Whatever the shortcomings of on the ground action they are nothing to the certianies of prolonging the airwar.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- Message Received --- From: "Charles Jannuzi" <jannuzi at edu00.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:30:53 +0900 Subject: Re: Arguments for ground war
>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