That invincible US infantry

[Ian Andrew Bell]

I think the author is attempting to be a canary in the mine shaft in
alerting the Canadian public to the fact that this whole Afghanistan thing
might be another Vietnam, or at least another Afghanistan.  He's being an
alarmist.  But then again that's what Editorial Writers do for a living.

Canada's participation in this whole debacle is insignificant compared to
its other peacekeeping and other target practice duties, and so it's
probably not worth arguing over whether or not they should be there.  I
would imagine that part of the reason they're there is to gain traction wit=
h
Bush on other cross-border issues, such as the softwood lumber dispute
(after slapping us with Free Trade, the US now tariffs all southbound
materials like they used to).


On 3/25/02 7:52 AM, "Bill Stoddard" <bill@wstoddard.com> wrote:

>> Knowing it would be unable to keep such losses hidden, the Pentagon did =
its
>> best to put a positive spin on the setback.
>=20
> And why would anyone expect otherwise?

Good point.  BUT you should expect that the press would bother to
investigate the story and find out that mistakes were made and report them.
Just because this is the kind of dumb stuff that goes on in war doesn't mea=
n
that we don't deserve to know about it.  Report the facts, present a balanc=
e
of opinions, and let us draw our own conclusions.

Actually, this very same thing happened to the venerable SAS during the Gul=
f
War.  They were dropped off in a desert wadi in the middle of nowhere on a
mission to trapse around the desert looking for SCUDs.  Unfortunately no on=
e
thought to find out what the temperature was like in the desert in the
middle of the night, and their DPMs and webbing weren't quite sufficient to
keep them warm.  Several died in part because of a lack of experience and
planning.  This was not widely reported until the SAS soldiers themselves
came out of rotation and began writing books on their adventure.


>> Of far greater significance were the blunders in intelligence and allied
>> co-operation. While it was originally estimated that 500 to 1,000 Taliba=
n
>> extremists were holed up in the mountain stronghold dubbed Whale Ridge, =
the
>> final body count was nowhere near that high.
>=20
> The last sentence is non sequiter.

Not sure what you mean.

*Webster's: non sequitur 1 : an inference that does not follow from the
premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a
universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition
and its consequent.

My interpretation of that statement is that the US grossly overstated the
size of the enemy complement.  Not a big deal when you're planning
oppositional forces, but a big deal when you're setting the public's
expectations as to what a "victory" is.

My interpretation of those facts is that the US were either:
   =20
   A)   Overstating the size of the enemy, or
   B)   Most of the enemy escaped, while the US still claims victory

>> that the U.S.-led force cannot fully trust their Afghan allies, somethin=
g
>> the Soviet occupation army learned the hard way in the early 1980s.
>=20
> Yep. And you can bet the US military knows about this. It is a bad situat=
ion.
> Does Scott have any useful recommendations?

You bet.  He seems to suggest Canada should pull out unless the mission
becomes less ill-defined lest we get dragged into a protracted guerilla
war.. I don't think he has much interest in defining US military policy.

>> The only reason the Taliban regime was originally targeted was due to it=
s
>> refusal to hand over bin Laden.
>=20
> Is that a fact? Scott must not be reading US media. I though the idea was=
 to
> take the Taliban out of power and keep them out of power. Somehow evolved=
???
> In Scott's  mind. He should check his premise, it is faulty :-)

I think he's just following the flow of the flow of Bush's public statement=
s
justifying the war.  Originally this was a mission to oust Bin Laden.  Then
it was a targeting of regimes which support terrorism (apparently the
Taliban are the only regime which supports terrorism worthy of ousting?) an=
d
now it seems to be just an ousting of the Taliban and we're no longer so
concerned about bringing Bin Laden to justice.  I guess that Canadian media
are meant to follow the logic in lock-step with the American media, but som=
e
of them seem to be broader thinkers than that.

>> By last November, northern and eastern alliance Afghan warlords had alre=
ady
>> crushed the Taliban's forces and forced the leaders into exile. For mont=
hs
>> now, not even U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has believed bin La=
den
>> remains anywhere near Afghanistan. Yet the fighting continues to escalat=
e.
>=20
> Escalate? If anything it has decreased. When a band of armed resistance i=
s
> found, it is taken out. How comlicated is this to understand really?  How
> old is Scott?

Forces dedicated to the mission in Afghanistan have increased steadily sinc=
e
October, with the latest being the arrival of more U.S. Apache helicopters
and British Commandos just this month.  I don't see a lot of units returnin=
g
home from the war, which is traditionally a signifier of d=E9tente.  Unless
you count all of the Americans in body bags.

The article's interesting because it suggests parallels to the proceedings
of the US involvement in Vietnam.  Graduated commitment, shifting mission
objectives, and debatable victories to name a few.  This is not your basic
tank-plinking in the middle of the desert type of ground warfare, which the
US has proven they can do very well.

Sending unprotected Chinooks into mountain canyons where enemies are known
to be holed up is arrogance.  Sending more Chinooks into the same area
unprotected when you've already lost one is just stupid.  This is what
happened during the "ambush" (which was probably just a bunch of Afghan
teenagers who were hanging around in the rocks launching unguided RPGs
toward targets of opportunity as they passed).

I would suggest that, in this war at least, when a band of armed resistance
is found, the US cranks the wheels into motion for a massive operation and,
by the time they return to the objective with a sizeable force the enemy ha=
s
moved on to another cave where they're brewing tea, shooting up heroin, and
watching CNN on satellite.

-Ian.