<HTML>ISHMAEL wrote:
> At the time, the Mojahadine were receiving arms and funding
> from the USA. Without funding, these folks are just Goat
> herders.
The Mujahadin still have funding and many have over a decade of expertise in guerilla warfare. One of the first basic tenets of prosecuting a war is that you do not underestimate your enemy; you just have. You really have no idea of what you are proposing; to occupy and hold Afghanistan would be a mammoth undertaking, costly in both money and lives. If you have never been there, I suggest you get a decent book on the country – it might give you an inkling of what it is like there; it is ideal guerilla terrain.
> Moreover, the US still has relations with a friendly faction
> of Afganies, whom we are currently supplying in their war
> with the Taliban government.
This is probably the time to remind you that it wasn't that long ago that the US had friendly relations with Saddam Hussein (who it armed) and with Osama bin Laden (ditto). Friendly people can turn very quickly when what they deem to be a foreign army is occupying their country.
> I propose a joint invasion in tandum with the Russians. The
> Russian army can invade from the north - while American
> paratroopers are dropped onto Khabul.
Flying from where? Have you any idea of the length of the supply lines? The history of warfare is littered with examples of catastrophe resulting over-extended supply lines – is it too much to ask that the lessons of history are learned, or are we really doomed to repeat them?
> After the capital is
> secured, suppies can be flown directly into the airport while
> American and Allied land forces are assembled in Russia and
> then driven south along routes secured by the Russians.
That road south from Uzbekistan to Kabul goes through the Hindu Kush. The Russians <b>never</b> secured it before and there is nothing to suggest that they, or anyone else, would be able to do so in any meaningful way. It's about 500 miles of ideal guerilla terrain <i>for as long as it would be passable</i>. Progress of a large land force would be tortuously slow and, I ought to remind you, that the advent of winter will make it <i>deadly</i> slow.
> As compensation, parts of Afganistan may be ceeded to the
> Russians to administer as they will (if they so chose).
Compensation? They would probably regard it as <i>punishment</i>. One thing that the Russians can do without is yet another theatre of military occupation!
> Furthermore, the Russian army will receive US military
> equipment and their soldiers receive the full pay of American
> GIs for the first six months of the occupation.
Paid for by...? And after 6 months...?
> -----------------
> 5,000+ civilian lives may already have been cruelly lost but
> what you're saying would result in the slaughter of hundreds
> of thousands of military casualties as well as untold numbers
> of Afghan civilians.
> ------------------
>
> Hundreds of thousands is an exageration.
Possibly. Hopefully we will never know the exact body-count that would result from the stupid course of action that you suggest. What is clear, though, is that the course of action that yit would result in massive loss of life and suffering amongst those (your compatriots) whom you mistakenly think it will protect.
> Military casualties
> may well be heavy however - but what's the damn point of a
> frikkin military if your afraid that soldiers might get shot?
Will you be volunteering to join the army of occupation – or is it just OK if it's someone else (who is someone else's son/husband/lover/dad/brother) risks his life?
> Civilian casualites can be kept to a minimum but they will
> occur. Frenchmen died on D-day as well as germans. Its a fact
> of war.
That doesn't make it right. And you need to get it into your head that this is <b>not</b> WW2; the WW2 analogies just don't apply. Your President and Defense Secretary recognise this, so listen to them if you think that I am wrong about this.
> Missiles and bombs kill MORE civilians and leave the enemy
> embittered, angered, and willing and able to fight again.
> Missiles and bombs will only make more terrorists and result
> in more attacks.
Missiles and bombs are not the only alternatives to a full-scale invasion. Special Forces ops are perhaps the most viable of the many alternatives, for a number of reasons (I'll expand if anyone wishes). A full scale invasion and occupation will also make more terrorists, and not only in Afghanistan.
> An example MUST be made of Afganistan.
Why? You said yourself that there is a 'friendly' faction there. And may I remind you that (at the time I write this) there is no evidence of Afghani involvement. Whilst I agree that it is likely that Osama bin Laden is involved, there is not yet any evidence (and I remember the anti-Islamic racist outpouring that followed the Oklahoma City bombing), and I am more than a little uneasy about the way evidence (like Arabic flight manuals) was so casually left lying around in what was otherwise a meticulously planned and executed operation.</HTML>
