War Madness!

Great Debates
1

War madness. The drums are pounding. Normally reasonable Dopers beat their chests, hairy and otherwise, and cry for war. Is it madness? Of course it is. A few points.

A land war in Afghanistan is madness. Utter, blithering insanity. Viet Nam was damp, with a terrain that rewards guerrilla tactics, populated by dangerous psychotics who had been at war with just about everybody for the past fifty years. Afghanistan is entirely different. Afghanistan is dry.

The first ground troops of any nation to arrive in Afghanistan will be instantly surrounded, not by blood thirsty, god-mad mujahadeen but by starving beggars. Afghanistan is not a nation so much as it is a disaster. Drought dogs them for years, they are likely to starve this winter. A war with them makes no more sense than throwing a hand grenade at a leper.

An air war is even less intelligent. There is nothing to bomb. Nothing. No railroad depots, no ammo dumps, no ball bearing factorys. If a magic death fairy gave you one hundred bombs you could place anywhere you like in Afghanistan simply by wishing it so, you could not use them all. There aren’t one hundred targets in the entire godforsaken turd pile.

War against terrorism? Whose terrorism? Are we going to wade in with the Russians against the Chechnyan “terrorists”? Anybody in a rush to sign up for a tour of duty in Belfast? Zaire? Columbia? Our allies can be forgiven for suspecting that our zeal will flag soon as we get our pound of binLaden. I suspect they are right.

Panic stricken Afghani’s are already fleeing from starving Afghanistan to hungry Pakistan, their share of human misery abundant. And this merely from the threat of American attacks. What will be their fate when we actually do something? To whom can they turn for mercy? Us?

Now we must ask ourselves the other question, the one that has to do not with our willingness to sacrifice, but our willingness to sacrifice others to our ends. I wish never to hear again of the helpless cowering in fear because “the Americans are coming.”

But the drums are beating….

2

As has been stated by the President, and others, on many occassions, this will not be a traditional war. A land war in Afghanistan will serve no purpose; surely if you see this, the leaders of our military see this as well. If you see there is nothing worth bombing, the leaders of our military see this as well. The Afghan people are not our targets. The Taliban have banned TV, the internet, etc. The Afghan people only know what their government tells them. And they are told to fear us.

3

If you had to pick a country where you had to fight a war, Afghanistan would bottom out the list.

But what the hell are we supposed to do? That’s where the organizer of what happened Sept. 11 is!

And what makes you think our defensive strategists don’t know what you know, and that they won’t act accordingly?

One thing we’ve proven ourselves to be pretty good at (with one or two notable exceptions), is winning military campaigns.

**
The terrorism that killed thousands of innocent Americans nine days ago. And all that could potentially be targeted at the USA, and have similar capabilities.

Sounds like a good place to start to me.

On all fronts - intelligence, law enforcement, diplomacy and military - we’re defending our national security against a clearly imminent threat. Do you disagree, for God’s sake?

**
Our allies sound an awful lot more on-board with this than you do. I think I’ll just let their words and actions speak for themselves, and the USA’s words and actions as well.

**
Considering the United States is by far the greatest supplier of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, I would surmise that the answer is yes, us.

**
With the memory now seared into my head of the widow of one of the Pennsylvania jet passengers at the president’s speech tonight, nothing would satisfy me more than to have any man, any group, and any nation that had anything to do with Sept. 11 to be cowering in fear that the Americans are coming.

**
With your clear implication that it’s a bad thing.

Everything good that America stands for is worthless if we as a nation aren’t willing to defend it when it is attacked and threatened.

4

Let me point out again that there is a BIG difference between carrying out a military operation in Afghanistan, and OCCUPYING Afghanistan. America has no intention of occupying that country. They intend to go in, wipe out a bunch of terrorists, and leave.

That’s still a formidable task given the terrain they are going into, and given that the enemy is small enough to hide, but it’s a far different task than trying to occupy that country, which no one has managed for hundreds of years.

5

When the US was gearing up for the Persian Gulf War, I was 21, a college drop out, and scared off my ass that I was going to get drafted into what the news media was predicting was going to be a long and bloody war. What happened? The damn thing lasted 90 days. No one knows how long this war will last and no one in the know is talking about how it will be fought. To assume that this will be a long, bloody war is as dangerous as assuming it will be a short one like the Persian Gulf War. We simply don’t know, and we won’t know until it happens.

No rational minded person wants war, but let’s face it, some times war is the only solution to a problem (ever hear of WW II?).

In Panzer Battles by Major General F.W. Von Mellenthin, he states that in desert warfare, the moment one side has air superiority, the battle goes to them, regardless of how many ground troops they may have. Of course, this doesn’t mean that things will work out exactly like that, but I’d be willing to bet that it does.

My question is this: Suppose we get all geared up for war and are just about to launch our attack when Bin Laden and his whole crew give themselves up, what do we do then? (Not that this is likely to happen, but one never knows.)

6

Am I the only person who notices that the only organizations who seem to think this is Gulf War Part 2 are CNN and MSNBC?

The U.S. government has said, over and over and over, that any conflict borne of this will be long, drawn out, and fought by unconventional means.

And whats on CNN’s page? Pictures of aircraft carriers! I know know that Carl Vinson has an escort of two cruisers, five destroyers, a frigate and two submarines. Wow, cool. Lots of firepower. But what’re the odds it’ll matter much in thsi war? None - but CNN DESPERATELY wants another filmable war with lots of bomb camera clips.

It’s as if they’re reporting on a completely different crisis.

