``...still I don't want to suggest the possibility of millions of deaths [in Afghanistan] if it isn't going to come even close to that. Any comments?''
Carrol
---------------
Based on nothing but speculation, here are some comments.
I suspect that a mass famine is exactly what the US military strategy is attempting to accomplish.
The US blew-off something like a month of bombing what appeared to be militarily meaningless targets---except they were not meaningless to the civilian population----food storage, communitications, transport, bridges and other infrastructure.
I would suspect the main use of bombing has changed to hit military targets---probably artillery, mobile anti-aircraft and other heavy ground support equipment now that there is probably little left of the supply and material support infrastructure for Taliban troops in the field. The purpose at this point is to minimize the ability of the Taliban troops to resist US ground forces. But the problem is that the US is not in any position to readily go after Taliban troops in the mountains---which is probably were much of the Taliban forces are installed. The on-set of winter may not stall a limited ground assault, if the US can use air transport lifts and small numbers of troops, something like the air lift assaults used in Vietnam. But this seems doomed in advance.
If you noticed, most of the Taliban troops shown on tv are extremely lean with gaunt faces, sunken cheeks. Normally you would assume they were starving. But you can also get that same look by being extremely fit and living in the mountains, used to hiking at altitude, etc. If you noticed the Northern Alliance faces were normal or slightly chubby with plenty of cheek fat left. That is a bad sign because it means they are not used to moving in the mountains. Which also means they are probably unlikely or unable to go after Taliban in the mountains.
And the point to that observation, is the US will have to go after Taliban in the mountains, and the US military is probably resisting that idea. Their temporary solution to this dilemma is to cut off supplies and that means starving the civilians, in order to starve the troops. Even if that doesn't work, it will separate the active military from the civilians who will leave in search of food and thereby further isolate the troops.
So for all these reasons, I would suggest the US military has deliberately created or greatly enhanced the conditions for a famine as part of its war strategy.
As soon as the US can reasonably secure some regions, it will start making a big display of promoting aid for the starving as a humanitarian gesture, cynically manipulating the UN and other aid agencies to supply the food, clothing and shelter---so the US doesn't have to foot the bill---which of course is nothing more than an a `psychological' extension of its war aims---to further isolate the Taliban and its military---and of course prove that the Taliban is evil by forcing the people of Afghanistan to starve to support its war on the US (a complete inversion of facts).
So, I would say No. Nobody in this country or most other places seems to get it, or if they do, they are damned quite about it.
During the Gulf War, and the Kosovo war there were old generals, military attaches, stink-tank strategy experts with ribbons and badges all blathering on about how we should do this or that. Where are all those jerks? How come the network news and PBS are not over loaded with all of them? How come we are not hearing demands for an exit strategy?
I suspect Bumsfeld and the WH have put the word out to all those experts---shut-up about the war. So the question is why the silent treatment? Speculating further, I would say, Bumsfeld knew in advance this was going to be an extremely ugly and meaningless exercise in brutality, and didn't want to answer questions about it. In other words, there is no exit.
Chuck Grimes