Powell tilts hand to peace

Charles Jannuzi jannuzi at edu00.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp
Mon Oct 22 04:09:38 PDT 2001



>The USA's tactical position is so obviously bad that it is to >its
advantage to acknowledge this in passing, tilt its hand >openly, and signal *indirectly* a willingness for negotiations.
>Meanwhile there is a lot of background activity. The King >has said he
requires peacekeepers under the UN (not >immediately available but if the CIA can have an extra billion >to assassinate bin Laden, an extra billion
>for this could be cheap at the price). Jack Straw is saying >that while
Britain is prepared to send in the SAS, it wants to >concentrate on a settlement in which the UN will figure >prominently.

Probably no one knows better than Powell (because ex-military) just how weak the US tactical position is. You can't take or hold Afghanistan with rangers, airborne and recon. marines alone. You might occupy parts turned over to you, but that might be what the Taleban--and most especially the Afghan Arabs-- want. And the US is certainly in no position to track down OBL very easily unless he makes a big mistake. But then again, he does look to be a sick man and maybe his kidneys will kill him.

Far be it from me to over-estimate the abilities of the Taleban. Most look pretty incapable of anything besides hiding out among the civilian population at large and hope the US kills civilians. I suspect that the Taliban and the Arabs can field one combat-ready infantry brigade each, at best.

The wild card is what many 'patriot' Afghans do--like the Mel Gibson character in 'Patriot'. Do they arm and mobilize to rid their land of the pesky foreigners? Or do they hold their noses with the hope that they will be rid of both Taleban and foreigners as quickly as possible?

The only way I see OBL getting caught or killed quickly would be IF he had really NOT been planning all this and got caught unprepared. But then again, this guy knew the US wanted him quite a while ago, and not for a Noriega-style trial. The cruise missile attack made that pretty clear.

As for operations on the ground: Look at that last special op. we don't know what they did besides converge on a mostly abandoned outpost (it might have been held to the last as a listening post or something, but definitely not major), shoot off some weapons using their night vision goggles, and crash a helicopter. To read and believe the releases, you'd think it was Gregory Peck taking out the Guns of Navarone.

They said they were in a firefight with 20 Taleban killed, but I would bet they dropped down at a safe distance and waited for one of the gunships to rip a building to shreds. The release says a parachute drop, but I have my doubts about that. It was probably more like a big nighttime training exercise using helicopters (and no surprise that two died).

Of course the berets and jump badges are really wanting to throw off the legacy of Beckwith and the Iran rescue and the ambush in Somalia (which OBL claimed to help plan--but then again he shoots off his mouth a lot, too). At least they help the US manufacture some winning propaganda.

At this point, I've learned that there are all sorts of possibilities beyond my comprehension (of course). If I had listened to all the allied propaganda of the Persian Gulf War, I would have thought Hussein had mounted a military effort on par with the Warsaw Pact circa 1980 or something. At the time, I was thinking instead, shit, they didn't do very well against Iran even (though, true, Iran, didn't do very well against them either. Except for some air power, the Iraq-Iran war looked eerily like WW I).

I'm not exactly sure of the situation in Pakistan. We don't have to worry about popular, democratic support of OBL and the Taleban, thank goodness. If the US wants to fight a battle of Kandahar, it will have to be by bringing stuff through Pakistan, and I don't mean just the stuff transported by air. But the US might end up fighting hostiles in Pakistan, too. Apparently one of the tactics of OBL is dispersion and infiltration of Pakistan.

Here is what I'd look for (remember, I was just a sergeant who spent far more time in the national guard than on any active duty, which means I know nothing much): Close air support for the Northern Alliance to take the centers up to but not including Kabul--if they'll cooperate. Then political and diplomatic maneuverings to prepare Kabul for a new government--hey, as old as the king is he looks more vigorous than Cheney. As for Kandahar, it will depend if the Afghan Arabs help the hardcore Taleban to put together a resistance or if they'll convince them to head off to the mountain fastnesses and winter it out. If they do fight, look for the US to bring overwhelming air power to the front lines, and then attempt to 'insert' airborne behind and to the sides of whatever 'lines' the Taleban are trying to operate from. . For many US troops the biggest danger, just as in the last war, will be their own barrages.

Charles Jannuzi



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list