7

Oh goodness, elucidator! You mean Afghanistan is a crappy place to wage war? What a revelation! I guess we better roll out the white flag right now, huh? :rolleyes:

And Tuckerfan? There’s a big difference between “desert warfare” and “Afghanistan.” Go down to your local library to check out an atlas and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

8

Brilliant, elucidator! One of the first laughs I’ve gotten out of this whole mess. For further fun and games you can check out my “What is the Price of Perception” thread in this same forum. It’s about as optimistic.

9

Please explain how you arrived at this view, giving supportive evidence.

10

Except Bin Laden’s training camps. And… funny thing is… we know where they are.

Doesn’t that make you just want to smile?

11

minty, I know a bit about Afghanistan (I’ve never been there, so I don’t know a lot about it, but I do know a few things about the place.), and its rocky, mountainous and, generally, not a fun place to be. Be that as it may, I’d still say that the US has better chances than what the OP was giving us. After all, we were the guys who trained the Afghani’s to fight the Russians, so to simply respond with dispair at going to war with such a place isn’t taking into account all the facts.

12

Sure, but comparing Afghanistan to North Africa in WWII is plain old dumb. They resemble each other about as much as two totally dissimilar things.

13

Actually, what I was attempting to do was to compare the media’s predictions of how long the Gulf War was supposed to last with what someone with experience in similar situation said (and was, in fact, correct).

IMHO, the campaign in Afghanistan will be “short” (i.e. lasting less than a year), while the “war” against terrorism will be long (i.e. more than a year). Of course, I’m little more than an armchair general with no military experience, so my opinions don’t matter.

14

Milo, my lad, you have a positive genius for missing the point. Have you considered a career as a matador?

“One thing we’ve proven ourselves to be pretty good at (with one or two notable exceptions), is winning military campaigns.”

Grenada leaps to mind. Those Commie Cuban bulldozer drivers won’t try that again anytime soon!

“The terrorism that killed thousands of innocent Americans nine days ago. And all that could potentially be targeted at the USA, and have similar capabilities.”

Jumping Jesus, Milo! ALL of them? Do you have any idea how many people hate our collective guts?

“Our allies sound an awful lot more on-board with this than you do.”

Well, yeah. Quite the point. I’ll get on board when somebody tells me exactly where this ship is going. Right now it sounds as though its headed for Hell, by way of Baghdad and Kabul. “Landslide” George is trying to sell our allies on the notion that this is a moral crusade against “terrorism” Of course, that’s a crock. Do you imagine that we are going to intercede against the IRA in Belfast? Against the Chechnyans? Sorry, Vladimir, that’s your rubber ducky. And that shit about being either with us or against us is not exactly statesmanlike. Sounds like Colin Powell is the only sane officer on the bridge!

“Considering the United States is by far the greatest supplier of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, I would surmise that the answer is yes, us.”

We supply zero humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Zip, zilch, d for diddly squat. However, since your comment didn’t address the point, neither does my correction, I suppose.

“…nothing would satisfy me more than to have any man, any group, and any nation that had anything to do with Sept. 11 to be cowering in fear that the Americans are coming…”

That’s a mighty dangerous drug you’re high on, Milo. Righteous wrath is a terrible thing. If you can assure me that only the guilty will suffer, I say, right on! Unleash Milo, and the fateful lightning of his swift sword. But we can’t can we? “Collateral damage”, nice euphemism. Means dead people.
But the drums are beating….

"With your clear implication that it’s a bad thing. "

He got one! Attaboy! Yes, righteous wrath and military might are a really bad combination. There may be a worse one, but it doesn’t leap to mind.

“Everything good that America stands for is worthless if we as a nation aren’t willing to defend it when it is attacked and threatened.”

No argument there. Method, Milo, method. One doesn’t burn down the house to chase out the cockroaches. There might not be more than a hundred people actually involved in this awful crime. Find them. Identify them. Target them. I’m a Texan, probably a better shot than you, so you load and I’ll shoot. But target them and them alone!

Or our nation will stand for nothing more than the same self-righteous, bloody wrath that our enemies have visited upon us. No man serves his country by doing something dishonorable.

15

This just in - Ooooops!

Turns out the USA has indeed sent a lot of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Doh!

16

So you’re full of shit as well as insulting.

No news flash there.

17

Here’s an interesting editorialregarding “Fortress Afghanistan” and its impregnability.

But this is not going to be a Russian-style invasion and attempt to subdue Afghanistan.

I think that you’ve misinterpreted the message of the drums.

18

I think by going after terrorism, he meant those that are targeting us. The IRA has not targeted us.

19

Well, thats quite the point, actually. A coalition against terrorism is an easier sell than a coalition centered around America’s enemies only. Hence, my criticism, that none of our allies is dumb enough to believe that we have anyones interests but our own close to our heart.

I am encouraged that cooler heads might prevail, but there are reports that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are pressing to attack Iraq. Iraq, at least, has something to bomb. We would be lucky to find an Afghani post office to wipe out.

Now is the time to show calm resolve, a willingness to patiently sift the evidence and prove our case before the world, and take no more military action than is truly needed.

20

Is it your assertion then that the U.S. would bomb Iraq because it “has something to bomb?”

If the foreign intelligence information we have heard about in the media pans out, that the hijackers had contact with Iraqi intelligence agents earlier this year, explain to me why Iraq would not be a target of a U.S. response to Sept. 11.

**
And for the octillionth time, what leads you to believe the U.S. military’s focus in Afghanistan is going to be bombing infrastructure?

Let’s read for ourselves what Rumsfeld (about whom you seem to have more negative to say than the Sept. 11 terrorists) has to say on the subject:

**
You do realize that we are going to act at some point, right?

“No more military action than is truly needed?” What does that mean? And how does that jibe with the title you’ve given your thread here?