I don not claim that this is the best way to win a war in Afghanistan. I do not even claim it will be the way we will use. But I submit that it would work and therefore it disproves your assertion that war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. For further disproof, you can look at the Russians who with a tax base smaller than New York City and using conscript troops have made tremendous gains against similar opponents in similar terrain in Chechnya.
1. Land airborne troops in areas controlled by the Northern Alliance (who has promised 15,000 fighters to assist us) to secure (and if neccessary build) airfields.
2. Bring in the 10th Mountain and the Interim Brigade Combat Team (they aren't supposed to be ready for deployment until Dec., tough they go as they are) and secure the valleys of Anti-Taliban groups (the Hazaras and many others will be glad to have us).
3. Start feeding and giving medical care to Afghans whose tribe cooperates with the U.S. Forces. Bring in the Corps. of Engineers to build them hospitals and schools and wells and dams. When other tribal leaders see that the U.S. will protect them from the Taliban and reward them with food, medical care, and infrastructure then more of the "fence sitters" will ask us to protect them. If it is true that "no nation is more than 3 meals away from a revolution" then most of Afghanistan has been due for a revolution for some time... but they have no means or strength to do so.
Just by dealing with the tribes that oppose the Taliban and will almost certainly welcome our attempts to depose them we can probably secure 50 to 60% of the nation. The Pashtoon (sp?) tribe and maybe a few others will not welcome us in, and will have to be dealt with by force; but that leave us with only about 6 to 8 million people to subdue by force, half of whom are "useless" (to the Taliban) women. How do you handle the portion of the country that won't welcome us in?
4. Mass troops near the 1st village. Tell the local leaders that if they join us we will offer them protection and aid, if they oppose us we will destroy the entire village. One of two things will happen. First, the rest of the tribe can gather their troops to oppose us en-masse... which is exactly the kind of target we are used to fighting, in which case we can destroy their resistance in one swoop. Or they can each try to defend their own little valleys and villages. In which case we can concentrate our forces against them one at a time.
5. If they join, then move to the next village. If they do not, then roll into the village. Shoot anyone who resists. Evict everyone from the village. Shoot anyone who resists. Herd the people into a holding area. Bring in the bulldozers and destroy every building and every wall in the village. Bring in the cropdusters and spray-trucks and sow the soil with salt (or actually some modern defoiliant that we have the technology to neutralize after the war). Kill all their livestock. We have only killed the people who fought, but we have suddenly turned the entire village into starving refugees. Let them flee to the next town.
6. Leave the area. There is no reason to hold the ground, since it is now worthless.
7. Show up at the next village and repeat. Eventually villages will start to capitualte and be rewarded, or we will get very good at demolishing villages. I would hate it if we had to resort to this level of warfare for a protracted period of time, but the Russians in Chechnya show that it can be done successfully. If they can do it successfully then so can we.
This strategy relies heavily on both the carrot and the stick. A lot of tribes will side with us immediately because the Taliban has been systematically oppressing and exterminating them. Others who are politically neutral will join us when they see that they will be rewarded and protected form the Taliban (and we make it clear that unlike the Soviets we are NOT here to stay... not too difficult considering America's existing reputation of having a short attention span). The stick is reserved only for the tribes who will not join, therby reducing the need for combat.
It is unlikely that the enemy will be dumb enough to present us with a massed target to wipe out, so the key to the opperation becomes security. Defense of allied tribes will be along their borders, which tend to be natural defensive lines, and with the aid of the allied tribe. By destroying the villages completely (so that no stone sits on any other) we do not need to spread our troops out to cover "conquered" territory in the opposing tribes areas; concentration of forces will enhance security during offensive opperations.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda will fight back by trying to commit more terrorist attacks in the U.S. or by attacking supporting units in "secure" areas. There is only so much that we can do to prevent such things, but even if we lose thousands of troops to such terror or guerilla attacks, what is that compared to the likelihood that they will commit more WTC style attacks... or worse use chemcial or biological terrorist weapons. I think managing the refugees (who would provide "cover" for the movement of terrorists) and aerial recon even over "secure" areas will be needed to reduce (but not eliminate) such attacks on "rear" units.
This is NOT Vietnam. There are no Soviets or ChiComs that will help the Taliban. The corrupt government in place is NOT a colonial relic that we are allied with, they are the enemy. Lastly, this will not be a limited action where we "support" someone else's fight. It will be a classic use force and destruction to compel the tribal leaders to surrender (or else watch as their tribes are reduced to a scattered band of refugees, combined with rewards for those who do collaborate.
8. When the opposing tribes surrender, immediately begin providing them with food and aid for all the refugees we created. Build them new villages.
9. Build them a national infrastructure during the occupation so that afterwards they can become a part of the "community of free nations"
10. Arrange to maintain airbases there with our new allies that will come in handy if China gets expansionist.
11. Complain that Afghani companies are underselling American Industry and that cheap Afghani programmers who learned to code in the schools we built are now stealing jobs from American programmers.
We WILL have to suffer through more terrorist attacks both there and amoung the support units "in country." But we will suffer far more casualties if we give them time to grow bigger and show all the other anti-U.S. groups the world that they can get away with attacking us.
"As another poster noted, you could also compare this area to be under Nazi control and heavily populated by the Jewish. Still want to send in the troups?"
Yes... even more so. Notice I did NOT say we roll over Afghanistan and slaughter its occupants, or nuke it to rubble*. I am not even saying that I think we should occupy the country (though I do) I said we will do so. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "liberate" instead of occupy, considering the oppressive nature of the Taliban (which goes along with your Nazi/Jewish analogy).
