Post #15,009
10/24/01 5:14:32 PM
|
Human Shields, Information Warfare
The US now says the Taliban are dispersing its military assets (strikes are going against single tanks and planes, rather than clusters), and are moving military assets into civilian locations. The US has communications capabilities for reaching Afghan civilians, including radio and leaflets. My suggestion would be to advise the Afghan population of what is being done by the Afghan government (or lead thugs, if you will), and that in relatively short order, such targets may be considered fair targets. To the extent possible, the US should provide for transit and shelter for displaced refugees. Today's news reports are that 85% of the population of Kandehar has fled the city. The Taliban are once again trying to hijack the US, in this case, public opinion in the United States and elsewhere, by putting the Afghan population at risk to further the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden. I agree with your point that civilian casualties should be minimized. It's a no-brainer from a military and diplomatic perspective given this mission. It should be clear though, as I said before, that the accounting for these casualties must lie with the Taliban. Again, from the historical perspective, the record of Afghans against themselves is far worse -- shellings of Kabul during the civil war were indiscriminate and heavy. The US need not be limited to aerial attacks -- though this is both a safe (to our forces) and relatively effective way of striking at targets. Where necessary, commando raids may be utilized. Our experience in Somalia however shows that such raids in urban areas can be exceedingly risky to both the strike force and local populations, and may in fact put civilian populations at far higher risk than bomber missions. This variable is largely a function of the local population's own response. I think your broader message is this: the US must accomplish its military goals without poisoning local, regional, and world opinion. At the strategic level I agree. At the tactical level, I reject your proposal, it is too limiting. It should also be realized that much of the outcry against US actions is likely traceable to three sources: - Regional endemic antipathy toward the US.
- Protests fomented at the direct or indirect initiative of ObL and Al Qaeda.
- Governments insecure of their own weak mandate or legitimacy promoting a public face to quiet their own populations.
This isn't to say that the protests aren't a real issue. It does suggest that their intensity and existence have little to do with the actual facts on the ground in Afghanistan. A corrolary is that managing the news stream about the war will be as significant as the ground action itself. This doesn't mean restricting access to information -- the US gains credibility by admitting its successes (preferably by understating them) and its failures, in an early, timely fashion. The Taliban's own credibilty is falling rapidly among unbiased observers in the light of internal contradictions, unsupported allegations, and clear distortions of the record. What is key, however, is that the US ensure that there is fair, free, and unbiased presentation of its record within the Middle East region. Al Jazeer Television is one clear source. I disagree with attempts by the Bush Administration to attempt to muzzle this source. I feel the station would be far more useful if it's seen to broadcast both the Taliban/Al Qaeda perspective, and a US/Alliance story. Seen side-by-side, truth generally outshines lies. Our own experience with IWETHEY -- from IWE through ezBoard and zIWE, as well as other online fora -- should show this. Yes, there are extremeists (shills), but the general public ain't as stupid as you fear. --
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #15,012
10/24/01 5:49:05 PM
|
Is there reason to believe US means to stifle al-Jazeera?
If so, I missed that.
A recent report (PBS somewhere) portrayed a-J. as (already) having a mandate of ~~ presenting 'balanced' views. (Let's acknowledge that that is always arguable, at best.)
Hasn't a-J. already presented videos of US POV (maybe even : Powell hisself? IIRC, and I'm not sure that I do).
What seems clear in any event: al-J. is the *ONLY* mouthpiece listened to er religiously by: most all of the very folk who need the Propaganda War deciphered - and this IS That-kind, more than any other kind of 'war' IMhO.
A.
|
Post #15,018
10/24/01 6:29:38 PM
|
Yes
Along with free press throughout the known universe.
Frankly, the attempts to stifle press are quite disturbing. A la Bill Mahr and The Onion.
--
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #15,021
10/24/01 6:45:02 PM
|
No less disturbing, for being so utterly unsurprising :[
|
Post #15,022
10/24/01 6:45:52 PM
|
What?
A la Bill Mahr and The Onion.
And those are?
Haven't heard anything about them.
I've heard a lot about Mahr's stupid comments "That were misunderstood", but haven't heard of that.
