[The Blue Meanie]

....shouldn't they be sending them in by now? The endless bombing is not only leading to an ever higher toll of innocent civilian casualties in you-know-where, but the message it's sending to the Jihad Joes is that the coalition troops are basically too scared to come down from their B52s and face them on the ground. Yes, that's exactly how they'll see it - the Taliban are tough and seasoned mountain fighters who have already seen off the Russians.
Some initial bombing to destroy air defences and the like was perfectly reasonable, but as the weeks drag on the spectacle of the world's richest and most powerful country endlessly carpet bombing one of the poorest and most destitute in the world gets uglier and uglier. No matter how terrible the atrocities of September 11 were, there cannot be any ethical justification for dropping cruise missiles on the heads of four-year old children.
Ground troops would minimise the ever-rising toll of "collateral damage" and put the Taliban themselves, and not innocent Afghan civilians, at the business end of the coalition forces - where, yes, they thorougly deserve to be.
If nothing else, what's the point of having an army if it's never used?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<STRONG>shouldn't they be sending them in by now? </STRONG>

So do you just want to see American casualties?

[anarkisst]

I guess you haven't been reading the news lately. We do have special forces on the ground. They are helping the bombers/jets with more accurate information on targets.

Also they are supplying, training and exchanging information with the Northern Alliance. With this help we are able to minimize their's and our own casulaties plus help the NA overtake strategic cities, bridges and supply routes. It was a little sketchy at first but things seem to be improving. We did take that one city and supply route, right?

As far as accidental bombings and innocent victims "in the way" it's actually the Taliban that are placing armored vehicles, ordinance and anti-aircraft guns on the roofs of hospitals and villages. It IS a WAR, we were INVADED. We will have these sad incidents of war and American casualties...4,500 have already lost there lives in the WTC, Pentagon attacks and Pennsylvania crash...the idea is really not to keep "score" but to reach an objective with the least amount of casualties.

...and bring the assholes to justice.

[macvillage.net]

[trumpetsounds]Charge..[/trumpetsounds]


Anyway, there really isn't any use for them yet. The target is a few people hiding out in caves. Marching troops in there would be just marching to their deaths. There isn't anything they can do. The taliban can't outrun fighters and missles, but they can outrun troops marching in from hundreds of miles away. (and even if they are airdropped, it takes time for an invasion to get ready)

The troops deployed to the region serve 2 purposes:

1. Pakistan has nuclear arms. If the Pakistani government is overthrown, then there is potential for a nuclear war. There are a small faction who want to do so. They can't be allowed into power. India would be defensive, and that is the possible start of WWIII. If it looks bad for Pakistan, we could now send in troops quickly to secure Pakistan and ensure the government doesn't fall. For the safety of us, them, and our allies Pakistan can't fall. Not to mention how stratigic they are.

2. When the Taliban fall there will be other groups trying to assume control. Our troops with the aid of other NATO and UN nations will need to be in there within hours to keep order and prevent an chaios that would be associated with no government. There will be anger and confusion. Our troops will be patroling to keep that to a minimum.

[Niubi]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
<STRONG>


1. Pakistan has nuclear arms. If the Pakistani government is overthrown, then there is potential for a nuclear war. There are a small faction who want to do so. They can't be allowed into power. India would be defensive, and that is the possible start of WWIII. If it looks bad for Pakistan, we could now send in troops quickly to secure Pakistan and ensure the government doesn't fall. For the safety of us, them, and our allies Pakistan can't fall. Not to mention how stratigic they are.
</STRONG>

Good point that mate, not just a pretty face eh?



Anyway.... Boring.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :o

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<STRONG>....shouldn't they be sending them in by now? The endless bombing is not only leading to an ever higher toll of innocent civilian casualties</STRONG>

I've read that it's a myth that groung troups would mean fewer civilian casualties. You want to see people die? Start fighting house to house.

I poo pooed the NA for a while. They didn't look up to the task. But the Gulf War strategy seemed to work on the ground in Afghanistan. From the air-&gt;pound pound pound can't resupply pound pound pound can't move troops pound pound pound can't shoot back pound pound pound pound then move in.

Now the NA can get stuff from the north. The food will start to come in from the north. The Taliban is on the run. Which is hard to do when you have no trucks or gas to run them. If we need to we can take the air base in the north and use that to fox hunt bin Laden.

[The Blue Meanie]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>So do you just want to see American casualties?</STRONG>

No, of course I don't want to see casualties, but innocent women and children killed by stray missiles are in a different league to military personnel. I was thinking mainly of the mounting toll of civilian casualties killed by missiles going astray, out-of-date or inaccurate intelligence, etc etc - of which there have been many. Yes, some reports have been exaggerated and some may well have been exaggerated or invented by the Taliban, but other reports have been verified by independent journalists.
Dropping bombs is easy, taking responsibility for your military objectives by fighting on the ground is tougher but IMHO ultimately more effective. Yes, there have been the recent reports of the NA's capture of Kabul with the help of special forces, but newspaper reports over here have suggested that these special forces have mainly been British SAS.
And there was that situation a few weeks ago when the Pentagon released that grainy video of US special forces attacking a base in Afghanistan, only to later admit that it had been a near disaster because the troops had been shocked by "the fierce Taliban resistance"!!
Everyone's favourite mass-murderer Osama Bin Laden was quoted in British newspaper The Guardian as saying "Having borne arms against the Russians in Afghanistan for 10 years, we think our battle with the Americans will be easy by comparison".