As for the luck of the Russians, don't forget that the Afghans had outside support and Bush is no doubt attempting to isolate the Taliban politically to make sure that doesn't happen to us. Also, I expect that occupation of Afghanistan to be easier than most people suspect; perhaps more akin to invading Italy in WW2 than if we had invaded Japan (the average Afghani does NOT worship the Taliban elite, and there are a lot of groups that will be very happy to see them deposed). The hardest part, I expect, will not be occupying the country but rather preventing extremist terrorists (who could blend with refugees) from either escaping the country or committing terrorism against support units. This is due to the balkanization of the country, the fact that the Taliban elite hoard the nations wealth while the rest starve, and the fact that a lot of the tribal leaders supporting the Taliban do so because it was profitable or they were strong armed (2 conditions that will become increasingly unprofitable and unhealthy if we invade). Also, note the success of the Russians in Chechnya. If the broke, corrupt, and conscripted Russians can beat back the Chechens in similar terrain despite a complete lack of "hearts and minds" psy-op work; then we should be able to do the same or better with our better equipped professional force.
But what if we can't. What if, as you suppose, it will take 10,000 U.S. casualties. What is that? Another Sept. 11th or two? We will probably experience that even if we act now with all dispatch to eliminate this threat. If we allow it to grow, then what can we expect, and how many civil liberties would we wind up giving away if we took a defensive approach to security. The CIA believes that it has seen evidence in satellite imagery of bin Laden testing the dispersion of chemical or biological weapons on animals (though I wonder if that is just the effects of drought and starvation). The Saudi and Russian intel agencies supposedly fear that he has suitcase nukes stolen from Russia ( www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID= 19747 ). A well designed bioweapon or tactical nuclear attack could kill hundreds of thousands... perhaps even millions and paralyze our infrastructure. As bad as Sept. 11th was, I can actually come up with very realistic scenarios that are MUCH worse (though I will not list them so as not to give anyone ideas). What then are 10,000 casualties compared to that? And, as I said, I do not expect it to take that many.
But just killing this generation of terrorists will not be enough, because their younger brothers and children will just take their place in a few years... unless we can manage to "infect" their next generation with our memes. We must give them a reason to identify with us, and also give them something to lose if they oppose us. They need to be wanting to buy Britney Spears CDs instead of strapping Semtex to themselves and trying to sneak into the American airbase (well, we have them in Japan and even Cuba). The only way the "shoot some of the population when they cause trouble" solution to terrorism that some countries like Israel seem to follow will work is if you kill EVERYONE so that there is no one left to seek revenge for their friends and family. America, thankfully, would not have the stomach for such evil. Fortunately our long standing habit of having McDonalds and Madonna follow shortly on the heels of the Marines will pay big dividends here. Bush has been criticized as being "dumb", but he is a good enough manager to have picked some of the smartest military and foreign policy advisors around. I suspect that if I understand the importance of these "hearts and minds" efforts, then they do to. The Army Corps. of Engineers will probably be building schools with internet connections in Kabul within a year. In 20 or 30 years we will hopefully be complaining that Afghani companies are underselling American industry and that we should increase import tariffs on them. Perhaps some of you will lose your jobs to cheap Afghani programmers that learned to code in some of those soon to be built schools. An American invasion will mean there would be Hell to pay for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but it will probably also be the greatest thing that could happen to the average Afghani.
* Light Damage, in old Strategic Air Command lingo, with Moderate Damage being "target reduced to gravel" and Heavy Damage being defined as "target reduced to dust." Ah, the old innocent days of the 1980s where we did not fear terrorists killing thousands, but only worried about a nuclear holocaust what would mean the total end of all civilization... we had it easy back then.
The article "Limbs of no body" was very illuminating.
I expect, that the United States will soon occupy Afghanistan with ground troops in an attempt to destroy bin Laden's terrorist network. Considering the balkanization of the country and the commitment (and general aggressiveness*) of the American people, I do not expect it to be as impossible as some people suppose. If that is the case then America will also surely rebuild (or perhaps build) Afghani infrastructure and attempt to "reprogram" Afghani culture in the same way it has tended to do to all the nations it occupies (but Japan was done most completely). Perhaps this effort should even be done deliberately to prevent the next generation of Afghanis from growing up with a hatred of the United States combined with a "nothing to lose" attitude. Of course, this Westernization of their nation is probably the chief fear of the Taliban elite who rule most of Afghanistan; as pointed out in Caleb Carr's NY Times article. It is ironic in a way that their desperate attempts to win this "culture war" will likely only hasten their defeat.
I also recommend a visit to: http://www.rawa.org/ for another view of Afghanistan. The movie gallery (with such titles as "Mass Grave of 600 Persons") should only be viewed by those with a strong stomach.
*I do not mean this as an insult, I am an American myself and proud of it... but for all our protests of wanting to make the world a better place, deep down we are a very blood thirsty bunch.
I have my TV set where I can watch it from my computer. I have kept it on most of the time so that if any new information is reported I can stop and watch it. I also have been poking around the internet for the sort of information that is NOT reported on the news. As a result I find that I often am getting information on this crisis from the TV and the internet at the same time. I suppose the next step is just to have a headline news IV.
The most disturbing such internet site I have discovered is:
http://rawasongs.fancymarketing.net/index.html
It is the site of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afganistan. They are a secret group that for quite some time has apparently been covertly videotaping attrocities commited by the Taliban "government" against Afghanis (especially women) and posting them to the internet. Their movie clip galleries have such titles as "Public Execution of a Woman by the Taliban" and "Mass Grave of 600 People." I cannot bear to view some of the videos and I don't recommend it for the faint of heart. The site www.hazara.com is a little bit better done and has some of the same material. The site
www.channel4.com/plus/afghanistan/journey1.html is good, and thankfully is less gruesome. To be "fair" I have tried to look at the Taliban's website; but not too surprisingly, someone seems to have hacked it.
The truth is that after learning more about the Taliban's activities in Afganistan, I would want to get rid of them even w/o the recent attacks. I also think based on researching the opposition groups to the Taliban, that it would be a lot easier to "liberate" Afganistan than many outsiders think; if we can isolate the Taliban from any international support.
