That is most certainly not an objective worth committing infantry. Blowing up a few firing ranges and obstacle courses will not achieve diddly squat. Training camps are a dime a dozen. We need to kill the SOB’s who run the training camps, as well as their recruits. Given the formidable terrain, the limited number of bad guys, and their ability to pack up and move to some other country, that’s not something that a Kuwait-style invasion is capable of accomplishing.
Nice sentiment, bad policy, at least if you’re still talking about sending in the First Army. That would require conquering and suppressing an extremely hostile population in defiance of every ally we have in the region. Bad, bad, bad idea. Just ask the Soviets. Much better to arm the Taliban’s opponents to the hilt and let them do the conquering while we support them with a few zillion tons of bombs and missiles. Once the bad guys are out of power and the really bad guys are dead, we would be goddamned fools to have significant troops in Afghanistan.
Simply put, I am aware of no targets in Afghanistan that require an actual invasion rather than aerial bombardment or special forces. Until somebody can show me one, I am firmly convinced that invasion is a Very Bad Idea.
Incidentally, it is also a Very Bad Idea to shape our miltary response based on whether the Afghans think we’re pussies. I was right with the OP until he got to that point of his argument.
You know I have to agree. Not to cheerlead, but since I’ve identified myself as agreeing with the OP, I felt the need to clarify.
In point of fact, the Taliban has been making propagandistic claims that Americans are not up to fighting. This is unfortunate and doubtless does damage American credibility among the more macho elements of Afghan society. But I rather doubt it would factor into any major policy decisions by hostile factions. Because I’m quite sure the Afghans DO believe that at the very least Americans are willing to commit enormous air power.
I suspect the U.S. will score more points with the humanitarian relief the OP recommended that they would lose by not going in on the ground. And frankly scoring points by fighting doesn’t breed across the board respect. The Afghans did gain respect for the fighting ability of the elite Soviet airborne and special forces troops ( as opposed to the run-of-the-mill armor and infantry units ). But it didn’t alter their hatred for the Soviets one iota. Nor their unwillingness to compromise with them.
One can spin scenarios where the anti-Taliban forces we support might need brief ground support at some critical junction. I don’t think we should rule it out completely. At the very least the threat of ground attack is a useful negotiating tool, whether we’re serious about it or not.
And I quite agree that a full-on invasion and occupation is a bad idea. But I don’t think it was clear that the OP was advocating that.