Subject:
|
From the Washington Post
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:24:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
276 times
|
| |
|
|
This article has some interesting info about the CIA.. further down it
speculates about how a military operation might unfold.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28094-2001Sep13.html
I guess what bothers me (and why I decided to post the link) is that it
seems that the operation will start with bombing. I just don't see how
leveling Kabul is likely to do any good, and it is likely to harm many
civilians (even the ones who have decided to try to help overthrow).
Sturdy machinery (like this resilient terrorist organization, as well as
others like it) tends not to be destroyed in explosions. What is needed is
careful and systematic disassembly, and that takes ground forces. It needs
to be disassembled with as little damage to anything else as possible. Best
if we have cooperation from local authorities or at least the local populace
Taking this to the logical extreme, nuking the entire country of Afghanistan
to a glassy plain might be the path that results in the least casualties for
our side (in the short run) but that does NOT mean it's the best way to go...
If we think we can win this next week with bombs and cruise missiles I think
we're miscalculating. Take the time, stage the people, do it right. That
means taking more casualties on our side rather than less. So be it. More
casualties for us, less casualties for innocent civilians. That's a better
approach. Even if it costs more.
I freely admit I am an armchair quarterback second guessing guesses at
plans. I know some bombing is a needed part of any modern military
operation, but let it be against SAM sites and tank marshalling yards, not
against hospitals and apartment blocks.
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
