I certainly hope not. But the pressure to get the bastards, or at least some of them, immediately, has potential to force some sort of military expedition over in the ass end of the world in the fairly near future. Furthermore, it has to produce results and not cost too many lives, either American/Allied or innocent civilians. The risk of a massive clusterfuck instead looks pretty high to me.
So where is this headed militarily? Will the saber-rattling be enough, with threats and bribery (er, excuse me, “diplomacy”) doing the real work? Or are we going to have to bomb something and grab some Afghan bodies that can be declared to be bin Laden supporters (xzref: “If it’s dead, it’s Cong”) just to show some results?
Well, I was listening to speech to make sure that Bush clearly stated that this wouldn’t be a short, quick effort; that rather it would be a long, drawn-out affair with no simple resolutions. I heard him articulate that point several times, but then again, I was listening for it, and don’t know if the average viewer just let it slide over them.
By that token, I expect we may see a small demonstration at some point in the next few weeks- a missle shot overhead, or a quick raid that nets a sub-underling. But I don’t think anyone plans on sending the troops in until they’re good and goddamned ready to meet anything. Powell, as a general during Desert Storm, acted cautious as hell, and I don’t think his general attitude has changed much since then- he tends to play towards sure things (which, I think, is why he never ran for President).
The Bay of Pigs was a poorly organized, rushed response as an attempt to show off how we wouldn’t stand for a Communist Cuba, and where Eisenhower wanted a final statement and Kennedy wanted his adminstration to start off with a quick decisive victory. I don’t think Bush has to play into that.
A better thread title might have been Somalia redux.
Now that I’m worried about.
An overzealous pursuit of certain individuals fragmenting our forces and leaving them entrapped and subject to deadly force by an enemy (that includes civilians that our soldiers perhaps don’t readily realize are the enemy, too).
Air power. Kennedy called off the air support promised to the Bay of Pigs invasion at the last minute, the Cuban exiles were left with a few WWII era bombers which had to fly over the Gulf of Mexico each mission. Yes, air power makes a difference.
Of course, everything else is different too, the mission, the troops, the technology, the allies…
Predictably diplomacy already has failed. The Taliban do not seem to “negotiate” in any sense I recognize. If we present the evidence (acquired through top secret means) of a massacre committed on our soil, they try him in an Islamic court of their choosing. Naah. I guess extradition is a foreign concept to the Taliban.
“Afghan bodies,” are you baiting? Nobody cogent (or Bush, don’t bother) thinks a random body count amounts to anything.
“Massive clusterfuck,” a pretty good working definition for war.
a bay of pigs scenario would consist of secretly (to the American people) sending in a small force of anti-Taliban guerillas that were half-assedly trained in the US, and then walking away.
Apparently the use of the anti-Taliban northern alliance was contemplated, but it’s charismatic leader is dead and it’s not much of an alliance anymore.
Anyway, the cat’s out of the bag in terms of what our intentions are, so no bay of pigs.
Methinks Elvis is simply hoping that this ends in a similar situation so he will have new ammo to shoot at Bush (and/or his supporters), as what he DID have before has been exhausted long ago.
Bush, as Milo and John have pointed out, has said this will be a lengthy process, and that we will be using our military to accomplish our goals.
Did the version of the speech you saw say Bush was sending into Afghanistan a moderately armed peacekeeping force that would occasionally make half-hearted attempts at capturing terrorists when it wasn’t protecting aid workers?
It wasn’t a very good one. The inintial knee-jerk reaction every time we go to war is always “are we getting ourselves into another Vietnam/Somalia/Bay of Pigs?” To make those anologies, people need to understand the issues and strategies of those campaigns beyond “we went to war and lost”.
If the plan was to occupy Afghanistan than yes, I would be concerned that the plan was ill concieved. If the plan was some open-ended strategy of protecting Red Cross workers or some small country from insurgents I would predict that it would be a dismal failure. In reality, Bushes strategy is remarkably simple. Locate networks of terrorists and nuetralize them using every weapon at our disposal, wherever they may go.
Elvis, I take your post to mean that you oppose a hasty, incomplete effort. That is, I gather that you support an extended series of attacks in as many countries as necessary, using massive weapons superiority and not quitting in the face of high American casualties, even if it takes decades to wipe out the terrorists and their supporters. However, you’re concerned that the US may not do all this.
And, don’t forget that, as pointed out in this thread, Afghanistan doesn’t exactly have a lot of urban targets you can bomb with air support. Well, okay, it has Bin Laden’s terrorist training camps. Or what we think are Bin Laden’s terrorist training camps. But pitifully little else. There are no cities, no real military bases, and essentially no infrastructure that we could take out. It’s a lot of rough mountains, riddled with a bazillion places to hide. Our chances of finding Bin Laden are next to nil – unless we do something really dirty, like stooping to the level of the terrorist and saying, “Every half hour you don’t hand over Bin Laden, we’re going to bomb another village.” Bleah.
Throw in “designed around the need to look like something useful and vengeful is being done, and therefore likely to fail in a humiliating way” and you have it.
Naturally, the knee jerkers of the world (scroll up) would rather pick any analogy they find inconvenient. Well, hell, yes, any analogy fails if it’s picked apart in enough detail. But that process is simply a way to avoid the point of the analogy rather than considering the similarities it’s intended to bring up. That “debate technique” can be found in the fallacy file somewhere between argumentum ad absurdam and straw men.
I do not at all claim that that is the best military strategy, nor even that a conventional military approach is even appropriate. Where do you, or anyone else, get that idea from? Tom Clancy? What worries me is that those persons (apparently including you) who are looking for some kind of invasion of Afghanistan will have so much influence on the planners that some kind of hasty clusterfuck will be ordered anyway.
** I got the idea by reversing the Bay of Pig approach. I now gather that you oppose both the BOP approach and its opposite. Elvis, what approach do you support?
**
[/quote]
What worries me is that those persons (apparently including you) who are looking for some kind of invasion of Afghanistan will have so much influence on the planners that some kind of hasty clusterfuck will be ordered anyway. **
[/QUOTE] Elvis, let me put your mind at rest. W has yet to ask me for military advice.
Seriously, W’s speeches have empahsized a long-term battle, rather than a hasty action. One of my concerns is that support for Bush will dissipate over time, especially if led by those who will look for any reason to disagree with him.
In Somalia, a segment of our military presence got cut off from the larger force. They were surrounded, and picked apart.
In Afghanistan, we will be looking for a few individuals, not looking to wipe out large battle groups. There’s one similarity.
While the terrain is much different, the narrow mountain passes we will be forced to travel are extremely dangerous, and we will be facing a foe that knows very well how to use them to their advantage. Ask the Russians.
It will be hard to keep a large U.S. force together in such a situation, or at least have it be effective.
I fear that our forces could wind up in traps where they get picked apart from all sides and above, like a turkey-shoot.
Somewhat analagous to what occurred in Somalia.
**
My analogy had nothing to do with our occupation of Afghanistan; rather the attempt to get bin Laden and his henchmen.
And anyone who wants to pretend we will go in, do something and immediately leave is a little misguided, I think. How can there not be some form of occupation, by the U.S., U.N., or somebody? And this isn’t going to take a day, or a week.
**
And as part of my job, over the past few days I have talked to Special Forces veterans - Green Berets, Navy SEALs, etc. - about what we are about to do. Virtually to a man, they said finding and rooting out bin Laden from the deep, fortified, well-stocked mountain bunkers where he no doubt is now is going to take time and patience.
