Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (9605)	11/10/2001 5:03:06 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I have to believe it just underscores the wide-spread ignorance of military operations and military history (strategy and tactics, especially) of far too many journalists covering this war. It's really almost scandalous, in my opinion.

To: FaultLine who wrote (9605)	11/10/2001 7:37:01 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

is it just me or is this truly ridiculous? FL, it is ridiculous. 8,000 bombs will not win a war or real estate. after 100,000s of bombs and even more artillery rounds, the soviets lost 800 men taking two blocks in the neighborhood of steglitz in berlin. they lost several times that number capturing one train station. this is big time serious stuff and mass casualties are likely at some point. the bombing is insufficient but deadly and diminishes enemy troop strength and supplies while retaining our own. since the press are denied access to special operations, i am convinced they are pushing for more conventional action so they can use their cameras. are the reporters simply bored? the current troop strengths have been discussed a bit at the last 2 pentagon briefings. seems the enemy has about a 3x1 positive ratio against us in the areas we want to attack. our tactics require us to have at least a 3x1 positive ratio in our favor when attacking an entrenched enemy with conventional forces. clearly, it will take a while to get there and much work remains for the bombs to do. as jj pointed out, the distances make it difficult. as soon as we get an airfield, look for a large deployment of our artillery units to reinforce the bombing campaign. we will need the artillery. air power alone will not suffice to cover our larger infantry units in an attack. we are not yet in the exploitation phase. we are still prepping for an assault imo. i do like the reports of them pulling back...a clear indication of an effective bombing campaign. the departure from their reinforced fighting positions makes them even more vulnerable to our aircraft. but one pullback does not end this war. if bin laden expected to suck a big American unit into an ambush...he is not getting his wish. all the while his forces and supplies are being reduced hourly. i sincerely hope they do not all fight to the death. uw

To: FaultLine who wrote (9605)	11/10/2001 11:52:13 AM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

Well, 8000 bombs seems well short of the traditional "more bombs than dropped in WWII". Maybe a record was set for "Daisy Cutter" usage, though. A lot of ridiculous things get written, it's hard to pick and choose.

To: FaultLine who wrote (9605)	11/10/2001 1:19:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>The White House had hoped that a post-Taliban regime would have coalesced by now and that Mazar-i-Sharif would be taken in the name of a broad anti-Taliban coalition, one that included Pashtuns as well as the Uzkeb- and Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance. But the military operations on the ground ran ahead of the politics. And the way the war has been going, the United States and Britain are happy for any victory they can get.<< The writer is the New York Times' chief Pentagon correspondent. His assessment does seem harsh, but he's on record as advocating the necessity of U.S. ground troops. lasvegassun.com The writer has written a number of articles very critical of US strategy. I have to say, if what he reports about US strategy is correct, then his criticisms seem well taken to me. If the US really thought the below-reported strategy would work, they haven't studied the Russian conflict. >>WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 — There is a saying at the Pentagon that no plan survives contact with the enemy. With the war in Afghanistan now a month old, the United States military has been forced to adjust its strategy. The Bush administration initially hoped that it could destroy the Qaeda terrorists and topple the Taliban regime that protects them through a combination of day and night airstrikes, commando raids and support of anti-Taliban groups in Afghanistan. It hoped for large defections from the Taliban that have not occurred, and it underestimated the Taliban's resilience.<< nytimes.com

To: FaultLine who wrote (9605)	11/10/2001 1:34:26 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

is it just me or is this truly ridiculous? Depends on what you value more highly... our blood, or their's... This is a war of attrition.. Which means the war is "won" by reducing both their ability, and their will, to oppose us (or more appropriate, their opponents in the Northern Alliance), while incurring the most minimal of casualties. Taking ground is important only in that it provides a base of operations for military operations, and/or humanitarian relief (which brings the benefit of the average civilian seeing what side their bread is buttered on).. But I completely abhor the concept of expending a $25,000-50,000 laser guided bomb to knock out a mere truck, as depicted here at Raytheon's website: raytheon.com (FAS has another neat site giving general prices per bomb) fas.org And I'm all for expending more of these relatively inexpensive "daisy cutters" ($25,000 per copy) to wreak psychological havoc amongst those tribes who haven't yet been convinced to change sides or remain neutral. One more way to think about this FL is that we're clearing out many of the obsolete guided munitions we've had in inventory since Desert Storm, opening up the justification for upgrading our technology. This was the case during Desert Storm when I became aware that many of our "dumb" bombs we were using actually dated from the Vietnam era (and we were slapping laser guidance systems on them).. I was told by a fella at Navajo Army Depot that we they spent months cutting dunnage (wood shipping pallets.. etc) shipping out their entire inventory of old bombs to be expended in Desert Storm. Hawk