The TV news is great; but they just hit the high points, and they all tend to chase the same stories (or sit around and wait for the same press releases). There is a lot that you can only get from such secondary sources as the internet. But then those stories require a lot more filtering of BS and reading between the lines to figure out what is true. Or perhaps TV news requires that as well, and I am just too trusting of it.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 1
Just to remind Slashdotters that everyone in Afghanistan does not support the Taleban, I found this statement on the very disturbing website www.hazara.net while researching the Northern Alliance rebels in Afghanistan:
"Hazara.net condemns the terrorist attacks carried against the innocent civilians in the United States. Our hearts and prayers go out to all those who have been the victim of these tragic events, their families, and everyone in America.
We would like to thank our readers who have sent dozens of e-mails sharing their anger and frustration over the alleged involvement of the Bin Laden group in the attacks on the World Trade Center and other targets. Please note that is an anti-taliban site; for the past several years we have condemned their role in the massacre of Hazaras in Mazar Sharif, Bamyan, and Yakawlang, Afghanistan. We condemn any such act of terror that involves the loss of innocent civilians. Recently the leader of the Northern Alliance - an Alliance that is fighting against the Taliban and Bin Laden aggression, was seriously wounded in a suicide bomber attack. His close aids were killed along with the two Arab suicide bombers.
We condemn such terrorist actions, the Bin Laden group that advocates such action, the Taliban and their Arab masters - the Saudi Royal family that is funding these terrorists.
These groups are responsible for some of the heinous crimes against the Hazara minorities in Afghanistan, the killing of shiite leaders in Pakistan, and now possibly the Americans.
Here is the address of the Taleban mission in NEW YORK .
Afghan Taleban Mission
55-16 Main Street Suite #1d
Flushing, NY 11355
718-359-0457 "
I have no doubt what they hoped when they included the Taleban's address. I tried to look at the Taleban's website (www.taleban.com/) as well, but someone seems to have hacked it.
Re:If we constructed Rational Governments...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Not to nitpick, but the CIA did NOT fund Bin Laden. They were on the same side during the Afgani struggle against the Soviets, but both the CIA and Bin Laden's organization both insist that the CIA never funded or trained him.
Considering that at that time Bin Laden was a billionaire who was probably worth more money that the entire annual budget of the CIA, I tend to think that they are both right in saying that the CIA never gave him any money. Any amount of money that the CIA could have funneled him would have been pocket change compared to what he was spending out of his own funds. Plus he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would take a "hand out" from the US gov't.
According to a GeoStrategyDirect.com intelligence newsletter published in May, bin Laden's organization is believed by Saudi and Russian intel agencies to have as many as 20 tactical nuclear devices that were stolen from Russian forces by Chechen rebels.
A challenge to elite hackers
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Someone needs to find where bin Ladin's money is, and transfer it to the Red Cross's Disaster Relief Fund.
Use Face Recognition in Airports?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
What can we do to make air travel safer?
Should we install cameras and run face recognition software with data on known terrorists to analyze all passengers boarding aircraft?
If the public is informed that this will be done, and no one forces you to travel by airlines (it is an elective activity and a private business transaction) then does this go too far in infringing on privacy?
If by "the same category" you mean "people who aren't allowed to give blood," then I assure you that the category is much larger than the items listed. There is a long list of things that will get you disqualified from giving blood, including age, weight, many activities, travel history, and a lot of medical conditions... so you have a lot of company in that category.
As far as being compared with expired milk. Do you have something against expired milk? Notice I said "milk just past it's expiration date" NOT spoiled milk. Sure, recently expired milk may be at a higher risk of being spoiled, but most milk just past it's expiration date is still safe and palatable if it has been properly refirigerated. Did you ever think that your preconcieved notions about expired milk (probably based on ignorance and a small percentage of the milk population that does spoil on or before its expriation date) might be hurtful to the majority of recently expired milk that is quite capable of still contributing to the world's food and beverage needs? I'm sure that plenty of the recently expired milk that you have hatefully thrown in the trash was far less virulant than any cookie dropped on the floor or sandwich made without disinfecting your hands. And if some of your milk HAS spoiled on or very shortly after its expriation date, have you ever stopped to consider that it might not be the milk's fault... that perhaps you did not keep your referigerator at a low enough temperature or perhaps you were not prompt enough in returning the milk to the rerigerator after using it.
BTW, why did you put whoremongers in quotes? I suspect that is some other form of hate speech targeted against escort service and massage parlour customers around the world by your narrow minded philosphy that is still stuck in its outdated thinking that seeks to oppress people based on their business/sexual relationships.
At times like this, it is also painful that the American Red Cross won't allow anyone who had spent 6 months in Europe to give blood.
Or anyone who has used non-perscription intravenous drugs. Or has purchased the services of a call girl. Or anyone who has slept with such a person.
But unfortunately it is necessarly to exclude groups who are at high risk to blood-borne pathogens in order to protect the quality of the blood supply (the blood is tested, but no test is 100% accurate).
Yes they "discriminate," but it is in the classic definition of the word. The way you discriminate when you refuse to buy milk that is just past it's expiration date, even though it is entirely possible that the milk hasn't really spoiled yet. Maybe you believe that the Red Cross hates gay men and druggies and whoremongers... do you also believe that they hate people who vacation in Europe? What the #@!! do you want, a life where there are no unfortunate consequences to your decisions? A perfectly fair world?
Fortunately all over the nation people who can donate blood are lining up by the thousands to do so. If you cannot donate blood, perhaps you could at least donate money or time.
BTW, I would also say that at times like this it is a shame we don't have a good, mass produced blood substitute yet.
According to a GeoStrategyDirect.com intelligence newsletter published in May, bin Laden's organization is belived to have as many as 20 tactical nuclear devices stolen from Russian forces by Chechen rebels. If this is true, then the recent terror attacks could have been much worse. If bin Laden does have these nukes and plans on using them as an "insurance policy" then it could explain why he would think he could make such an alleged attack with impunity.
The following text is from a WorldNetDaily news article on May 11th of this year.
"Russian intelligence sources who are fighting bin Laden members in Chechnya believe [he] has a handful of tactical nuclear weapons," said the report. "Arab intelligence sources say the Al Qaida head has as many as 20 weapons."
Al Qaida is the name of the terrorist group bin Laden leads.