[THT]

<STRONG>Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
Dropping bombs is easy, taking responsibility for your military objectives by fighting on the ground is tougher but IMHO ultimately more effective.</STRONG>

Er, you better be aware of what our military objectives are I'm pretty sure we haven't reached the military occupation stage yet. And I doubt we will. Ground troops will probably be needed to escort humanitarian aid and protect humanitarian activities, but I can't imagine anything else short of the Northern Alliance falling apart or perhaps becoming malevolant. If that happens, an occupation is probably necessary and all bets are off.

And as a matter of philosophy in today's military, well in the USA's military, we really don't need to send in infantry unless it is for occupation. Otherwise, sending in the foot soldiers is a stupid idea in this instance. Critics can call us cowards and whatnot, but as the saying goes, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Wetware is an hugely expensive piece of equipment while the industrial might of the USA is ridiculously huge and at overcapacity. Use the hardware and keep sending in the bombs. If they are not accurate enough, wait for the next cycle of bomb technology.

What we should be sending in is the humanitarian aid so they can stock up for the Winter and funds, equipment and people so that medical, educational and various civic facilities and services can be provided.

<STRONG>And there was that situation a few weeks ago when the Pentagon released that grainy video of US special forces attacking a base in Afghanistan, only to later admit that it had been a near disaster because the troops had been shocked by "the fierce Taliban resistance"!!</STRONG>

Mistakes happen in war. Moreover, this was bad intel, not the calibar of Taliban's fighting force, that turned it into a near-disaster. With such a huge military advantage, the only thing limiting Western forces is bad intelligence. An uncooperative populace is another, but that's what bombing should be used for.

<STRONG>Everyone's favourite mass-murderer Osama Bin Laden was quoted in British newspaper The Guardian as saying "Having borne arms against the Russians in Afghanistan for 10 years, we think our battle with the Americans will be easy by comparison".</STRONG>

If the Afghans don't back him, bin Laden is toast. The object of this war is the sentiments of the Muslims, not land or resources. Once we win over the Afghans, the Wahabist crazies won't have much influence in Afghanistan anymore.

If the Afghans were against us. Then yes, it could very end up being like the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

[John B. Smith]

Perhaps this article from National Review can explain the air-bombing campaign...

From April 1 to mid-June, 1945, we fought die-hard enemies well entrenched in vast caves stocked with telephone switchboards, tanks, artillery, and mortars. The enemy, while adopting European arms and military organization, had completely rejected Western pluralism, freedom, and tolerance as "weak" and "corrupt," and instead fortified its military with the fanatical religion of "Bushido," a crackpot and deviant Buddhist fundamentalism that sought to marry Emperor-worship with a medieval warrior code to produce a purportedly unstoppable new type of high-tech samurai warrior. The fantatics' goal was to rid the Pacific of Occidentals, and let China, Korea, southeast Asia, and the Pacific Islands "join" an "Oriental" alliance, orchestrated from Tokyo as an exploitive empire passed off as the "Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere." Sound familiar?

American soldiers were thousands of miles distant from our shores, closer to the enemy mainland than to friendly bases. As an ally, we had only Britain � who did her best, but could not offer much in our hour of crisis. The enemy shanghaied local civilians into their army, filled them full of lies about Americans, and turned them loose against us either to charge as suicide bombers, or often to commit mass suicide themselves. Soldiers hid in civilian houses, hospitals, even tombs of the dead to avoid our bombers � which were never successful in finding the Japanese high command, but hit a lot of civilians trying. Fanatics like General Isamu Cho and Mitsuru Ushijima boasted of no surrender, rejected all efforts at armistice, and vowed to take as many Americans as possible with them. Crude propaganda leaflets and radio broadcasts promised horrific deaths to Americans and portrayed them as cowardly killers who would rape and murder innocent civilians � over 100,000 natives of the island would eventually be casualties. The Japanese leadership itself, in the manner of ancient warlords, believed Americans were decadent and soft. Indeed, without the overwhelming firepower of the United States � purportedly to be neutralized on Okinawa by offensive suicide attacks on ships, and the defense of caves and concrete bunkers � the generals swore that few of the stinking Americans could ever stand up to Japanese soldiers in battle.

Suicide bombers were everywhere. Kamikazes ("The Divine Wind") dove unexpectedly from cloud cover; eventually they would fly almost 2,000 sorties and sink 34 American ships. They hit another 368 craft. The Japanese unleashed previously unknown and quite bizarre new weapons to terrify Americans, such as the human guided rocket (ohka), the crash boat (Shinto), the suicide midget submarines (koryu and kairyu), and the fukuryu or human mines.

