visible and very large and very bloody. Clearly, Bush's "war on terrorism" will not pass any of the three tests.

[section9]

Good point, Marple.

Everything I've seen written in the yellow press indicates that we're going "easy" on the Taleban. I know a leak when I see it, and I'm seeing a flood of disinformation.

You don't do nothing after you've activated all your best troops.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[dougherty]

This is based on an interpretation by a Sydney journalist and is not reliable.

I hope so, I want them to go over there and take Pig Bin Laden and his cronies, decimate their training camps, and destroy the Taliban. Why all of this military buildup if they're not going to do anything?

[Rome2000]

I agree with you, this has to be disinformation.

I wouldn't wait too much longer to attack though, this is starting to get out of hand.

[appeal2]

Agreed. Pure disinfo. Let your enemies think you are weak when you are strong and think you are strong when you are weak. I guess the whole thing is just a big misunderstanding and the Taliban really aren't murderous barbarians. And the reason we have four carriers over there along with our best troops and several hundred aircraft and all of those English troops and weapons too.

I am sure that they are just going to pay a courtesy call to Saddam too, as long as they are in the neighborhood.

[ScholarWarrior]

Another week with closed borders and you'll have a million dead afghans. Who's in a rush? Let them eat each other.

[jwa3]

US Gov doesn't have a clue I fear. They don't know where bin Laden is, they don't know who to hit. Frozen like Carter in hostage crisis. Bush support will fall soon.

[Rustynailww]

watch iraq.

[dougherty]

In order for any attack to have a deterrence effect against other terrorists and their state sponsors, it has to be very visible and very large and very bloody. Clearly, Bush's "war on terrorism" will not pass any of the three tests.

Well, they're afraid to offend anybody with a simple name ('Infinite Justice' and 'Crusade'), God forbid they go over there and spill any blood, then the Muslims might really get upset! LOL, I don't know, surely they aren't doing all of this for show, but like I said, they're already afraid to offend anyone with a few words. God help us all.

[sinkspur]

In order for any attack to have a deterrence effect against other terrorists and their state sponsors, it has to be very visible and very large and very bloody. Clearly, Bush's "war on terrorism" will not pass any of the three tests.

Didn't you get beat up enough on that thread you started? Are you starved for punishment?

If well-known terrorists start disappearing in terrorist states as three carrier battle groups sit offshore, other bad guys will notice. Who cares how it happens?

A cocked .44-Magnum is very effective at intimidation.

[Cvengr]

Let's see, yep, an F-18 lofting it's Mk-83s instead of diving might be considered an indirect attack, i.e. not a direct attack. Hmmm,...arty, cruise missiles,...indirect or direct fire?

[Keith in Iowa]

Consider the source: AFP = Agence France-Presse = Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys spreading eneymy propoganda.

[BurkeanCyclist]

These journalists are laying it on entirely too thick. All kinds of these articles are being posted now. The first couple concerned me, but the more of them that pop up, the more I think there is some serious disinformation being spread.

Not only is taking the war to our enemies the right thing to do, Bush must know that if he wimps out, he will lose in 2004.

When the right thing coincides so completely with political self-interest, why would they do the wrong thing?

[P-Marlowe]

...amid concerns about the impact on regional stability...

There is no "regional stability." The whole Middle East is an unstable quagmire. It has been like that since the dawn of history. If our leaders are more concerned with regional stability than National Security, then it is time we started looking for some new leadership. This Global Village crap has got to go. America First!

Let these regional peoples know that a radioactive wasteland is a very stable environment. It stays that way for centuries.

[looscannon]

Just a guess, but I don't think a big mobilization to the Middle East is for the men to have tea.

Bwhahahahahaha! You right, there, Kemosabe.

[1234]

NOT one innocent muslim/diaperhead should be killed-no collateral damage is order of day

[InfiniteJustice]

America is sand-baggin.

he he.