Addison
|
Post #15,026
10/24/01 7:21:55 PM
|
Well.. both are still in bizness
[link|http://www.theonion.com/onion3738/privileged_children.html|Onion's Documentary on the Protagonists]
And Mahr.. is still around. Sears bailed (at least initially, dunno about now) as sponsor + some other Horrified Sponsor for Liberty and Free Speech - whose name I forget. For a couple days the only 'sponsor' was yep: CD-Sellers a la late-night Tee Vee. ABC at least kept the show on air, whatever the sponsorless period did to bottom line.
I forget where Onion transgressed the Authorized Post-9/11 Speech Rules. I recall hearing its chief honcho interviewed on NPR, at the time - but not what Bad Thing he had done. (Didn't expect to hear about it on ABCMSNBCCBS, now did we?)
HTH.
A.
|
Post #15,063
10/24/01 10:09:00 PM
|
Mahr was publicly censured, Onion commented on it
Note that "censured" != "censored". One is a chastisement, the other a muzzling.
WH Press scty said words to the effect that "you can't say things like that now". The Onion's piece "Liberties sacrificed in the name of freedom" (or vice versa -- this is memory, not quote) was a parody, but one of the more frighteningly tell-it-as-it-is ones I've ever seen. It wasn't the truth, unadorned, but close.
My point: there's been a bit of a push from the Administration to chill the press. It's not been well received. It also doesn't appear to have been fully successful, thankfully.
--
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #15,036
10/24/01 8:11:23 PM
|
Re: A well argued and reasoned case - thanks
From this case I can clearly see where we diverge. It is the issue of how important the Taliban soldiers are in the grand scheme of things.
I believe they are not important other than when they get in the way of the primary goal. I fear that the balance has shifted away from terrorists & OBL = target to now an all out assault on Taliban & Taliban controlled troops.
The primary goal is terrorism & OBL.
We don't need to chase Taliban soldiers into civillian areas - US is not invading Afghanistan. We just need to capture OBL & killing 1000s of Afghans be they Taliban soldiers or civillians, is distorting the moral high ground the US started out on.
I fully agree that OBL has to be hit but there is more than 1 way to get him and when the civillian & ordinary Afghan death toll becomes too high, the bombing avenue may have achieved its mission.
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #15,046
10/24/01 9:20:12 PM
|
I think you're missing something.
Hi Doug,
The primary goal is terrorism & OBL.
We don't need to chase Taliban soldiers into civillian areas - US is not invading Afghanistan. We just need to capture OBL & killing 1000s of Afghans be they Taliban soldiers or civillians, is distorting the moral high ground the US started out on.
(Paraphrasing) "Those who harbor terrorists will receive the same treatment as the terrorists."
The US position, as stated by Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney and Bush, is that as long as the Taliban government resists in giving up bin Laden and al Qaeda, they'll be treated as if they are the same as al Qaeda. Since the Taliban has made it clear that they'll never give up bin Laden, the US position is that the Taliban will be removed as the government of Afghanistan. The current thinking in the US is the US, along with the UN, countries in the region, and political groups inside Afghanistan, will work to replace the Taliban government.
It's really that simple, from the US position.
If Taliban troops resist, they will be attacked.
The US will continue to target hostile equipment and forces with great attention to minimizing civilian casualties. But civilians will continue to be killed. It's terribly unfortunate, but as long as the US hasn't achieved it's mission of removing al Qaeda from Afghanistan, and the Taliban government as long as they resist, then civilians will be in some danger there. Everyone knows that no war will eliminate civilian casualties. We try to minimize them, but we can't eliminate them (because equipment fails, mistakes are made, etc.).
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #15,089
10/25/01 8:23:10 AM
|
Re: I think you're missing something.
This thread is a deviation from the original theme of Ramadan & Bombing but I am willing to enter into it ....
"The US position, as stated by Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney and Bush, is that as long as the Taliban government resists in giving up bin Laden and al Qaeda, they'll be treated as if they are the same as al Qaeda."
I agree & this is clear - the Taliban Government is already pay that price - agin I will put the case that the people under Taliban control do differ in degree from those at the Omar level, the Mullas council, the political military leaders, the ordinary soldiers & the citizens.