The report says "both sides agree" that the Saudi terrorist managed to acquire his weapons by supporting the Chechen cause with money and volunteers, in exchange for nuclear materials and technology.
"All the activities of Osama bin Laden are under the tight control of the Taliban," Usman Shaharyar, a Taliban foreign ministry official, told The Associated Press.
www.bergen.com/morenews/osama25200106248.htm
From a newspaper article on June 25th.
The Taliban seems to belive that bin Laden did not, and would not have had the capability to, perform these terrorist attacks. Are they right? Does bin Laden have them fooled? Are they willing accomplises? Does bin Laden's popularity with the Afgani people cause the Taliban to belive that moving against him would collapse their fragile hold on the country? I'm sure we'll find out more as the investigation continues.
If it turns out, as it is now being reported, that "box cutter" knives were the weapons used to take control of the plane then the sophistication needed to have pulled this coordinated terror attack would not have been as high as originally thought*. It would, however, have required considerable "out of the box" thinking by the terrorists. It seems the most dangerous weapon in the terrorist's arsenal is creativity.
* It would still almost certainly have required the terrorists themselves to be able to pilot the aircraft, and that would certainly have required some sophisticated training; but without the need to smuggle weapons on board all the planes simultaneously, the logistics of this act become MUCH simpler.
I thought we had the 2nd Amendment because the Founding Fathers thought that a society where political AND military power were in the hands of the people would be far more stable and long lived than one where the people only had political power and could be "over ruled" by force at any time.
"No "civilized" country should sell any weapon to anyone without democratic legitimisation; even better, all international weapon trading should be simply forbidden, including hand guns"
Current news reports suggest that the weapons used in the hijackings was "box cutter" style razor blade knives. What now, a U.N. call to ban all knives? Don't forget to get rid of ice-picks, screwdrivers, awls, leather-punches, chisles, etc. Then you would also have to ban flint and obsidian rocks, which could be converted into knives!
Also, as bad as this is don't forget that the number 1 cause of death in the last century was governments murdering their own citizens (roughly 170million dead, primarily in Russia, German, China, East Europe, Indochina, and Sub-sahara Africa). A world where weapons were only in the hands of governments would be far more dangerous place than even a world where weapons were easily available to every thug and would-be revolutionary.
I agree that having a reasonable percentage of the good, upstanding citizens (permit holders must pass an FBI check, so it is safe to say that most all of them fit in the "good, upstanding" category) armed is a great deterrent to crime.
But there needs to be more stringent requirements for carrying on an airplane. A single stray round in the wrong place in an airliner at altitude could kill everyone on the plane. Even FBI agents and other law enforcement are not permitted to carry firearms on aircraft for this reason, unless they have passed an FAA course on the use of firearms in aircraft*.
I would, however, feel a lot more comfortable on aircraft if Concealed Carry Permit holders who had also passed the FAA's course could be allowed to carry firearms on aircraft. I doubt it will ever happen, but if it did then it would GREATLY complicate the plans of any hijackers. If you don't belive this then as a mental excersize try planning a hijacking in your imagination, then try to do the same thing assuming that an unkown percentage of the passengers will be armed and trained in CQB on aircraft.
Of course, no amount of security proceedures (even arming and training every other passenger and every crewman on the plane or some magic device which could prevent ANY weapon, even a ball point pen, from being brought on board) short of completely redesigning air travel would be able to prevent something like this from being repeated. At the very least a sufficiently determined terrorist group could find an almost empty flight and put more terrorists onboard than other passengers, or even insert their members as part of the flight crew. I think the best thing we can do is completely roll up the organization(s) that did this and their accomplises so that for the next genration or two any rational terrorist (and yes, most can be modeled as rational) would determine that such an act would be counter-productive to his/her cause.
* Even then, they must be on duty with orders at the time. And the pilot in command of the aircraft can still prohibit them from bringing firearms on board; which I think is proper, since the pilot is the ultimate authority on the airplane.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
on
Our New Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"As for the US's retaliation, I think it should be swift and decisive. I think there should be a battery of cruise missles launched at every known, suspected or rumored terrorist hangout, EVERYWHERE in the world."
Yes, our retaliation must be decisive (and complete) to make sure that this sort of thing does not become more common. But it doesn't have to be swift. We must make sure that we completely roll up whatever organization is responsible and anyone who was an accomplis. It is far more important to get this right and do it completely than it is to be quick and do a half@$$ed job that doesn't get all the terrorists or gets the wrong people. No one must doubt that we got the right people and that we got them all. That will take time, but as the saying goes, "revenge is a dish best served cold." This is as true in the world of intel/counterintel as it is in fiction. But the time it takes should be because of we are methodical, not because we fail to commit the proper resources to do the job.
If The United States shows signs of weakness after this attack, then they will become far more common. If we pursue those who commited this act, and their accomplicies, and see that Justice is done in a very public fashion, then it will reduce the occurance of such attacks in the future. There will always be some fanatics willing to pay any price; but if those around them are terrified of us enough to not even think of being an accomplis in terrorism, then those fanatics will have a difficult time carrying out their activities. If we destroy the organization(s) responsible for these acts, then any rational leader (and most terririst leaders can actually be considered rational for such purposes) will know that carrying out such an attack is counter-productive.
A proper response to this terrorist attack can greatly reduce the likelihood of future attacks for at least one, and possibly two generations. This "proper response" will likely by unpleasant and evil. Failure to make that response, showing weakness to the world, would be a far greater evil because the message it would send to terror groups and opposing forces would undoubtably lead to more and possibly even bigger attacks.
As an American, I suggest that any foriegners that wish to know the true character of my country could do far worse than to watch how we will respond to this horrible occurance.
You will no doubt see both the best and the worst of human nature.
I am betting that there will be far more "best" than "worst," but either way it will surely be illuminating.
Slashdot Mirror
I don not claim that this is the best way to win a war in Afghanistan. I do not even claim it will be the way we will use. But I submit that it would work and therefore it disproves your assertion that war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. For further disproof, you can look at the Russians who with a tax base smaller than New York City and using conscript troops have made tremendous gains against similar opponents in similar terrain in Chechnya.
