Nice post, MDC, well thought-out.
I am much more pessimistic than you, however. Partly, it's a kind of compensatory mechanism that I think would be good for the American public: if you expect this war to be much harder than it turns out to be, you will only be pleasantly surprised and relieved (and this was indeed the case in the Gulf War); OTOH, if you expect it to be easy, and it turns out to be far more difficult than you imagined, then you are at a disadvantage from the standpoint of resolve.
Just a couple of comments.
First, the Afghans are old hands at dealing with bombing and surviving nicely just the same. I remain very, very guarded about the potential for even "surgical" bombing to inflict much significant damage on this enemy. How do you get a bomb a half-mile into a twisting, turning labryinth of caves, into a hardened bunkers hundreds of feet beneath the ground? That's assuming you knew it was there, of course. And if you manage to find one, how about the 20 or 50 others we don't find? Outside of taking out some communications and antiaircraft positions (which are not required for them to maintain the source of their strength) I have yet to see much film or other documentation showing real disruption of Taliban forces. I see a lot of photos and footage of dirt being blown one way and another. Looks good, to be sure, but I doubt it is doing anything.
<<My point was why start it early rather then later? Time is on our side. >>
I have a sense of urgency on several fronts. First and most obvious, but of lesser importance, is the coming of winter. This will make things much harder, despite the assertions that we have an "all-weather" fighting force. Bad weather makes things more difficult to do just about anything, to assume anything less is not realistic IMHO. Yes, you can drive in bad weather, but it is more dangerous, and you are more likely to have problems getting to where you want to go. You might not even get there at all.
But of far more importance is the fact that as we speak extremists are bringing the sequels to New York/Washington rapidly to fruition. These have been in the planning for years. These guys are not one-trick ponies. I would rather they be exterminated before they have the chance to inflict further catastrophes on innocent American citizens. And it should be obvious to everybody that the two major forms these catastrophes are likely to take fall under two categories: nuclear and biological. It is impossible to defend against either entirely, and even the smallest of breakdowns in our defenses there will likely cost many thousands, perhaps millions of lives. Therefore, the only realistic defense is an offense.
And one more thing I would assert: that offense should be one of absolutely overwhelming force to be effective. Hopefully, it will also include a major element of surprise, and be a simple strategy as well. These are the hallmarks of well-planned offensives, as I think any military strategist or law enforcement expert will agree: far better to show up to a knife fight armed with a gun, than to show up to a gunfight armed with a knife. Because of the critical importance of overwhelming force, I still suggest that it would be a grievous, grievous error to both underestimate what is required and overestimate the damage bombing is doing. Far, far better that I be proven wrong---in retrospect---than be proven right going forward, to everyone's dismay including my own.
JMVHO, as always......
Walkingshadow |
