Eugene writes:
> Excellent. We're talking about ground troops, then. Because the sigint is
> yet incapable of tracking small bands of people from high above, and tell
> it apart from innocents, and you can't send in robotic fighters to
> slaughter them. So, uniformed people have to do it.
>
> So, we're talking about more body bags. How many more body bags do you
> think the U.S. will tolerate, especially after what has happened?
This is a good question and one I am sure that the war planners are asking
themselves. But I believe the American public is absolutely ready to accept
very significant numbers of war deaths IF it is seen as part of a campaign
that could realistically address the terrorist threat.
America lost 400,000 soldiers during World War II. By all accounts the
national mood today is much the same. I believe that people are ready
to accept thousands or even tens of thousands of our young people dying;
I don't know about hundreds of thousands though. Some 58,000 died in
Vietnam and that was too many, but it was seen as a war where we had no
real national interests.
We may also face tactics of brutality never seen before in warfare.
Iran kept America hostage and helpless for over a year by holding and
torturing 52 civilians. In Somalia, dead American bodies were dragged
through the streets by cheering crowds, and the US ran. These successful
precedents are an obvious thing for the enemy to try, and we must be
prepared to face such atrocities.
> I don't
> have to ask to know that Germany as a member of NATO will get very cold
> feet when we're talking about 10 dead young men.
This demonstrates a vast difference in the psychology of our two
countries today.
> For obvious reasons purely technological warfare against a small group of
> extremists hiding in what is one of the poorest, most abused nations in
> the world (starting with the British involvement, as Charlie so helpfully
> pointed out) is atrocious.
I simply think it would be ineffective. Afghanistan is a sparsely
populated country with extremely rugged terrain. The US has only so
many cruise missiles. We don't have the resources or materiel to bomb
every square inch of the country even if we thought that would accomplish
something.
> You will get your war. There's no need asking for it extra, the people on
> the street are clamoring for it loud enough. At this point every sane and
> rational person should not only stop amplifying hate but try to spread
> information and moderation amongst those who are willing to listen.
I just hope that Americans are going into this with their eyes open.
Afghanistan is not southern Iraq. It's not going to be a repeat of
the Gulf War. The Afghans successfully fought off the Soviet army for
many years. The mountain terrain makes it hard to use the tank columns
that were so successful in Iraq. It promotes hit and run, guerilla
style attacks. In ten minutes the attackers can be gone and you'll
never find them. It looks to me like a ground battle in Afghanistan
would have a lot more in common with Vietnam than Iraq.
> Retaliation always overshoots, and this time it looks it will overshoot
> very badly. Try to limit the damage.
It is encouraging that even Pakistan is agreeing to go along with the
coalition. Hopefully the need to retain international consensus will
keep the attacks focused and prevent it from turning into a massacre
of civilians.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:47 MDT