The wounded and dead were wired with explosives; holes in the ground opened up to pour forth small squads of charging Japanese suicide machine-gunners at the rear of American troops. Despite days of preliminary bombing, it was soon discovered, to the Marines' dismay, that few defenders on Okinawa were killed in their fortified and hidden bunkers. Meanwhile, Japanese suicide gliders attacked Marine airfields while Kamikazes from Japan dove onto carriers at sea. Americans met every challenge, but victory proved costly � and far more deadly � than planners had anticipated.

Nearly everything, from bullets to toilet paper, had to be flown in. The weather was cold at night, and during the day wet and muddy � the terrain full of poisonous snakes, razor-sharp coral, and dense underbrush. Hundreds of GIs suffered from exposure and tropical disease. Americans at home, gladdened by news of the European armistice in early May, gradually seemed to lose interest in the protracted fighting in Okinawa. They were more worried about rumors of a wider war in which millions of Americans would be asked to storm the Japanese mainland at the end of the year.

When "Operation Iceberg" was completed by June 22, 12,000 Americans were dead � including the ranking American general in charge of the entire operation, Simon Bolivar Buckner. Thirty-five thousand more were wounded, along with 100,000 Japanese killed and another 100,000 civilian casualties.

What can we learn from Okinawa? First, the good news: In less than three months Americans captured the largest group of islands off the Japanese mainland, destroyed an entire Japanese army, and obtained a base of operations that would doom future enemy naval and air resistance � and were ready to move on to the next objective of Japan herself. American GIs and Marines � among those killed on May 19 at Sugar Loaf Hill was my namesake Victor Hanson of the 6th Marine Division � fought brilliantly, and proved as savage and brave as their desperate Japanese counterparts. And we should remember that the Japanese on Okinawa were far fiercer adversaries than the Taliban. Once the conquered Okinawans themselves learned the true nature of American troops, they became friendly and many welcomed liberation from the Japanese � there was almost no terror in the aftermath of the American victory. Okinawa today enjoys democratic government, as a part of the Japanese nation.

All that being said, the strategy at Okinawa must stand also as an object lesson of what not to do in war. The bombing, both from land-based squadrons and carrier planes, was far too brief, and not effective in penetrating thick fortifications. The ground commanders were far too eager to precipitate operations, and used little imagination in their approaches. Pockets of fortified resistance were not isolated and repeatedly shelled and bombed, but instead almost immediately stormed. And once the fighting turned hand-to-hand, General Buckner rejected the advice of four seasoned subordinates who wished to outflank the deadly Shuri-Yonabaru Line through amphibious landings to the rear. Too much of the fighting on Okinawa resembled World War I: on the ground, mass against mass, machine guns dueling with rifles and mortars, the entrenched enemy gaining enormous advantages against an open and exposed attacker. American soldiers had trouble distinguishing hostiles from neutrals, especially when the fighting reached settled areas.

One final ripple from Okinawa? After the bloodletting, the American military was reluctant ever again to fight such a Japanese-style battle, and looked desperately for ways to avoid such mass carnage in the promised invasion of Japan to come. The mainland, after all, offered a battlefield ten times as large, with 20 times the numbers of combatants, in the midst of millions more of armed civilians. And so American planners, stunned by the tens of thousands of casualties at Okinawa, found their answers at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake about it: Ground troops are necessary in Afghanistan � and no doubt elsewhere, in the multifaceted campaigns to come. And we Americans should not be shy in using thousands of them very soon. But to avoid the carnage of Okinawa, let us at least give our planes a little more time to hit the Taliban forces to cut off all their supplies, and to ensure that their soldiers become hungry and cold in the snow, before sending American troops into the battle. We should ignore the passive-aggressive admonitions of our fretting allies and the carping Muslim world over bombing during Ramadan, and instead ensure that the enemy is further pulverized before our conventional forces enter the fray. A few more days or even weeks of bombing � as during the Gulf War � may enrage some in the Middle East; but in the long run, patience will save American lives, which are far more important than our enemies' feelings. In historical terms, the strategy of continued attrition of adversaries without loss of one's own assets is wise � not flawed, nor cowardly.

With far more accurate and deadly preliminary bombing than that of World War II, our infantry can soon win on the ground � within a similar three-month period, but without the losses of Okinawa. Frontal assaults against entrenched Taliban lines should be avoided in favor of flank attacks and envelopments, and a sustained propaganda program must reach civilians to convince them to kill or at least to oppose those hiding among them, rather than us. Street fighting in villages and towns should be largely left to the resistance, who can use our forward bases and firepower stationed outside the metropolitan centers to regroup and reorganize.

Our military, which knows a great deal about the ordeal of Okinawa, is planning precisely this right now. But we, who do not, must give them some time � and more of our composure and support.

National Review's website