So as long as we are clear that the Taliban Government are in trouble & that the layers below will suffer at varying levels. The point I want to restate is not to lump all them together as a they (an issue I took up elsewhere) - these people vary in culpability for the Sept 11th attack & to not recognise this courts disaster in the dealings with Afghanistan and other nations.
"It's really that simple, from the US position."
If we ignore the layers of Afghan society, it is that simple - yes.
"If Taliban troops resist, they will be attacked."
Thats well understood. - Again I raise the issue of just when where and with how much intensity they need be attacked. Remember many of these are just Afghans at tender ages & with guns sent to 'defend Afghanistan'. I have no problem with us attacking any of them that get in the way or try to stop the attacks on the OBL facilities and on OBL.
"The US will continue to target hostile equipment and forces with great attention to minimizing civilian casualties. But civilians will continue to be killed. It's terribly unfortunate, but as long as the US hasn't achieved it's mission of removing al Qaeda from Afghanistan, and the Taliban government as long as they resist, then civilians will be in some danger there. Everyone knows that no war will eliminate civilian casualties. We try to minimize them, but we can't eliminate them (because equipment fails, mistakes are made, etc.)."
Yes - this too is understood but you do know there are 100,000s of refugees wandering accross Afghanistan due to the disruption, break down of law & order etc: etc: and that winter is weeks away & many have no food & no aid. Some agencies argue that close on 1 million are fleeing their homes.
I ask you just how high the collateral count should be allowed to climb ?
BUT, In reality I am certain that US leaders are putting enough pressure through the current campaign & that there is a high probability that very soon a new Govt will be elected in Afgahanistan. What will be done with OBL I can't guess but Taliban as such (Omar & his council) will be gone. So called 'moderates' will be included as I am also convinced that US does not want to leave Afghanistan in a political vaccume that will exacerbate the death & misery back when the Northerners were in control.
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #15,068
10/24/01 10:22:09 PM
|
Taliban troops
Their elimination is vitally important so long as the ultimate US strategy is to send in its own soldiers.
I expect to see this happen -- it's going to be a mix of commandos and occupation troops in strategic areas. When this is done, the enemy's going to have to be weakened, destroyed, confused, disarmed, imobilized, and liberated from its resources, sufficiently that our own boys are at minimum risk. From a military perspective, there's no other rational choice.
Missions toward this goal are militarially defensable to the point that they do not engender a stronger civilian animosity to the US troops than the regular Taliban army would pose. From a diplomatic stance, additional constraints are imposed, and our views approach convergence.
The difference is that I am advocating as full a disclosure as possible to civilians of actual danger zones, and, to the extent practicable, accomodations for noncombatents.
NPR news as I listen now just cited a third-party aid worker reporting an anti-aircraft unit being relocated on top of a Kabul apartment complex. Draw your own conclusions as to the response the Taliban are hoping to elicit.
My one complaint with this action and Kosovo was the apparent assumption that smart weapons and highly accurate targeting systems allowed civilian life in a war zone. In the past, this has lead to incidents such as the bombing of the Chinese embasy in Belgrade, and several confirmed reports of targeting mistakes or failures in the current conflict.
We should advertise Afghanistan as a hot zone, with potential for free fire in all areas, other than those specifically designated for refugeess. These refugee zones must be either swept for opposition forces, or effectively neutralized by distancing and/or isolating them from any possible role in conflict. Effectively quarantine zones. Actual military policy should not meet the stated policy, but the understanding is that it could at any point in time. Doing this removes a tool from the enemy's arsenal: our conscience, and any justified external fomentation.
--
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #15,090
10/25/01 8:26:22 AM
|
Re: Taliban troops - US invasion ?
"so long as the ultimate US strategy is to send in its own soldiers."
I don't believe it is in current policy for US to occupy any part of Afghanistan. I believe they will accept invitaion of Nothern alliance to use northern city if captured, as a military staging point but I sincerely doubt that any US leader has stated as fact that US will invade & sieze control ?.
For the other points - they make sense.
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #15,133
10/25/01 4:00:55 PM
|
Occupation
Two facts: - Air power has never won a war. It's tipped scales, but not been sufficient of itself.
- We don't have a ground base in Pakistan. The Uzbeks are one option, but the nation is landlocked. An Afghan base of operations is a likely necessity. A base of operations will require perimiter security.
