Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
How do we get him out? Afghanistan is like Iraq with mountains. The US would be wise to learn from the folly of the Soviets. Smart bombs and missile attacks on bin Laden's bases seem like a strong first bet. To lob bombs all over Kabul a la Baghdad would be senseless. As far as from there, our safest bet would be to secure the borders, then surround him.
|
The friend's response would only create instability as previously defined. Instability would only drive moderates into the camps of extremists. Those prinicipals, unfortunately not stated by public officials, should be fundamental to how all American view this "war". Sen Warner, R-VA, in the tradition of moderates, was so quietly and carefully lecturing his fellow Senators in those concepts.
I thought I quite clearly described how we get the suspect. Even in Iraq, the US top brass feared to use the 'sneakies'. It was only when the British demanded that their SAS be given a chance at Iraqi Scud launcher did those launchers disappear or fear to be used. The sneakies - not airpower - are the only way to get mobile Scud missile launchers - or even something more difficult as bin Laden. Finally the US military will learn how to use sneakies - something totally new to top brass who may make some serious micro-management mistakes.
'Sneakies' and light military is how one operates in Afghanistan. We are not trying to take the country. Therefore we do not operate a Viet Nam type military that tries to hold land or to create maximum body counts. Our strategic objectives are quite specific and clear - bin Laden and Assoicates, Unincorporated. Furthermore, losses are acceptable - as they were in 1990 Persian Gulf.
Shocking is how many don't have a clue - thinking only with their testosterone rather than using logic. It is why Bush's statement scares much of the international world - although they knew Bush's statement was coming. If I remember the quote, "Either you are with us or your are against us". This even shocked some European governments because they fear America is dominated by the "Let's nuke 'em" extremists. Only American extremists would advocate such dangerous actions. Moderate instead have more intelligence.
Furthermore if you think the whole world sees the American viewpoint, then you better take a look at Greece - a Nato ally.
Are we going to war against bin Laden or Saddam Hussien? Troop movements will be telling, which is why this administration does not want any Cellar dweller - or anyone else for that matter - to know which units have been mobilized.
Did the Taliban get the message? This time they let bin Laden go too far and must understand that a line has been crossed. Maybe they understood this. But the local power is among clerics who have no appreciation of what is beyond their nose and their myopic interpretation of the Koran. Despite their myopia, the Taliban are concerned enough to seek alternative solutions - such as inviting bin Laden to leave when he is ready.
Bush is threading a needle between keeping an international coalition in line and trying to get that message across, bluntly, to the Taliban. This time, Bush's speech demonstrated leadership (finally). He threaded that needle quite well - especially by not committing us to too much. Now, he will have to backup those words by actions. A great leader would never be so ignorant (extremist) as to advocate nuclear weapons or invade Afghanistan as the Soviets did. I would have thought all this was obvious to everyone. But then again, I also forget how so many Americans learn - where so many Americans get their news.
The neat thing about responsible news sources - it convert extremists into moderates - people who can see many perspectives - people who can therefore be tolerant - people who would never let their emotions advocate use of nuclear weapons or "bomb them into the stone age".