SI
SI
discoversearch

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: unclewest who wrote (10932)11/20/2001 5:23:12 AM
From: maceng2  Respond to of 281500
 
I didn't see the the Rumsfield interview on TV.

Here is the Financial Times viewpoint of the same interview.

US hopes to capture or kill all Taliban troops
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: November 19 2001 19:44GMT | Last Updated: November 19 2001 21:47GMT

The US wants to see the al-Qaeda and Taliban troops in the encircled Afghanistan city of Konduz either killed or captured, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, said on Monday.

As US air strikes escalated against the northern city, Mr Rumsfeld said that the US would oppose any negotiated settlement that allowed those forces to escape.

"Any idea that those people in that town who have been fighting so viciously and refuse to surrender should end up in some sort of negotiation which would allow them to leave the country and go off and destabilise other countries and engage in terrorist attacks on the US is something I would do everything I could to prevent," he told reporters in Washington.

The US and opposition Northern Alliance forces have launched what appears to be a determined military effort to take Konduz, which is thought to be occupied primarily by about 6,000 mostly foreign soldiers loyal to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Negotiations between the alliance and Taliban leaders in the city over the terms of any surrender appeared to have broken down.

Despite the string of victories by the US-backed Northern Alliance, which has left opposition forces controlling most of the country, Mr Rumsfeld sought to downplay expectations that the war could soon be over. He said the war on terrorism "is still in its early stages" and would be no less difficult in the future. US special forces in Afghanistan are continuing to hunt for Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, but Mr Rumsfeld denied suggestions that he is trapped in a small region of the country. He said the al-Qaeda leadership "could be in any number of places and they move frequently".

But he said the growing number of special forces on the ground have vastly improved the ability of the US to launch accurate air strikes against the remaining forces. US precision-guided bombs have destroyed caves and tunnels used as hideouts, he said.

specials.ft.com



To: unclewest who wrote (10932)11/20/2001 5:58:27 AM
From: unclewest  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 281500
 
i had posted this some time way back on another thread...i was just asked to repost it.
here you will get to see the specific numbers about a subject often discussed, but seldom quantified.

Subject: Name the Country!

709,000 regular (active duty) service personnel

293,000 reserve troops; Eight standing Army divisions;

20 Air Force and Navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft;

232 strategic bombers;

13 strategic ballistic missile submarines with

3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles;

500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads;

Four aircraft carriers, and;
121 surface combat ships and submarines, plus all the support bases,
shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force.

Is this country Russia? . . . No
Red China ? . . . No
Great Britain? . . . Wrong Again

USA? . . . Hardly Give up??

Well, don't feel too bad if you are unable to identify this global
superpower because this country no longer exists.
It has vanished.

These are the American military forces that have disappeared since the
1992 election of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.


some think well...we can just rely on USAF...many question why the war started slow...some question why the number of daily sorties is so much lower than in the gulf war...well i have an answer.

we lost the combat capability that we had!

in 1991 USAF was 608,000 strong...by 1998 they had drawn down to 381,000. we lost 2,000 combat aircraft and 232 bombers. certainly that cut our capacity for sorties.
the navy lost over 120 ships in that same time frame. certainly that slowed down shipping munitions to the theater of operations.

That was our peace dividend...

anybody enjoying all the extra $?
unclewest



To: unclewest who wrote (10932)11/20/2001 6:23:58 AM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi unclewest; Re context of the alleged "no prisoners" quote from Rumsfield:

DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld
News Transcript, Dept. of Defense, November 19, 2001
...
Q: We're getting reports that Mullah Mohammed Omar is trying to negotiate a surrender from Kandahar, a surrender for himself, the Taliban, including those now being encircled by Northern Alliance forces at Kunduz. Is that true? And if so, what are the terms of the surrender the United States will accept?

Rumsfeld: The United States is not inclined to negotiate surrenders. Nor are we in a position, with relatively small numbers of forces on the ground, to accept prisoners.

The negotiations that are taking place are, for the most part, taking place with the opposition forces and elements that are putting pressure onto the various cities you've mentioned, whether it's Kunduz or Kandahar or whichever. That means that those discussions are taking place.