1. Land airborne troops in areas controlled by the Northern Alliance (who has promised 15,000 fighters to assist us) to secure (and if neccessary build) airfields.
2. Bring in the 10th Mountain and the Interim Brigade Combat Team (they aren't supposed to be ready for deployment until Dec., tough they go as they are) and secure the valleys of Anti-Taliban groups (the Hazaras and many others will be glad to have us).
3. Start feeding and giving medical care to Afghans whose tribe cooperates with the U.S. Forces. Bring in the Corps. of Engineers to build them hospitals and schools and wells and dams. When other tribal leaders see that the U.S. will protect them from the Taliban and reward them with food, medical care, and infrastructure then more of the "fence sitters" will ask us to protect them. If it is true that "no nation is more than 3 meals away from a revolution" then most of Afghanistan has been due for a revolution for some time... but they have no means or strength to do so.
Just by dealing with the tribes that oppose the Taliban and will almost certainly welcome our attempts to depose them we can probably secure 50 to 60% of the nation. The Pashtoon (sp?) tribe and maybe a few others will not welcome us in, and will have to be dealt with by force; but that leave us with only about 6 to 8 million people to subdue by force, half of whom are "useless" (to the Taliban) women. How do you handle the portion of the country that won't welcome us in?
4. Mass troops near the 1st village. Tell the local leaders that if they join us we will offer them protection and aid, if they oppose us we will destroy the entire village. One of two things will happen. First, the rest of the tribe can gather their troops to oppose us en-masse... which is exactly the kind of target we are used to fighting, in which case we can destroy their resistance in one swoop. Or they can each try to defend their own little valleys and villages. In which case we can concentrate our forces against them one at a time.
5. If they join, then move to the next village. If they do not, then roll into the village. Shoot anyone who resists. Evict everyone from the village. Shoot anyone who resists. Herd the people into a holding area. Bring in the bulldozers and destroy every building and every wall in the village. Bring in the cropdusters and spray-trucks and sow the soil with salt (or actually some modern defoiliant that we have the technology to neutralize after the war). Kill all their livestock. We have only killed the people who fought, but we have suddenly turned the entire village into starving refugees. Let them flee to the next town.
6. Leave the area. There is no reason to hold the ground, since it is now worthless.
7. Show up at the next village and repeat. Eventually villages will start to capitualte and be rewarded, or we will get very good at demolishing villages. I would hate it if we had to resort to this level of warfare for a protracted period of time, but the Russians in Chechnya show that it can be done successfully. If they can do it successfully then so can we.
This strategy relies heavily on both the carrot and the stick. A lot of tribes will side with us immediately because the Taliban has been systematically oppressing and exterminating them. Others who are politically neutral will join us when they see that they will be rewarded and protected form the Taliban (and we make it clear that unlike the Soviets we are NOT here to stay... not too difficult considering America's existing reputation of having a short attention span). The stick is reserved only for the tribes who will not join, therby reducing the need for combat.
It is unlikely that the enemy will be dumb enough to present us with a massed target to wipe out, so the key to the opperation becomes security. Defense of allied tribes will be along their borders, which tend to be natural defensive lines, and with the aid of the allied tribe. By destroying the villages completely (so that no stone sits on any other) we do not need to spread our troops out to cover "conquered" territory in the opposing tribes areas; concentration of forces will enhance security during offensive opperations.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda will fight back by trying to commit more terrorist attacks in the U.S. or by attacking supporting units in "secure" areas. There is only so much that we can do to prevent such things, but even if we lose thousands of troops to such terror or guerilla attacks, what is that compared to the likelihood that they will commit more WTC style attacks... or worse use chemcial or biological terrorist weapons. I think managing the refugees (who would provide "cover" for the movement of terrorists) and aerial recon even over "secure" areas will be needed to reduce (but not eliminate) such attacks on "rear" units.
This is NOT Vietnam. There are no Soviets or ChiComs that will help the Taliban. The corrupt government in place is NOT a colonial relic that we are allied with, they are the enemy. Lastly, this will not be a limited action where we "support" someone else's fight. It will be a classic use force and destruction to compel the tribal leaders to surrender (or else watch as their tribes are reduced to a scattered band of refugees, combined with rewards for those who do collaborate.
8. When the opposing tribes surrender, immediately begin providing them with food and aid for all the refugees we created. Build them new villages.
9. Build them a national infrastructure during the occupation so that afterwards they can become a part of the "community of free nations"
10. Arrange to maintain airbases there with our new allies that will come in handy if China gets expansionist.
11. Complain that Afghani companies are underselling American Industry and that cheap Afghani programmers who learned to code in the schools we built are now stealing jobs from American programmers.
We WILL have to suffer through more terrorist attacks both there and amoung the support units "in country." But we will suffer far more casualties if we give them time to grow bigger and show all the other anti-U.S. groups the world that they can get away with attacking us.
"Where is this world heading?"
To hell... in a handbasket.
I'm sorry, were you expecting some other destination?
"As another poster noted, you could also compare this area to be under Nazi control and heavily populated by the Jewish. Still want to send in the troups?"
= 19747 ). A well designed bioweapon or tactical nuclear attack could kill hundreds of thousands... perhaps even millions and paralyze our infrastructure. As bad as Sept. 11th was, I can actually come up with very realistic scenarios that are MUCH worse (though I will not list them so as not to give anyone ideas). What then are 10,000 casualties compared to that? And, as I said, I do not expect it to take that many.
Yes... even more so. Notice I did NOT say we roll over Afghanistan and slaughter its occupants, or nuke it to rubble*. I am not even saying that I think we should occupy the country (though I do) I said we will do so. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "liberate" instead of occupy, considering the oppressive nature of the Taliban (which goes along with your Nazi/Jewish analogy).
