4 carrier groups allow them to be that much more capable of response lest one be successfully attacked. But I agree it is a large force and widespread just to be involved with Afghanistan.
What do terrorists have to lose? Well a terrorist who is suicidal rarely has anything to lose anyway except the success of his mission, which by defensive techniques and security we should be trying to make as unlikely as possible.
But if we up the scale of reprisal/retaliation he may lose his support base eventually. Never mind the Martyr concept and anger factor. Once people realize that the cost of aiding that sort of person or training him is way too high, then support will drop off.
The trick is to balance the retaliation so that it does not appear to be random or cruel and spawn more terrorism where people are not weighing the cost/benefit. There are always forces that are opposed to fundamentalism and random terror who wish peace and stability. The thing to do is while not making them mad dogs, get in house opposition to carry out ops against the radical groups. Fight fire with fire.
Despite the vaunted reputation for fatalism and suicidal tendencies of Muslim warriors, it is apparent from the Russian Campaign which lost a scant 17,000 Russians in ten years, the Iraq-Iran wars and the present Kashmir and Afghani conflicts, that in fact 99% of Muslim fighters are quite self preervationist thank you very much. Careful trench warfare has been waged for years in northern Afghanistan, hardly the suicidal mass wave attacks that even the Chinese were used to using. Losses have been moderate.
During the Russian campaign in Afghanistan it was apparent that the Afghan warriors techniques were based on stand-off, shoot and scoot war, not any kind of suicide mission. Even with the Iranian reputation for sacrificing wave attacks in their battles with Iraq, they lost no more soldiers than Iraq, and at any rate it has not been the only country to try that technique who had far less reputation for wasteful gallantry. (Pickett's Charge)
You rapidly run out of suicide warriors. If the enemy is determined and calculating he can exploit that tendency and make you lose if you try it. In real war it rarely succeeds. Men are resourceful if they are in tight situations, but rarely that inventive if they are not coming back anway.
I note that the trench warfare in Afghanistan is different from WW1 in that the short effective range of the AK47 does not allow effective sniping. The Afghans do not waste bullets on sniping, contrary to reputation. This may be because it allows both sides to reduce the labour necessary to build trenches in that rocky soil. It is co-operative war. It is also war that is material scarce. Good mortar attacks would devastate those meagre trenches. But this would drive the distance apart to more than a klik and make attack more difficult for both sides across open terrain.
EC<:-} |
