<< "The purpose of bombing is to prepare the battlefield.">>
I'll paraphrase General Swartzkopf here, who this quote is from, as well as Colin Powell who said virtually the same thing.
Preparing the battlefield means trying to disrupt the enemy's ability to conduct a protracted war. That is, you attempt to destroy antiaircraft protection first so you have control of the skies. This is primarily intended to improve the mobility of forces and the efficiency with which you can gather intelligence from the air and move troops rapidly, secondarily to try to meet the next objectives. This was very effectively done by bombing in the present war, but there was never that much of it in Afghanistan in the first place. Bombing failed to accomplish this in the Gulf War because they just couldn't find the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of truck-sized mobile missile launchers. The next thing you do is try to disrupt communications. Again, this was more successfully accomplished in Afghanistan (in a week or two) than in the Gulf War. Then, you try to take out the more obvious artillery such as fixed gun placements and tanks. Tanks were not a factor in Afghanistan, but they were in the Gulf. Air power was fairly effective at taking them out there. Still, I think it needs to be kept in mind that the primary purpose of tanks is to support troops, though occasionally there are true battles of pure tank force vs. pure tank force (e.g., Rommel in Africa).
Fixed gun placements are more difficult because they are harder to find, easily and quickly replaced when destroyed, and often mobile. So, the Talibeans even now at this late stage still retain some artillery capability, though severely crippled. Next, you try to disrupt the supply lines. This is far more difficult than the first three tasks, but not as important either, because supply lines enable the enemy to carry on protracted war, but do not enable the enemy to carry out war more effectively. And all along the way, you point to the successes, which gives you a psychological edge that should not be underestimated IMHO.
Then, and only then, is the battlefield prepared and the events you describe.... <<killing soldiers, blowing up tanks, blowing the shit out of dug in defenses, obliterating entire troop columns>> ....can be pursued with a vengeance by soldiers in the field.
If you remember, "The Highway of Death" occurred on Feb. 26 and 27 1991, as Iraqi troops were withdrawing from Kuwait.
But the withdrawal was not in response to bombing, it was in direct reaction to the fact that a major portion of Iraq's army was about to find itself in checkmate by conventional forces, and they knew it. The only reason that did not happen is that Russia stepped in..... and then the politicians went to work. Another date which will live in infamy, IMHO........
Yes, the barbecue was administered by the Air Force, who first disabled the front and back of the 60 mile long column, then began the systematic cremation. But if not for the advancing army that was rapidly trapping Iraqi forces, there would not have been a massive retreat in the first place. Here's a photo of one of the party animals at the barbecue:
free.freespeech.org
The barbecue was well-attended:
fas.org
**********************************************
[BTW, Careful inspection of photos taken after extensive bombing raids I think gives a pretty good idea of how you can be misled. Most people probably believe that if a factory or airfield or bridge is bombed, that it is destroyed. This is usually not the case, even with smart bombs, even with intensive and repeated bombing, and is particularly true with well-developed infrastructure (obviously not as applicable in Afghanistan). Yes, there is damage, but that damage most often is fairly readily repaired, and in wars it is astonishing how, for example, bridges are very resistant to complete destruction, but when they are finally completely destroyed, are rebuilt again very rapidly. The same is true of other infrastructure that supports a war effort, and that is why it takes a long, long period of intensive bombing to begin to seriously affect the enemy's ability to wage war.
fas.org
*************************************************
<< Are you really asserting here that the bombing the Northern Alliance was begging for was in fact a farce and thet they had the ground capabilities to kick the Talli's asses the whole time >>
Yes. With US backup.
But, I wouldn't call the bombing a farce at all. I don't suggest it had no value, quite the contrary.
<<..the major military event that changed in that theater was our bombing the crap outta the Whackers. >>
Dunno how much they crapped. Maybe you could provide a crap update in metric tonnage.
Also a piss update, if you have one. Vomit and spit updates would be less interesting.
But it is clear that the bombing didn't kill very many of them. Even in the daily estimates of Tally Bean casualties issued by the Pentagon, likely an overestimate of the true casualty rate, the bombing was killing only a couple dozen Beans a day. That number increased exponentially not with bombing, but when the bloodthirsty take-no-prisoners, I-love-the-smell-of-TallyBean blood-in-the-morning NA decided to get out of their trenches and fight. Do you realize that they have probably killed more prisoners at point blank range by shooting them then the total amount who were killed by all the bombs dropped before the NA offensive? To say nothing of the numbers of Tally Beans killed in direct combat.....
My central point is simple: war has not changed substantially. It is largely---not completely, but largely---carried on by infantry and other relatively conventional means, and air power performs a largely support role. I do not mean to suggest that air power is a waste of time, or that it inflicts no damage. Simply that the burden of waging war is still borne by the army and its units.
Short of total nuclear destruction and the death of every living thing, to unequivocally conquer you must physically occupy territory.
Wars may appear to end without this type of resolution. For example, the hostilities in the Gulf War ceased, and so gave the appearance that the war was over. But because Iraqi real estate was not physically occupied by the army, I would submit that the war there is hardly over. Just on hold.
JMVHO.....YMMV.....BNI......MSS
T |