As for the luck of the Russians, don't forget that the Afghans had outside support and Bush is no doubt attempting to isolate the Taliban politically to make sure that doesn't happen to us. Also, I expect that occupation of Afghanistan to be easier than most people suspect; perhaps more akin to invading Italy in WW2 than if we had invaded Japan (the average Afghani does NOT worship the Taliban elite, and there are a lot of groups that will be very happy to see them deposed). The hardest part, I expect, will not be occupying the country but rather preventing extremist terrorists (who could blend with refugees) from either escaping the country or committing terrorism against support units. This is due to the balkanization of the country, the fact that the Taliban elite hoard the nations wealth while the rest starve, and the fact that a lot of the tribal leaders supporting the Taliban do so because it was profitable or they were strong armed (2 conditions that will become increasingly unprofitable and unhealthy if we invade). Also, note the success of the Russians in Chechnya. If the broke, corrupt, and conscripted Russians can beat back the Chechens in similar terrain despite a complete lack of "hearts and minds" psy-op work; then we should be able to do the same or better with our better equipped professional force.
But what if we can't. What if, as you suppose, it will take 10,000 U.S. casualties. What is that? Another Sept. 11th or two? We will probably experience that even if we act now with all dispatch to eliminate this threat. If we allow it to grow, then what can we expect, and how many civil liberties would we wind up giving away if we took a defensive approach to security. The CIA believes that it has seen evidence in satellite imagery of bin Laden testing the dispersion of chemical or biological weapons on animals (though I wonder if that is just the effects of drought and starvation). The Saudi and Russian intel agencies supposedly fear that he has suitcase nukes stolen from Russia ( www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID
But just killing this generation of terrorists will not be enough, because their younger brothers and children will just take their place in a few years... unless we can manage to "infect" their next generation with our memes. We must give them a reason to identify with us, and also give them something to lose if they oppose us. They need to be wanting to buy Britney Spears CDs instead of strapping Semtex to themselves and trying to sneak into the American airbase (well, we have them in Japan and even Cuba). The only way the "shoot some of the population when they cause trouble" solution to terrorism that some countries like Israel seem to follow will work is if you kill EVERYONE so that there is no one left to seek revenge for their friends and family. America, thankfully, would not have the stomach for such evil. Fortunately our long standing habit of having McDonalds and Madonna follow shortly on the heels of the Marines will pay big dividends here. Bush has been criticized as being "dumb", but he is a good enough manager to have picked some of the smartest military and foreign policy advisors around. I suspect that if I understand the importance of these "hearts and minds" efforts, then they do to. The Army Corps. of Engineers will probably be building schools with internet connections in Kabul within a year. In 20 or 30 years we will hopefully be complaining that Afghani companies are underselling American industry and that we should increase import tariffs on them. Perhaps some of you will lose your jobs to cheap Afghani programmers that learned to code in some of those soon to be built schools. An American invasion will mean there would be Hell to pay for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but it will probably also be the greatest thing that could happen to the average Afghani.
* Light Damage, in old Strategic Air Command lingo, with Moderate Damage being "target reduced to gravel" and Heavy Damage being defined as "target reduced to dust." Ah, the old innocent days of the 1980s where we did not fear terrorists killing thousands, but only worried about a nuclear holocaust what would mean the total end of all civilization... we had it easy back then.
The article "Limbs of no body" was very illuminating.
I expect, that the United States will soon occupy Afghanistan with ground troops in an attempt to destroy bin Laden's terrorist network. Considering the balkanization of the country and the commitment (and general aggressiveness*) of the American people, I do not expect it to be as impossible as some people suppose. If that is the case then America will also surely rebuild (or perhaps build) Afghani infrastructure and attempt to "reprogram" Afghani culture in the same way it has tended to do to all the nations it occupies (but Japan was done most completely). Perhaps this effort should even be done deliberately to prevent the next generation of Afghanis from growing up with a hatred of the United States combined with a "nothing to lose" attitude. Of course, this Westernization of their nation is probably the chief fear of the Taliban elite who rule most of Afghanistan; as pointed out in Caleb Carr's NY Times article. It is ironic in a way that their desperate attempts to win this "culture war" will likely only hasten their defeat.
I also recommend a visit to: http://www.rawa.org/ for another view of Afghanistan. The movie gallery (with such titles as "Mass Grave of 600 Persons") should only be viewed by those with a strong stomach.
*I do not mean this as an insult, I am an American myself and proud of it... but for all our protests of wanting to make the world a better place, deep down we are a very blood thirsty bunch.
sorry, www.hazara.net instead of .com
I have my TV set where I can watch it from my computer. I have kept it on most of the time so that if any new information is reported I can stop and watch it. I also have been poking around the internet for the sort of information that is NOT reported on the news. As a result I find that I often am getting information on this crisis from the TV and the internet at the same time. I suppose the next step is just to have a headline news IV.
The most disturbing such internet site I have discovered is:
http://rawasongs.fancymarketing.net/index.html
It is the site of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afganistan. They are a secret group that for quite some time has apparently been covertly videotaping attrocities commited by the Taliban "government" against Afghanis (especially women) and posting them to the internet. Their movie clip galleries have such titles as "Public Execution of a Woman by the Taliban" and "Mass Grave of 600 People." I cannot bear to view some of the videos and I don't recommend it for the faint of heart. The site www.hazara.com is a little bit better done and has some of the same material. The site
www.channel4.com/plus/afghanistan/journey1.html is good, and thankfully is less gruesome. To be "fair" I have tried to look at the Taliban's website; but not too surprisingly, someone seems to have hacked it.
The truth is that after learning more about the Taliban's activities in Afganistan, I would want to get rid of them even w/o the recent attacks. I also think based on researching the opposition groups to the Taliban, that it would be a lot easier to "liberate" Afganistan than many outsiders think; if we can isolate the Taliban from any international support.
The TV news is great; but they just hit the high points, and they all tend to chase the same stories (or sit around and wait for the same press releases). There is a lot that you can only get from such secondary sources as the internet. But then those stories require a lot more filtering of BS and reading between the lines to figure out what is true. Or perhaps TV news requires that as well, and I am just too trusting of it.