Needless to say, we have some ongoing discussions with those forces, and it's our hope that they will not engage in negotiations that would provide for the release of al Qaeda forces; that would provide for the release of foreign nationals, non-Afghans, leaving the country and destabilizing neighboring countries, which is not your first choice either. The idea that they would keep their weapons is not a happy one from our standpoint, either. So, we are able to provide input into that process, but we're not in a position of determining it or controlling it.
...

Q: Mr. Secretary, you said last week that some al Qaeda and Taliban leaders had been captured. Have they been interrogated, and are you getting information from them?

Rumsfeld: Anyone who has been -- we are not capturing people -- the United States.

Q: Opposition forces --

Rumsfeld: Opposition forces. Right. And I assume that opposition forces who capture people are talking to them and seeing if they can find information that might be helpful to them in figuring out how they can get others to surrender, particularly in a place like Kunduz, which is a static situation, where there's a fierce battle going on.

And to the extent that there are senior people, I'm sure we're having an opportunity to talk to them, as well.
...

Q: Mr. Secretary, you had mentioned earlier that the U.S. is not inclined to negotiate nor to accept prisoners. Could you just elaborate what you meant by "nor to accept prisoners"?

Rumsfeld: We have only handfuls of people there. We don't have jails, we don't have guards, we don't have people who -- we're not in a position to have people surrender to us. If people try to, we are declining. That is not what we're there to do, is to begin accepting prisoners and impounding them in some way or making judgments. That's for the Northern Alliance and that's for the tribes in the South to make their own judgments on that.

Q: So they would be taking -- you're not suggesting they would be shot, in other words.

Rumsfeld: Oh, my goodness, no! You sound like Charlie! (Laughter.) (Laughs.) Summary -- summary -- I remember that line.
...

Q: So you would like it to be a fight to the death in that particular -- [i.e. Kunduz Arabs]

Rumsfeld: Oh, no! They could surrender.

Q: Then what happens to them?

Rumsfeld: Well, one would hope they did not get let go into another country or even free in that country. They ought to be impounded. I mean, they're people who have done terrible things.
...

Q: Can we see your shoes? And do you like to stand up when you work behind your desk?

Rumsfeld: I stand up all day long.

Q: And you do wear hiking shoes upon occasion? I've seen them, so --

Rumsfeld: Today I did not. And I wear them when I mentally feel I would prefer to be in Taos, New Mexico. (Laughter.) And they make me feel like I'm there. And today I haven't got them on. My wife's there, however, and --
...

Q: And one more thing, totally unrelated. Are Special Operations forces going to be used in cave-to-cave operations, because that's what's sort of all of our speculation right now --

Rumsfeld: Yeah --

Q: -- or is it going to be left to Northern Alliance folks and whatever Special Ops forces may be with them?

Rumsfeld: If we were to do that, I would not be discussing it. And we have large rewards out, and our hope is that the incentive -- the dual incentive of helping to free that country from a very repressive regime and to get the foreigners in the al Qaeda out of there, coupled with substantial monetary rewards, will incentivize, through the great principle of University of Chicago economics -- (laughter) -- incentivize a large number of people to begin crawling through those tunnels and caves, looking for the bad folks.
...
defenselink.mil

Sounds like the Pentagon may still be a bit pissed about that plane that was flown into their building.

-- Carl

P.S. Still no US combat casualties (from enemy fire), while 7 fatalities among journalists. What's going on here?



To: unclewest who wrote (10932)11/20/2001 2:00:24 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi  Respond to of 281500
 
The daily briefings are available here:

c-span.org

Nice if you have a high speed modem.



To: unclewest who wrote (10932)11/20/2001 2:36:04 PM
From: Neeka  Respond to of 281500
 
I watched the entire press briefing last night.

Rummy made it clear that if the NA wished to take prisoners he wouldn't stand in the way. He did not advocate killing all prisoners. He also made it clear that no prisoners should be let go and that they should be in his words "impounded".

M