Fin,
However, if you envision something a la Desert Storm, it's not going to work. I can't remember which general said it, but Afghanistan "sucks as a target."
In Iraq, the US expanded a lot of effort in eliminating the air force, air defense installation, destruction of infrastructure, military complexes, command centers, hunting for SCUD missiles. Tactical air strike against ground forces were just one of the components.
In Afganistan, tactical hit against ground forces would be pretty much the only target of our air force. These type of attacks by definition would mean low civilian casualties. And these attacks would produce low "yield". A single bomb may hit let's say only 2 or 3 combatants at the time, if they are hiding in the mountains - assuming we can pinpoint them.
Picture the U.S. army slogging through Northern Italy in World War II...
One thing about WWII was that we wanted to get everything done in a hurry, and were willing to accept higher casualties that today. If we take the flat land and the cities (as the Russians did), we can just wait them out. The country is starving as it is. The combatants can't last too long in the mountains without food. All the neighboring countries are shutting their borders (mainly to refugees), but if the borders can be shut to supplies from outside, our chance would improve further. We can wait the whole winter.
I another question is how long can our resolve last. In Iraq, our cause was impeccably just, it didn't hit home as much, but there was enough resolve to sustain the effort for a long time, probably twice as long as it lasted.
In case of Yugoslavia, our cause was questionable, was completely unrelated to anything at home, yet, the effort was sustained for some (I believe) 2 months.
In case of Afganistan as a host country of bin Laden, even though Taliban is a despicable group, they are a little bit of a bystandar, but by harboring known terrorists, I think our cause is reasonably just, but this thing hit home probably more than anything in the US history, so as far as the US resolve, that's one thing we don't need to worry about. There is enough to last years.
These people have been at war for 22 years. I picture a more covert series of operations over a longer period of time.
The fact that the country has been at war makes them weaker, not stronger. They are exhausted, crippled, hungry, to some extend demoralized. They are like a marathon runner running the last mile. They thought that they are almost at the finish line, and what is sustaining from dropping dead is that the finish line is so close. Now we are going to move the finish line forward another 22 miles, and the rational few of them know that they can't physically make it.
Another thing is, they are scared of us. We have not done anything yet, and people are already running from their homes.
You, however, didn't answer my final questions: Is collateral damage acceptable? Is it okay to take out a few innocents so long as we nail those responsible????
There will be collateral damage. It is impossible to avoid it. Compared to last conflict in Iraq and Yugoslavia, I doubt that the civilian losses would be any greater. In Iraq and Yugoslavia, we had a wholesale destruction of civilian targets - bridges, rail roads, broadcast centers, refineries, factories, and other civilian infrastructure. Since this would not really be done, or the extend of this would be much more limited, therefore I think civilian casualties should be lower.
Joe |