Sorry, try
I D= 19747
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_
Just to remind Slashdotters that everyone in Afghanistan does not support the Taleban, I found this statement on the very disturbing website www.hazara.net while researching the Northern Alliance rebels in Afghanistan:
"Hazara.net condemns the terrorist attacks carried against the innocent civilians in the United States. Our hearts and prayers go out to all those who have been the victim of these tragic events, their families, and everyone in America.
We would like to thank our readers who have sent dozens of e-mails sharing their anger and frustration over the alleged involvement of the Bin Laden group in the attacks on the World Trade Center and other targets. Please note that is an anti-taliban site; for the past several years we have condemned their role in the massacre of Hazaras in Mazar Sharif, Bamyan, and Yakawlang, Afghanistan. We condemn any such act of terror that involves the loss of innocent civilians. Recently the leader of the Northern Alliance - an Alliance that is fighting against the Taliban and Bin Laden aggression, was seriously wounded in a suicide bomber attack. His close aids were killed along with the two Arab suicide bombers.
We condemn such terrorist actions, the Bin Laden group that advocates such action, the Taliban and their Arab masters - the Saudi Royal family that is funding these terrorists.
These groups are responsible for some of the heinous crimes against the Hazara minorities in Afghanistan, the killing of shiite leaders in Pakistan, and now possibly the Americans.
Here is the address of the Taleban mission in NEW YORK .
Afghan Taleban Mission
55-16 Main Street Suite #1d
Flushing, NY 11355
718-359-0457 "
I have no doubt what they hoped when they included the Taleban's address. I tried to look at the Taleban's website (www.taleban.com/) as well, but someone seems to have hacked it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=19747
Discusses the claim by some that bin Laden has such "suitcase nukes."
Then you aren't going to like this...
I D= 22611
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_
Not to nitpick, but the CIA did NOT fund Bin Laden. They were on the same side during the Afgani struggle against the Soviets, but both the CIA and Bin Laden's organization both insist that the CIA never funded or trained him.
Considering that at that time Bin Laden was a billionaire who was probably worth more money that the entire annual budget of the CIA, I tend to think that they are both right in saying that the CIA never gave him any money. Any amount of money that the CIA could have funneled him would have been pocket change compared to what he was spending out of his own funds. Plus he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would take a "hand out" from the US gov't.
They may already have nukes.
I D= 22611
According to a GeoStrategyDirect.com intelligence newsletter published in May, bin Laden's organization is believed by Saudi and Russian intel agencies to have as many as 20 tactical nuclear devices that were stolen from Russian forces by Chechen rebels.
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_
Someone needs to find where bin Ladin's money is, and transfer it to the Red Cross's Disaster Relief Fund.
What can we do to make air travel safer?
Should we install cameras and run face recognition software with data on known terrorists to analyze all passengers boarding aircraft?
If the public is informed that this will be done, and no one forces you to travel by airlines (it is an elective activity and a private business transaction) then does this go too far in infringing on privacy?
Would this have any benifits, anyway?
If by "the same category" you mean "people who aren't allowed to give blood," then I assure you that the category is much larger than the items listed. There is a long list of things that will get you disqualified from giving blood, including age, weight, many activities, travel history, and a lot of medical conditions... so you have a lot of company in that category.
As far as being compared with expired milk. Do you have something against expired milk? Notice I said "milk just past it's expiration date" NOT spoiled milk. Sure, recently expired milk may be at a higher risk of being spoiled, but most milk just past it's expiration date is still safe and palatable if it has been properly refirigerated. Did you ever think that your preconcieved notions about expired milk (probably based on ignorance and a small percentage of the milk population that does spoil on or before its expriation date) might be hurtful to the majority of recently expired milk that is quite capable of still contributing to the world's food and beverage needs? I'm sure that plenty of the recently expired milk that you have hatefully thrown in the trash was far less virulant than any cookie dropped on the floor or sandwich made without disinfecting your hands. And if some of your milk HAS spoiled on or very shortly after its expriation date, have you ever stopped to consider that it might not be the milk's fault... that perhaps you did not keep your referigerator at a low enough temperature or perhaps you were not prompt enough in returning the milk to the rerigerator after using it.
BTW, why did you put whoremongers in quotes? I suspect that is some other form of hate speech targeted against escort service and massage parlour customers around the world by your narrow minded philosphy that is still stuck in its outdated thinking that seeks to oppress people based on their business/sexual relationships.
At times like this, it is also painful that the American Red Cross won't allow anyone who had spent 6 months in Europe to give blood.
Or anyone who has used non-perscription intravenous drugs. Or has purchased the services of a call girl. Or anyone who has slept with such a person.
But unfortunately it is necessarly to exclude groups who are at high risk to blood-borne pathogens in order to protect the quality of the blood supply (the blood is tested, but no test is 100% accurate).
Yes they "discriminate," but it is in the classic definition of the word. The way you discriminate when you refuse to buy milk that is just past it's expiration date, even though it is entirely possible that the milk hasn't really spoiled yet. Maybe you believe that the Red Cross hates gay men and druggies and whoremongers... do you also believe that they hate people who vacation in Europe? What the #@!! do you want, a life where there are no unfortunate consequences to your decisions? A perfectly fair world?
Fortunately all over the nation people who can donate blood are lining up by the thousands to do so. If you cannot donate blood, perhaps you could at least donate money or time.
BTW, I would also say that at times like this it is a shame we don't have a good, mass produced blood substitute yet.
According to a GeoStrategyDirect.com intelligence newsletter published in May, bin Laden's organization is belived to have as many as 20 tactical nuclear devices stolen from Russian forces by Chechen rebels. If this is true, then the recent terror attacks could have been much worse. If bin Laden does have these nukes and plans on using them as an "insurance policy" then it could explain why he would think he could make such an alleged attack with impunity.
I D= 22611
d en
The following text is from a WorldNetDaily news article on May 11th of this year.
"Russian intelligence sources who are fighting bin Laden members in Chechnya believe [he] has a handful of tactical nuclear weapons," said the report. "Arab intelligence sources say the Al Qaida head has as many as 20 weapons."
Al Qaida is the name of the terrorist group bin Laden leads.