We will also eventually have to rebuild the country. Someone's going to have to be there for it. There will be ground troops. There will be an occupation. It need not be the entire nation, but it will exist. --
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #15,210
10/26/01 2:55:27 AM
|
Re: Occupation
* Air power has never won a war. It's tipped scales, but not been sufficient of itself. In another series of posts, I made the same statement and was disagreed with re: bosnia/Kosovo. I've read the glowing gushing reports about the effectiveness of the air campaign, and I seem to remember the results somewhat differently: Nobody was yielding anything until the mob showed up at Milosovich's door and "persuaded" him to step down. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #15,299
10/26/01 3:52:30 PM
|
Bosnia
I can't pretend to know the situation there fully, but there was a mix of local resistance, and air power backed by credible threat of force in the event things got tremendously out of hand. I'd chalk it up to a "tipped the balance" situation.
--
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #15,304
10/26/01 4:33:56 PM
|
Kosovo
When I mentioned Kosovo in the other thread, I did not say "Bosnia" at all. I don't know how the war in Bosnia played out.
But in Kosovo, we bombed Miloshevich into submission. And no, Clinton declared from the start that there will not be any ground troups (and got pounded for that by military people - you don't remove a threat like that). And no, the "mod" at MIloshevich's door appeared a few months (or a year) later, way after he pulled from Kosovo. One of the reasons the mob formed was that defeat. Their current president, Costunitsa (sp?) like us even less than M, but he is elected and seems to be sane enough to deal with.
That said, I have to agree that air compain is not likely to brinmg victory in Afghanistan. They are already way too low for bombing to matter much politically.
|
Post #15,649
10/29/01 11:08:28 PM
|
Occupation update: SF Chron, US to base ops in Afghanistan
[link|http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/10/29/national1623EST0664.DTL&type=printable|Pentagon considering setting up a base inside Afghanistan for possible ground operations] ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Monday, October 29, 2001
\ufffd2001 Associated Press
(10-29) 14:57 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
The United States is considering setting up a base inside Afghanistan from which commandos, and possibly conventional ground troops, would launch missions against Taliban and terrorist targets, defense officials said Monday.
This option, which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hinted at in a Pentagon news conference, could indicate the U.S. military is planning more aggressive moves against the Taliban, the Islamic militia that rules most of Afghanistan and harbors Osama bin Laden.
[...]
Troops on the ground will likely be needed to capture or kill bin Laden and other leaders of his al-Qaida network, but past wars in Afghanistan -- notably the former Soviet Union's failure after 10 years of fighting -- have shown the high cost of a conventional large-scale ground invasion.
Rumsfeld was asked about a USA Today report that said U.S. forces may soon establish a forward base in Afghanistan that would support 200 to 300 commandos. The newspaper, quoting an unidentified defense official, said the base might be in northern Afghanistan.
"You're asking if we're considering doing something additional in various ways," Rumsfeld said. "Needless to say, that's our job -- to consider much different things, and we do." He said he had nothing to announce.
A senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. planners were considering many possibilities, including the idea of a forward operating base in Afghanistan and other ways of using ground forces.
If the base were in northern Afghanistan, it likely would be established at an existing air field to facilitate the movement of U.S. troops and supplies.
Having the base would make commando raids somewhat less complex, but would provide Taliban and al-Qaida forces with a new U.S. target. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers likely would be needed to protect the base from attack.
[...] --
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #15,116
10/25/01 11:12:35 AM
|
Who is going to deal with these refugees?
There are already over 100,000 refugees with nothing but the clothing on their backs as a consequence of the air attacks. Is the US going to feed all these people? Provide them shelter? The civilian casualty count looks low, but when you take into account the refugees it really is not.
|
Post #15,182
10/25/01 11:19:17 PM
|
Changes like a kaleidoscope daily..
Good question, but may be rendered moot if.. Taleban is shortly replaced, bin-L declared 'permanently missing in action' (whether actually assassinated or not - as in Chinese press).
So they could go home / with food parcels, emptying out overburdened Pakistan suburbs as well - easing pressure on That regime. Etc. Could happen (?)
A.
|
