OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT OT
Doug,
You miss quoted me. I said that Army Spec Air Ops had been deployed, I didn't say they were going to intervene on the ground. Their mission is different from the regular "tank killers" Apaches. they are more like the SEALS, but by air and they would have a role in ground operations. In fact, they would take it as a personal insult if they did not.
I can't say for sure that a ground war will happen, I don't have access to that type of info, and it would be classified if I did. That's my speculation. The speculation is based on about 75% of the military experts saying that ground troops will be necessary at some point. The air war is far from over. Comparing to Desert Storm, which was a much larger operation so it's not an exact comparison, we had almost a year to set up before the attack began, and the air war lasted for 4 months before the ground war started. Recall Operation Desert Shield? That was our set up time. We had 24 hour a day max flights shipping in everything we needed. The Air Force Military Airlift Command was overwhelmed, ( much to their embarrassment), and we were using all the commercial carriers, UPS, etc., as well. The Air force was generally credited with striking the first blow of the air war, but it was actually Army helicopters that hit first, taking out Iraqi forward radar installations. My only point in going over that is that it takes a lot of time and effort to get the resources in place to support any military effort, but ground forces take the most. Command and control, tactical intelligence, food, fuel, medical, ammunition, spares, forward repair facilities, not to mention the troops and equipment themselves. The list is huge.
There's no point in committing to ground forces before they are ready to go. That just helps the enemy, and causes a political furor that can hurt the effort. Once the decision is made, the action will be almost immediate. There's nothing to gain by Clinton saying "I've decided to use ground troops a month from now." The air strikes have to continue until the enemy is completely demoralized. Their supply lines have to be cut, and they have to be deprived of all the logistic support I listed above. A few weeks without food, out of fuel and ammunition, equipment breaking, communications cut off, all that sort of stuff. Again recall that in Desert Storm, one of the larger problems we had was managing all the Iraqi soldiers that wanted to surrender. There were even some that surrendered to an unarmed drone aircraft, and to news reporters. The only serious resistance we meet was an encounter in N. Iraq with some elements of the Republican Guard. That was where friendly fire killed the crew of an Bradley, which later became the subject of a movie. (bit of trivia). In Kuwait, it was such a mass retreat that our pilots started to feel guilty about killing them. "Like shooting fish in a barrel." The air campaign in Yugo has to do the same to their troops.
Again, speculation, but I think there will be a replay of the strategy Clinton used before the commencement of the latest air strikes against Iraq. When Saddam kicked out the inspectors public opinion was against strikes, and the conservative Republicans were in full attack mode against Clinton. So he pulled back the attacks twice, once just minutes from commencement. The criticisms against him turned, calling him chicken and so on. By the time he did attack public opinion was practically demanding that he do so. My guess is that he'll follow a similar strategy. Using the time to put the necessary elements in place, he'll let the attacks on him mount, draft dodger president etc, until he's ready, then he'll "give in to public opinion." His Republican enemies are so eager to attack him using all the usual means, that they will find that they are not be in a position to oppose the escalation when, and if, it happens. This drives the isolationists in the conservative wing nuts. The main problem the public has is not understanding the time elements involved. Pundits on TV say, "two weeks and we haven't won yet, we must be failing."
Your point about intervening in other places, reflects the opinion of those who believe that with the status of being the world's only superpower comes the moral responsibility to prevent the mass murders that go on in different parts of the world. I agree in principle and I wish we could, but the fact is that all such actions require more than just a moral imperative. Strategic and political aspects also have to be considered. Part of the political aspects include public opinion. Bush tried to do the right thing in Somalia and the after effects of that operation soured public opinion for interventions in Africa. The UN did finally go into Rwanda, but millions had been killed first.
It is normal to cite several justifications to see what plays well with the public. Recall in Desert Storm all kinds of justifications were tested, including to "protect American jobs" and the obvious one, to protect the flow of oil was hardly mentioned. The one that was most effective, and wound up being the public justification of choice was the "Saddam is Hitler" one. The description is more apt for Milosivic, and will probably be the primarily one again, especially as the reports of atrocities continue. The real justification, or one of them, in my opinion, is to establish NATO's future role in Europe. Albright has spoken about that numerous times over the last few years, but that one is a little too distant for most of the public to understand. It is however, a very interesting and important topic, that the public knows very little about.
Again my speculation is that troops, logistics, etc. will be positioned until they are ready, and the air war has softened up the enemy sufficiently. Then Clinton will "give in" to his critics and popular opinion to finish it up by doing what's necessary, including ground troops. Very possible also that the bulk of the troops will be other NATO. Probably not like the US's role in Desert Storm. This is primarily a NATO problem, it's just that they can't do it without the US. I can't take credit for dreaming up all this myself. It is along the same lines I've heard advocated by Kissinger, Zebrensky and Stowcroft, and will as everyone from the Center for Strategic Studies, that I've heard address the issue. There are some, minority however, that still believe the air strikes alone can do it. If they are right, great. If not, I think the other option will be available.
Much verbage here, it's just an area I was involved in for many years, so I guess I can ramble on a bit. Doug, I appreciate your civil and intellectual approach, and I'm responding on that level because I enjoy such discussions with others who have both the background and interests to make the discussion interesting. I readily admit there's room to differ, and I don't have a crystal ball. Meanwhile, good luck for all of us on our common concern, investing.
Mike
|
