Rumsfeld Says Troops To Go In 'Within Days'

The Times (UK) ^ | 11-02-2001 | Roland Watson

[blam]

FRIDAY NOVEMBER 02 2001

Rumsfeld says troops to go in 'within days'

FROM ROLAND WATSON IN WASHINGTON

HUNDREDS of American special forces will be dropped into Afghanistan within days as part of a switch in US tactics. The units will work with Northern Alliance forces outside Kabul and other strategic northern cities as the coalition campaign intensifies.
Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, denied that the military had won greater latitude to pursue a more vigorous campaign after diplomatic efforts to form a successor regime apparently stalled.

But the heightened bombing of frontline Taleban forces protecting Kabul and Mazar-i Sharif, the imminent introduction of more US troops and increased co-operation with the Northern Alliance appear to mark the prelude to ground offensives.

Until Wednesday, American bombing runs had largely avoided frontline Taleban positions, concentrating on military installations and infrastructure. Since then, the US has increased the bombing of Taleban troops protecting Kabul and Mazar-i Sharif from 50 per cent to 80 per cent of its missions. Mr Rumsfeld said that figure would increase again when the incoming special forces improved the targeting information.

Washington’s initial concern about allowing the Northern Alliance a free march on Kabul also appear to have been eased. The Northern Alliance has said it would make no moves to seize power and that only a broad-based successor regime would work.

Mr Rumsfeld said there had been plans to increase the 100 or so special forces already on the ground in the past few days, but that they had been thwarted, largely by the weather. On one occasion a helicopter about to drop a unit had come under fire from the ground and had abandoned its mission, he said.

But Mr Rumsfeld said the troops would be landing on Afghan soil soon. “We have a number of teams cocked and ready to go. I expect it to happen in the days ahead,” he said, adding that he would like to see the number of special forces on the ground increase “three or four times”.

For the first time yesterday, Washington moved to address the mounting concerns about US military tactics and the lack of concrete achievement to date. Republican Senators and Pentagon advisers have complained that the campaign lacks clout and is being hampered by the political requirements of ensuring that all ethnic Afghans are signed up to an inclusive successor regime.

But Mr Rumsfeld insisted that the Pentagon had made “measurable progress” towards all its aims. He also tried to put the war in an historical context, stating that it had taken the US four months to respond to Pearl Harbor and three-and-a-half years to defeat Japan in the Second World War. “We are still at the very early stages of this conflict,” he said

[blam]

Let's roll?

[cmsgop]

GO RUMMY GO!!!!!!!!!


And God Bless Our Troops!!!!!!

[anniegetyourgun]

And the media says they aren't getting enough info on this war. How much more clear can this be? Unless, of course, this is just a means of telegraphing for other purposes.

[america-rules]

"a switch in US tactics"

Rumsfeld was asked point blank if there was a switch in tactics and he said no and this idiot makes this up!

[eureka!]

Could be disinformation too. Get the Taliban troops moving in anticipation then "Ahmad, do you hear planes? Oh, Allah, here I come...BOOM". Or, it could be true. Taliban, go ahead punks, which is it? Make Rummy's day....

[Harp]

Nothing new really. The Times are squeezing Rummy's words pretty hard in order to get a headline that sounds like it might be an Afgan D-Day. We'll keep putting more people in. We'll get people in Afganistan controlling an airport before hard winter (my guess) -- I think that's well within what a military plan might be.

[JmyBryan]

We be rollin'!

[Liberals are Evil Socialists!]

Mis-information or evidence that not much remains?

[RobbyS]

Golly Gee, but these reporters have been looking at too many video games. We are moving far faster than we did in Lebanon in 1959, when we made a comparable buildup of forces. The difference is that IKE was able to conceal most of that effort from the view of the media.

[Milosevic2]

Until Wednesday, American bombing runs had largely avoided frontline Taleban positions, concentrating on military installations and infrastructure.
Mis-information or ... ?
"*Breaking*" the Pentagon releases first photo of infrastructure destroyed (green humor, Nov. 1)

[colorado tanker]

Those seventy Janet Reno virgins will be working overtime soon!

[eureka!]

I think they've been hard at work already. ;^)

[beatnik]

I hope this is true. It's about f-ing time.

[Interesting Times]

It takes a while for serious war materials to be brought into position. We're just now at the point in the timeline where we could reasonably expect to intensify our current level of activity.

Our remarkable high-tech weaponry tends to make people overlook the more mundane requirements of logistics...

[Gumption]

Our remarkable high-tech weaponry tends to make people overlook the more mundane requirements of logistics...

Change "make people" to "make journalists" and I would agree completely. The people, even my sweet Aunts, mother, and sister seem perfectly content with the progression of things. It's almost instinctive or something. It's like everyone has a firm grasp on what going on and what's needed except for the press corps charged with the duty to know. I hope you follow what I'm saying because I can't think of any other way to say it. Probably cause I don't understand it myself.

[TGIAO]

But Mr Rumsfeld insisted that the Pentagon had made “measurable progress” towards all its aims. He also tried to put the war in an historical context, stating that it had taken the US four months to respond to Pearl Harbor and three-and-a-half years to defeat Japan in the Second World War.

And they only signed the unconditional surrender after we dropped 2 atomic bombs on them.

Just an observation.......

[nm_james]

The bombing looks impressive, but I wonder how many kills they get with them.

Even big bombs have a limited affect against a well dug in enemy. You get what you hit, and not much else.

[flyover]

Along with supplies can you imagine the intel data base that has had to be accumulated in this very short period of time. Each bomb mission has had to have been photograped several different times, a photo interpreter has had to look at, pictures blow them up and specifically identify what we evidently are defining as "valid" (military) targets, maybe with the help of a collaborator, or possibly from historical data, or maybe even with Russian help, he then had to read several sequences of these targets into a computer, distribute the data base to the fighter/bomber organizations. The pilots then had to study the photos and look at bombing runs to ensure that they could id the target from 30k feet. And then while actually flying the mission if it didn't look exactly like the info on his computer back at base he was probably forced to pull off and go home with his payload. Of course the further we get into the war the more data that will all ready be available in the intel data base and the less time it will take to quickly id and bomb specific targets. But in my mind the speed with which we started the bombing was a total surprise due to the amount of intel necessary to fight a war under these conditions

[Abn1508]

Like the senator who is insisting that we "go in and feed the starving Afghans." Jesus Chr*st on a Crutch. With _what_? From _where_? Using _what_ ports? Using _what_ roads?