There it is again. Certain FReepers will rave that this is all a lie, but we keep hearing it, again and again, and subtly reflected in what our officials tell us.
I'm glad we lost no lives in that abortive mission, but I hope we learned a great deal more about how to operate on these guys' turf.
Franks is in Uzbekistan looking at things.
Is it possible the people would live with a constant, low-level of terrorist threat? Occasional bombings, people killed here and there, but slowly, surely relegated to the back pages of the paper?
You think this is balmy, but consider: Who would have suspected a couple of generations ago that people would settle for the level of crime, violent and nonviolent, that we live with in our daily lives? There is doubtless not one of us who hasn't been touched by crime in some way, even if it is just petty theft or burglary.
And I actually know people--no one close, but acquaintances, a parent of a friend, a woman who dated my best friend in college, the daughter of a professional colleague, the son of some friends with whom I attend church--who have been murdered.
We see murder, rape, armed assault, assault and battery, bar brawls, "road rage" episodes, etc. in our newspapers and on TV every single day, and we just shrug. We live with the fact that we are part of a far more lethal and dangerous society than in the past.
So, what if it becomes "normal" to have a high school bus blow up from time to time, or part of the stands at a football game?
We'll be p*ssed, but after awhile, if we "chicken out" right now--as some of the peaceniks and seemingly all of the major media are hinting we should do--that's what we're facing.
Perhaps the terrain is just too difficult, low altitude there is like high rocky mountain altitude here, that has to play a part. Weird area of the world. Too bad we aren't just deporting mass numbers here, wouldn't be much of a bother to ignore afghanistan then. If they ain't here inside the borders, kinda hard to do a terr attack here, isn't it?
whoops, almost forgot, "oil" is involved, too.Sorta mucks up the planning a little.
I don't know how to link a thread but read this!.........Bureaucrats vs. Warriors, The Makeup of Our Forces! Enjoy /sarcasm ......Huston we Have A Problem!
The SF aborted a mission but it was not a failure. They re-deployed after pushing their probe to do what the mission called for; force enemy activity and communications to evaluate strenghts and locations.
Of course they quoted the ever mysterious and unknown "American defense sources". Could be a janitor from the pentagon. Just like "senior govt official said". Turns out to be a retired postal management worker.
Actually I agree with this, except I would change "sporadic" to "constant air" attacks. After the long winter, even the toughest Afgans will be softened up quite a bit. We could use the cold months for some land work in Somalia.
But the difficulties of gathering intelligence was shown by the rapid aborting of a US special forces mission into Afghanistan 12 days ago. Resistance was far higher than expected and it has made military planners think again.
Gen Franks had now been given his head and told to go off and organise it all, a move that led to his current tour of countries in the region to see what they are prepared to offer in the way of bases, the sources said.
"The plan now is for a long winter of sporadic attacks and the occasional special forces mission," one said. "Meanwhile, we will be getting trained up and organised for a conventional invasion in the spring."
Speaking after yesterday's talks, Mr Rumsfeld said that, while the "modest" numbers of US special forces now on the ground were nowhere near those used in the Second World War or Korea, "we have not ruled that out". Mr Hoon added: "Nor have we."
The idea of a ground invasion was originally seen as too dangerous given the difficulties faced by the Soviet army during its occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
If this report is true, then I must appologize for the bad things, I have posted about Gen. Franks. If his military expertise, was ignored by Sec. Rumsfeld, then he is not to blame for the lack of progress. I still object however, to the position that we should wait for spring. We have 2,200 marines, and the 10th mountain, and green berets, all of whom, should be pushed forward immediately, into a fortified air base inside Afganistan. Let the fanatics waste themselves in full frontal assaults. While our green troops get blooded, in relatively safe defensive positions. We need to be much more aggressive, in warfare, it's the bold and daring who usually win. Strategically Offensive and Tactically Defensive, is the way to keep our casualties low.
I think the wrong lessons have been learned, from the Soviet loss in Afganistan. Everyone is saying the Afgani guerrillas can't be beat, without mentioning that the Soviets weren't fighting just the Afgani. The Soviets were also indirectly fighting, Pakistan, the Gulf states, and the USA. The satellite intel and stingers, effectively made the Afgani technologically superior to the Soviets. In this war the Taliban will have no such advantages, no sanctuary in Pakistan, no place to train, no resupply, no high tech weapons. Instead they face, precision bombing, thermal imaging, and highly mobile air supported airbourne infantry. If the politicians would just show some confidence in our soldiers, these fanatics wouldn't stand a chance.
The idea of a ground invasion was originally seen as too dangerous given the difficulties faced by the Soviet army during its occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
OK, I give up. So what has changed? Or does that not matter?
Hey, it's not the politicians' kids over there. Not blowhards like Kristol and McCain. Just some stupid lower-middle class yahoos who don't make political contributions. All expendable to our elites in the pursuit of oil domination in the former Soviet Union's former area of influence. Rah rah rah.