The report says "both sides agree" that the Saudi terrorist managed to acquire his weapons by supporting the Chechen cause with money and volunteers, in exchange for nuclear materials and technology.
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_
To view a supposed bin Laden recruitment video, go to:
www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/21/video.binla
"All the activities of Osama bin Laden are under the tight control of the Taliban," Usman Shaharyar, a Taliban foreign ministry official, told The Associated Press.
www.bergen.com/morenews/osama25200106248.htm
From a newspaper article on June 25th.
The Taliban seems to belive that bin Laden did not, and would not have had the capability to, perform these terrorist attacks. Are they right? Does bin Laden have them fooled? Are they willing accomplises? Does bin Laden's popularity with the Afgani people cause the Taliban to belive that moving against him would collapse their fragile hold on the country? I'm sure we'll find out more as the investigation continues.
If it turns out, as it is now being reported, that "box cutter" knives were the weapons used to take control of the plane then the sophistication needed to have pulled this coordinated terror attack would not have been as high as originally thought*. It would, however, have required considerable "out of the box" thinking by the terrorists. It seems the most dangerous weapon in the terrorist's arsenal is creativity.
* It would still almost certainly have required the terrorists themselves to be able to pilot the aircraft, and that would certainly have required some sophisticated training; but without the need to smuggle weapons on board all the planes simultaneously, the logistics of this act become MUCH simpler.
I thought we had the 2nd Amendment because the Founding Fathers thought that a society where political AND military power were in the hands of the people would be far more stable and long lived than one where the people only had political power and could be "over ruled" by force at any time.
"No "civilized" country should sell any weapon to anyone without democratic legitimisation; even better, all international weapon trading should be simply forbidden, including hand guns"
Current news reports suggest that the weapons used in the hijackings was "box cutter" style razor blade knives. What now, a U.N. call to ban all knives? Don't forget to get rid of ice-picks, screwdrivers, awls, leather-punches, chisles, etc. Then you would also have to ban flint and obsidian rocks, which could be converted into knives!
Also, as bad as this is don't forget that the number 1 cause of death in the last century was governments murdering their own citizens (roughly 170million dead, primarily in Russia, German, China, East Europe, Indochina, and Sub-sahara Africa). A world where weapons were only in the hands of governments would be far more dangerous place than even a world where weapons were easily available to every thug and would-be revolutionary.
I agree that having a reasonable percentage of the good, upstanding citizens (permit holders must pass an FBI check, so it is safe to say that most all of them fit in the "good, upstanding" category) armed is a great deterrent to crime.
But there needs to be more stringent requirements for carrying on an airplane. A single stray round in the wrong place in an airliner at altitude could kill everyone on the plane. Even FBI agents and other law enforcement are not permitted to carry firearms on aircraft for this reason, unless they have passed an FAA course on the use of firearms in aircraft*.
I would, however, feel a lot more comfortable on aircraft if Concealed Carry Permit holders who had also passed the FAA's course could be allowed to carry firearms on aircraft. I doubt it will ever happen, but if it did then it would GREATLY complicate the plans of any hijackers. If you don't belive this then as a mental excersize try planning a hijacking in your imagination, then try to do the same thing assuming that an unkown percentage of the passengers will be armed and trained in CQB on aircraft.
Of course, no amount of security proceedures (even arming and training every other passenger and every crewman on the plane or some magic device which could prevent ANY weapon, even a ball point pen, from being brought on board) short of completely redesigning air travel would be able to prevent something like this from being repeated. At the very least a sufficiently determined terrorist group could find an almost empty flight and put more terrorists onboard than other passengers, or even insert their members as part of the flight crew. I think the best thing we can do is completely roll up the organization(s) that did this and their accomplises so that for the next genration or two any rational terrorist (and yes, most can be modeled as rational) would determine that such an act would be counter-productive to his/her cause.
* Even then, they must be on duty with orders at the time. And the pilot in command of the aircraft can still prohibit them from bringing firearms on board; which I think is proper, since the pilot is the ultimate authority on the airplane.
"As for the US's retaliation, I think it should be swift and decisive. I think there should be a battery of cruise missles launched at every known, suspected or rumored terrorist hangout, EVERYWHERE in the world."
Yes, our retaliation must be decisive (and complete) to make sure that this sort of thing does not become more common. But it doesn't have to be swift. We must make sure that we completely roll up whatever organization is responsible and anyone who was an accomplis. It is far more important to get this right and do it completely than it is to be quick and do a half@$$ed job that doesn't get all the terrorists or gets the wrong people. No one must doubt that we got the right people and that we got them all. That will take time, but as the saying goes, "revenge is a dish best served cold." This is as true in the world of intel/counterintel as it is in fiction. But the time it takes should be because of we are methodical, not because we fail to commit the proper resources to do the job.
Retaliation will lead to more deaths.
But lack of retaliation will lead to far more.
If The United States shows signs of weakness after this attack, then they will become far more common. If we pursue those who commited this act, and their accomplicies, and see that Justice is done in a very public fashion, then it will reduce the occurance of such attacks in the future. There will always be some fanatics willing to pay any price; but if those around them are terrified of us enough to not even think of being an accomplis in terrorism, then those fanatics will have a difficult time carrying out their activities. If we destroy the organization(s) responsible for these acts, then any rational leader (and most terririst leaders can actually be considered rational for such purposes) will know that carrying out such an attack is counter-productive.
A proper response to this terrorist attack can greatly reduce the likelihood of future attacks for at least one, and possibly two generations. This "proper response" will likely by unpleasant and evil. Failure to make that response, showing weakness to the world, would be a far greater evil because the message it would send to terror groups and opposing forces would undoubtably lead to more and possibly even bigger attacks.
He didn't say anything. FDR was dead by then.
The bombadier of the Enola Gay supposedly said "My God, what have we done."
As an American, I suggest that any foriegners that wish to know the true character of my country could do far worse than to watch how we will respond to this horrible occurance.
You will no doubt see both the best and the worst of human nature.
I am betting that there will be far more "best" than "worst," but either way it will surely be illuminating.