Arguments for ground war

[Charles Jannuzi]

>This tactical argument could arguably leave >the door open for a parachute
>drop of armed forces to seize and defend >certain communication routes,
>which would impair the ease of some Taliban >communications, and arguably
>help diplomatic skirmishing about a successor >government. The risk would
be
>that such a position could be surrounded by >Taliban troops carefully

They won't risk parachute airdrops. Those are for show. I remember an
airdrop the 82nd airborne did in NATO war games.  It looked like 15-20
percent of them couldn't walk after they landed, and you could see pieces
flying off their very light tanks when they came down (and then didn't
move). While they came to pieces, an armor brigade put them under direct
fire and wiped them out (training, no rounds fired).
Basically what airborne and air mobile troops are nowadays is just well
trained, well equipped infantry and air cavalry.

 They'll fly troops and supplies in from the Northern Alliance zone and work
out from there.

The problem with this includes: from there to Kabul is not where the main
forces of the Taliban are; it won't allow US-UK forces to arm and supply
themselves the way they would if they could use ships and ports; it's rather
questionable how much the Northern Alliance can fight at all.

The US-UK think they can get away with what they did in the Persian Gulf War
farce. They really think air power will prevail. It's totally uncontested
air power. The problem is, it's not going to break the Taliban anytime soon
nor is it going to capture Pancho Bin Laden.

Charles Jannuzi